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
over me,” but I standing upright myself, have given you such a fall, that you shall never be able to recover. And now that I have brought you to the ground, although it be but a small piece οἵ manhood to strike a man when he is down, yet for the truth’s sake, unto whom you have ever been so great an adversary, I shall beat you with your transubstantiation, as they say, both back and bone. How say you, sir? is whiteness or other colours the nature of bread and wine, (for the colours be only visible by your doctrine;) or be they elements? or be accidents the bodily matter? Lie still, ye shall be better beaten yet for your wilfulness. Be the accidents of bread substances, as you said not long before? and if they be substances, what manner οὗ substances be they, corporal or spiritual? If they be spiritual, then be they souls, devils, or angels? And if they be corporal substances, either they have life or no life. I trust you will say at the least, that bread hath life, because you said but even now almost, that “the substance of bread is the soul of it.” Such absurdities they fall into that maintain errors.
But at length when the similitude of the two natures in Christ, remaining both in their proper kinds, must needs be answered unto, then cometh in again the cuttle with his colours to hide himself, that he should not be seen, because he perceiveth what danger he is in to be taken: and when he cometh to the very net, he so stoutly striveth, wrangleth, and wrestleth, as he would break the net, or else by some craft wind himself out of it; but the net is so strong, and he so surely masted therein, that he shall never be able to get out.
And it seemeth that your doctrine varieth very little from Valentine and Marcion, Spiritual - (if it vary any thing at all) when you say that Christ’s flesh was a spiritual flesh. For — when St Paul, speaking of Christ’s body, said “we be members of his body, of his — flesh and of his bones” he meant not of a spiritual body, as Ireneus saith’, (for a Irengus spirit hath no flesh nor bones,) but of a very man’s body, that is made of flesh, sinews, Valentin. and bones. And so with striving to get out of the net, you roll yourself faster into it.
And as for the words of St Augustine, make nothing for the real presence, as I have before declared. So that therein I neither have foil nor trip; but for all your brags, hooks, and crooks, you have such a fall as you shall never be able to stand upright again in this matter. And my shafts be shot so straight against you, and with such a force, that they pierce through shield and habergeon in such sort, that all the harness you have is not able to withstand them, or to make one arrow to start back, although to avoid the stroke you shift your place, seeking some mean to fly the fight. For when I make mine argument of transubstantiation, you turn the matter to the real presence, like unto a surgeon that hath no knowledge, but when the head is wounded or sore, he layeth a plaister to the heel; or, as the proverb saith: Interrogatus de allis, respondet de cepis: when you be asked of garlic, you answer of onions.”,
And this is one pretty sleight of sophistry, or of a subtle warrior, when he seeth himself overmatched and not able to resist, then by some policy quite to put off, or at the least to delay the conflict; and so do you commonly in this book of transubstantiation. For when you be sore pressed therein, then you turn the matter to the real presence. But I shall so straitly pursue you, that you shall not so escape. For where you say, that “the fathers which used the examples of the sacrament, and of the body and blood of Christ, to shew the unity of two natures in Christ, did believe that as really and as truly the soul of man is present in the body, so really and so truly is the body of Christ present in the sacrament:” the fathers neither said nor believed as you here report, but they taught that both the sacrament and the thing thereby represented, which is Christ’s body, remain in their proper substance and nature, the sign being here and the thing signified being in heaven; and yet of - these two consisteth the sacrifice of the church.
But it is not required that the thing signified should be really and corporally present in the sign and figure, as the soul is in the body, because there is no such union of person; nor it is not required in the soul and body that they should be ever together, for Christ’s body and soul remained both, without either corruption or tran- substantiation, when the soul was gone down into hell, and the body rested in the sepulchre. And yet was he then a perfect man, although his soul was not then really present with the body. And it is not so great a marvel that his body should be in heaven and the sacrament of it here, as it is that his body should be here and ἡ his soul in hell. U1 And if the sacrament were a man, and the body of Christ the soul of it, (as you — dream in your trance,) then were the sacrament not in a trance, but dead for the time, ἢ whilst it were here, and the soul in heaven. And like scoffing you might make of H the sacrament of baptism as you do in the sacrament of Christ’s body, that it lieth — here in a trance, when Christ, being the life thereof, is in heaven. - — And where you think that “my second book against transubstantiation was a col- — Jeetion of me, when I minded to maintain Luther’s opinion against transubstantiation — enly, you have no probation of your thought, but still you remain in your dreams, trances, and vain fantasies, which you have used throughout your book; so that whatsoever is in the bread and wine, there is in you no transubstantiation, no alteration in this thing at all.
[[ Καθὼς ὁ μακάριος aids φησιν ἐν τῇ 7pós σάρκα ἔχει” ἀλλὰ περὶ τῆς κατὰ τὸν ἀληθινὸν]
[᾿Ἐφεσίους ἐπιστολῇ ὅτι μέλη ἐσμὲν τοῦ σώματος, ἄνθρωπον οἰκονομίας, τῆς ἐκ σαρκὸς καὶ νεύρων]
[ék τῆς σαρκὸς αὐτοῦ, καὶ ἐκ τῶν ὀστέων αὐτοῦ” οὐ καὶ ὀστέων cuvesTwons.—Irenzus, adversus Hie-]
[; περὶ πνευματικοῦ Twos καὶ ἀοράτου ἀνθρώπου reses Valent. Lib. v. Cap. ii. pp. 398, 9. Ed.]
[᾿ λέγων ταῦτα’ τὸ γὰρ πνεῦμα οὔτε ὀστέα οὔτε Oxon. 1702.]]
And what availeth it you so often to affirm this untruth, “that the body of Christ - is present in the sacrament, as the soul of man is present in the body,” except you be like to them that tell a lie so often, that with often repeating they think men be- - lieve it, and sometime by often telling they believe it themselves? But the authors - bring not this similitude of the body and soul of man, to prove thereby the presence of Christ’s body in the sacrament, but to prove the two natures of the Godhead and the manhood in the person of Christ.
Let us now discuss the mind of Chrysostom in this matter, whom I bring thus in my book.
St John Chrysostom writeth against the pestilent error of Apollinaris, which - i… “n. affirmed that the Godhead and manhood in Christ were so mixed and confounded together, that they both made but one nature. Against whom St John Chry- - sostom writeth thus: “When thou speakest of God, thou must consider a thing that in nature is single, without composition, without conversion that is invisible, immortal, incir- - cumseriptible, incomprehensible, with such like. And when thou speakest of man, - thou meanest a nature tbat is weak, subject to hunger, thirst, weeping, fear, sweating, and such like passions, which cannot be in the divine nature. And - when thou speakest of Christ, thou joinest two natures together in one person, who is both passible and, impassible: passible as concerning his flesh, and im-. passible in his deity!.”
And after he concludeth, saying: Wherefore Christ is both God and man: God by his impassible nature, and man because he suffered. He himself being one person, one Son, one Lord, hath the dominion and power of two natures joined together, which be not of one substance, but each of them hath = his properties distinct from the other. And therefore remaineth there two natures, distinct, and not confounded. For as before the consecration of the. bread, we call it bread, but when God’s grace hath sanctified it by the priest, it is delivered from the name of bread, and is exalted to the name of the body of the Lord, although the nature of bread remain still in it, and it is not called two bodies, but one body of God’s Son; so likewise here, the divine nature resteth in the body of Christ, and these two make one Son, and one person.”
These words of Chrysostom declare, and that not in obscure terms, but: in plain words, that after the consecration the nature of bread remaineth still, - although it have an higher name, and be called the body of Christ, to signify unto the godly eaters of that bread, that they spiritually eat the super- - natural bread of the body of Christ, who spiritually is there present, and. dwelleth in them, and they in him, although corporally he sitteth in heaven at the right hand of his Father.
[[! Deum ergo quanda dicis, dilectissime, agno- impassibilitatem, homo propter passionem. Unus]
[visti id quod simplex est nature, quod incompo- Filius, unus Dominus, idemi pse procul dubio uni-]
[situm, quod inconvertibile, quod invisibile, quod tarum naturarum unam dominationem, unam po- -]
[immortale, quod incircumscriptibile, quod incom testatem possidens, etiamsi non consubstantiales]
[prehensibile, et istis similia. Hominem autem exsistunt, et unaquaeque incommixtam proprietatis]
[dicens, significasti quod natura est infirmum, esuri- conservat agnitionem, propter hoc quod inconfusa,]
[tionem, sitim, super Lazarum lacrymas, metum, sunt duo. Sicut enim antequam sanctificetur panis, -]
[sudoris ejectionem, et his similia, quibus id quod panem nominamus; divina autem illum sanctifi- ’]
[divinum est extra est. Christum autem quando cante gratia, mediante sacerdote, liberatus est qui-]
[dicis, conjunxisti utrumque: unde et passibilis dem ab appellatione panis, dignus autem habitus -]
[dicatur idem ipse et impassibilis: passibilis qui- Dominici corporis appellatione, etiamsi natura panis]
[dem carne; impassibilis autem deitate.—Chrysost. in ipso permansit, et non duo corpora, sed unum]
[ad Casarium Monachum. Tom. III. p. 743. Ed. corpus Filii praedicamus; sic et hic divina éviópv-]
[Bened. Paris. 1721. “Vid. p. 274, note 2.] ^ σάσης, id est, insidente corpori natura, unum - [? Et Deus et homo Christus: Deus propter Filium, unam personam utraque hac fecerunt.—Ib.] —]
St Chrysostom’s words in deed, if this author had had them either truly translated unto — him, or had taken the pains to have truly translated them himself, which (as Peter Martyr - Saith) be not im print, but were found in Florence, a copy whereof remaineth in the archdeacon or archbishop of Canterbury’s hands; or else, if this author had reported the words as they be translated into English out of Peter Martyr’s book, where in some point the translator in English seemeth to have attained by guess the sense more perfectly than Peter Martyr uttereth it himself; if either of this had been done, the matter should have seemed for so much the more plain. But what is this, to make foundation of an argument upon a secret copy of an epistle uttered at one time in divers senses? I shall touch one special point: Peter Martyr saith in. Latin, whom the translator in English therein jfolloweth, “that the bread is reputed worthy the name of the Lord’s body.” This author, Englishing the same place, termeth it “exalted to the name of the Lord’s body,” which words of exalting come nearer to the purpose of this author to have the bread but a figure, and therewith never the holier of itself. But a figure can never be accounted worthy that name of our Lord’s body, the very thing of the sacrament, unless there were the thing in deed, as there is by conversion, as the church truly teacheth. — [s not here, reader, a marvellous diversity in report, and the same so set forth, as thou that canst but read English must evidently see it?—God ordering it so as such varieties and contradictions should so manifestly appear, where the truth is impugned. Again, this author maketh Chrysostom to speak strangely in the end of this authority, that the divine nature resteth in the body of Christ, as though the nature of man were the stay to the divine nature; whereas in that union the rest is an ineffable mystery, the two natures in Christ to have one substance called and termed an hypostasy, amd therefore he that hath translated Peter Martyr into English doth translate it thus: The divine constitution, the nature of the body adjoined, these two both together make one Son and one person.”
Thou, reader, mayest compare the books that be abroad of Peter Martyr in Latin, of Peter Martyr in English, and this author’s book, with that I write, and so deem whether I say true or mo. But to the purpose of St Chrysostom’s words, if they be his words: he directeth his argument to shew by the mystery of the sacrament, that as in it there is no confusion of natures, but each remaineth in his property, so likewise in Christ the nature of his Godhead doth not confound the nature of his manhood. If the visible creatures were in the ᾿ sacrament by the presence of Christ’s body there truly present, invisible? also as that body is, -émpalpable also as that body ist, incorruptible also as that is, then were the visible nature — altered, and as it were confounded, which Chrysostom saith is mot so; for the nature of the — bread remaineth, by which word of “nature” is conveniently signified the property of nature. - For proof whereof, to shew remaining of the property without alteration, Chrysostom maketh only the resemblance; and before I have shewed how nature signifieth the property of nature, and may signify the outward part of nature, that is to say, the accidents, being substance in i his proper signification the inward nature of the thing, of the conversion whereof is specially understand 5 transubstantiation. i CANTERBURY.
Where you like not my translation of Chrysostom’s words, I trow you would have —me to learn of you to translate, you use such sincerity and plainness in your translam on. Let the learned reader be judge. I did translate the words myself out of the copy of Florence, more truly than it seemeth you would have done. But when you sec the words of Chrysostom so manifest and clear against your feigned transubstantiation, (for he saith, “that the nature of bread remaineth still”) you craftily for a shift fall to the carping of the translation, because you cannot answer to the matter. And yet the words of Chrysostom cited by master Peter Martyr in Latin out of Florence eopy, and my translation, and the translation of master Peters book in English, do agree fully here in sense, although the words be not all one, which neither is required mor lightly found in any two translators; so that all your wrangling in the diversity of the translations is but a sleight and common practice of you, when you cannot answer the matter, to seek faults in the translation where none ist And for the special point, wherein you do note “a marvellous diversity in report,”
[i [ Being invisible, Orig. ed. Winch.] [ Also as that is, Ibid.] [^ Understanded, 1551.]]
and would gather thereof no truth to be where such diversity is, let the reader be judge what a wonderful diversity it is. The Latin is this, Panis dignus habitus est Dominici corporis appellatione. The translator of M. Peter Martyrs book saith: “The bread is reputed worthy the name of the Lord’s body.” My translation hath, “The. bread is exalted to the name of the body of the Lord.” When a man is made a lord or knight, if one say of him, that he is reputed worthy the name of a lord or knight, and another say, that he is exalted to the name of a lord or knight, what difference is between these two sayings? Is not this a wonderful diversity? I pray thee, judge. indifferently, good reader. re- But, say you, “a figure can never be counted worthy the name of the thing, unless the thing were there in deed.” Wrangle then with St John Chrysostom himself, and - not with me, who saith, that the bread is exalted to the name of the Lord’s body, or is reputed worthy the name of the Lord’s body, after the sanctification, and yet the nature of the bread remaineth still; which cannot be as you say, if the body οὗ — Christ were there present. y And who heard ever such a doctrine as you here make, that the thing must be. really and corporally present where the figure is? For so must every man be cor- porally buried in deed when he is baptized, which is a figure of our burial And when we receive the sacrament of Christ’s body, then is accomplished the resurrection of our bodies, for that sacrament you affirm to be the figure thereof. But your doctrine herein is clean contrary to the judgment of Lactantius, and other old writers, - who teach that figures be in vain and serve to no purpose, when the things by them signified be present’.
And where you think it strange to say, that the divine nature is, or resteth in the body of Christ, it is nothing else but to declare your ignorance in God’s word and ancient authors, in reading of whom forasmuch as you have not been much exercised, it is no marvel though their speech seem strange unto you. The Greek word of Chrysostom is ἐνιδρυσάσης, which I pray you English, and then we shall see what a strange speech you will make. Did you never hear tell at the least, that the Word was incarnated? or, Verbum caro factum est? And what signifieth this word incarnate,” but God to be made man, and his divine nature to be in flesh? Doth not. St John bid us beware, that “we believe not every spirit; for there be many false prophets, and every spirit,” saith he, that confesseth not Jesus Christ to have come in flesh, is not of God, but is the spirit of antichrist?” Is this then a strange speech to you, that the divine nature resteth in the flesh, that is to say, in the body of Christ? which if you deny, you know whose spirit you have. But your trust is altogether in obscure speeches, wherewith you trust so to darken the matter, that no man shall understand it; lest that if they understand it, they must needs perceive your ignorance and error. 4 But when you promise to come to the purpose, (as, to say the truth, all that you said before is clearly without purpose, but when you promise, I say, now at length to come to the purpose, your answer is nothing to the purpose of St Chrysostom’s mind: for he made not his resemblance, as you say he did, only to shew the remaining of the accidents, which you call the properties, but to shew the remaining of the substances, with all the natural properties thereof: that as Christ had here in e: Ἢ his divinity and humanity, remaining every of them with his natural properties; the substance of his Godhead being “a nature single without composition, without conversion, invisible, immortal, incircumscriptible, incomprehensible, and such like,” (for these be Chrysostom’s own words;) and the substance of his humanity being “a feeb e nature, subject to hunger, thirst, weeping, fear, sweating, and such passions,” so is it in the bread and Christs body, that the bread after sanctification or consecration, as you call it, remaineth in his substance that it had before; and likewise doth t he body of Christ remain still in heaven in his very true substance, whereof the bread is a sacrament and figure. For else, if the substance of the bread remained not, how couk Pr pM HC, 6 εν κι [! Sed tamen postquam Deus ille praesto esse coepit, jam simulacro ejus opus non est. Lac ant. Instit. Lib. rr. De Origine erroris, cap. ii.] M
Chrysostom bring it for a resemblance to prove that the substance of Christ’s huma- — mity remaineth with his divinity? Marry, this that you say had been a gay lesson. for the Manichees, to say that there appeareth bread by all the accidents thereof, and. yet is none in deed; that then by this similitude they might say likewise, that Christ. appeared a man by all the accidents and properties of a man, and yet he was none in deed. And to make an end of this author, your vain comment will not serve you, to call the accidents of bread the nature of bread, except you will allow the same in the Manichees, that the nature of Christ’s body is nothing else but the accidents thereof.
Now followeth Gelasius of the same matter.
Hereunto aecordeth also Gelasius, writing against Eutyches and Nestorius,. of whom the one said, that Christ was a perfect man, but not God;” and the other affirmed clean contrary, that “he was very God, but not man.” But against these two heinous heresies, Gelasius proveth by most manifest scriptures, that Christ is both God and man, and that after his incarnation remaineth in him [as well] the nature of his Godhead, [as the nature of his manhood,? so that he hath in him two natures with their natural properties, and yet is he but qne Christ.
And for the more evident declaration hereof he bringeth two examples: the one is of man, who being but one, yet he is made of two parts, and hath in him two natures remaining both together in him, that is to say, the body and the soul, with their natural properties.
The other example is of the sacrament of the body and blood of Christ, which,” saith he, “is a godly thing, and yet the substance or nature of bread and wine do not cease to be there still.”
Note well these words against all the papists of our time, that Gelasius, which was bishop of Rome? more than a thousand years past, writeth of this sacrament, that the bread and wine cease not to be there still, as Christ ceased not to be God after his incarnation, but remained still perfect God, as he was before.
Winchester
Now followeth to answer to Gelasius, who abhorring both the heresies of Eutyches and Nestorius, in his treatise against the Eutychians, forgetteth not to compare with their error, in extremity in the one side, the extreme error of the Nestorians on the other side, but yet principally intendeth the confusion of the Eutychians, with whom he was specially troubled. These two heresies were not so gross as the author of this book reporteth them, wherein I will write what Vigilius saith: Inter Nestorii ergo, quondam ecclesize Constantinopolitanz non rectoris, sed dissipatoris, non pastoris, sed predatoris, sacrilegum dogma et Eutychetis nefariam et detestabilem Lseetam, ita serpentinz grassationis sese calliditas temperavit, ut utrumque sine utriusque -perieulo plerique vitare non possint, dum si quis Nestorii perfidiam damnat, Eutychetis putatur errori succumbere; rursum dum Eutychianz heeresis impietatem destruit, Nestorii “arguitur dogma erigere. These be Vigilius words in his first book, which be thus much in “English: Between the abominable teaching of Nestorius, sometime not ruler but waster, not pastor, but prey-searcher of the church of Constantinople, and the wicked and detestable sect of ~ Eutyches, the craft of the devil’s spoiling so fashioned itself, that men could not avoid any of the -seerets without danger of the other: so as whiles any man condemneth the falseness of [the] Nesto-ian, he may be thought fallen to the error of the Eutychian; and whiles he destroyeth the wickedness ef the Eutychiaws heresy, he may be challenged to relieve the teaching of the Nestorian.” This is the sentence of Vigilius, by which appeareth how these heresies were both subtly conveyed, without so plain contradiction, as this author either by ignorance or of purpose feigneth; as though the Nestorian should say, “that Christ was a perfect man, but not God,” and the Eutychian clean contrary,
[[? Remained, 1551, and Orig. ed.] Biblioth. Patrum. Colon. 1518. An attempt has]
[ο [5 Orig. ed. omits these words.] been unsuccessfully made to shew that this book [ Certe sacramenta, qua sumimus, corporis et was not written by Pope Gelasius, but by Gelasius]
[sanguinis Christi divina res est, propter quod et per of Cyzicus, or Gelasius of Cesarea, Vide Cave,]
[eadem divina efficimur consortes natura; et tamen Hist. Lit.]]
[esse non desinit substantia vel natura panis et vini, [^ 4. n. 492.]]
[Gelasii con. Eutych. et Nestor. Sect. v. p. 671. in [$ Sects, 1551.]]
[M [cRANMER.] 9]
“very God, but not man.” For if the heresies had been such, Vigilius had had mo cause to speak of any such ambiguity, as he noteth that a man should hardly speak against the one, but he might be suspected to favour the other. And yet I grant that the Nestorians saying! might imply Christ not to be God, because they would two distinct natures to make also two distinct persons, and so as it were two Christs, the one only man, and the other only God; so as by their teaching, God was neither incarnate, nor (as Gregory Nazianzen saith) “man deitate,” for so he is termed to say.
The Eutychians, as St Augustine saith, reasoning against the Nestorians, became heretics themselves?;” and because we confess truly by faith but one Christ, the Son of God, very God, the Eutychians say, although there were in the virgin’s womb, before the adunation, two natures, yet after the adunation, in that mystery of Christ’s incarnation, there is but one nature, and that to be the nature of God, into which the nature of man was after their faney transfused, and so confounded:” whereupon, by implication, ἃ man might gather the nature of humanity3 not to remain in Christ after the adunation in the virgiws womb. Gelasius, detesting both Eutyches and Nestorius, in his process uttereth a catholic meaning against them both; but he directeth special arguments of the two matures in man, and the two natures in the sacrament, chiefly against the Eutychians, to prove the nature of man to continue in Christ after the adunation, being no absurdity for two different natures to constitute one person; the same two matures remaining in their property, and the natures to be aliud and aliud, which signifieth different; and yet in that not to be alius and alius in person, which alius and alius in person the Eutychians abhorred, and catholicly for so much against the Nes- torians, who by reason of two natures would have two persons; and because those Nestoriams Jancied the person of Christ patible to suffer all apart, therefore they denied Christ conceived God or born God; for the abolition of which part of their heresy, and to set forth the unity of Christ’s person, the blessed virgin was called θεοτόκος, Deipara, God’s mother; which the Nestorians deluded by am exposition, granting she might so be called, because her son, they said, was afterwards God, and so she might be called God’s mother, as another woman may be called a bishop’s mother, if her son be made a bishop afterward, although he departed mo bishop from her.
And hereof I write thus much, because it should appear that Gelasius, by his arguments of the sacrament, and of the two natures in man, went not about to prove that the Godhead remained in Christ after his incarnation, as the author of this book would have it; for the Nestorian said the Godhead was an accession to Christ afterward by merit, and therefore with them there was no talk of remaining, when they esteemed Christ’s nature in his conception singular, and only by God’s power conceived, but only man. And again the Eutychian so affirmed. the continuance of the divine nature in Christ after the adunation, as Gelasius had no cause to prove that was granted, that is to say, the remain of the divine nature, but on the other side to prove the remain of the human nature in Christ, which by the Eutychians was by implication rather denied. Nestorius divided God and man, and granted always both to be in Christ continually, but as two persons; and the person of Christ being God, dwelling within the person of Christ being man, and as Christ man increased, so Christ God dignified him, and so divided one Christ into two persons, because of the two natures so different, which was against the rules of our faith, and destroyed thereby the mystery of our redemption. And the Eutychians, affirming catholicly to be but ome person in Christ, did perniciously say there was but one nature in Christ, accounting by implication the human nature transfused into the divine nature, and so confounded. And to shew the narrow passage, Vigilius spake of Cyrillus, a catholic author, — because writing of the unity of Christ’s person, he expressed his meaning by the word “nature,” Signifying the whole of any one constitution, which more properly the word “person” doth express. - The Eutychians would by that word after gather that he favoured their part, so taking the word at a vantage.; And because the same Cyrillus used the word “subsistence” to signify “substance,” and. therefore said “in Christ there were two subsistences,” meaning the divine substance amd human substance; forasmuch as the word subsistence” is used to express the person, that is to say, hypostasy: there were that of that word, frowardly wnderstanded, would gather he should say,
[[^ Sayings, 1551.] Augustin. de V. Haresibus, Append. See below]
[5 Eutychiani ab Eutyche,. qui cum vide- p. 293.] i]
[retur refutare Nestorium, in Apollinarem Manich- [? Of the humanity, Orig. ed. Winch.]]
[umque transivit, et humanitatis in Christo denegans [^ To constitute one, the same remaining two in.]
[veritatem, quidquid a verbo nostre proprietatis re- their property. Ibid.]]
[ceptum est, divine tantummodo ascribit essentiz. 7]
“that there were two persons in Christ,” which was the Nestorians’ heresy that he impugned. Such captiousness was there in words when arrogant men cared not by what mean to maintain their error. These were both pernicious heresies, and yet subtle; and each had a marvellous pretence of the defence of the glory of God, even as is now pretended against the sacrament. And either part abused many scriptures, and had notable appearances for that they said, so 48 he that were not well exercised in scriptures, and the rules of our faith, might be easily circumvented. Nestorius was the great archbishop of Constantinople, unto whom Cyril, that condemmeth his heresy, writeth, that seeing he slandereth the whole church with his heresy, he must resist him, although he be a father, because Christ saith: “He that loveth his father. above me, is mot worthy me” But Nestorius, as appeareth, although he used it ill.favouredly,. had much learning, and cloked his heresy eraftily, denying the gross matter that they imputed to him to teach two Christs, and other specialities laid to his charge; and yet condemning the doctrine of Cyril, and professing his own faith in his own terms, could not hide his heresy so; but it ο΄ appeareth to be, and contain in effect, that he was charged with, and therefore an admonishing was given by a catholic writer: Believe not Nestorius, though he say he teach but one Christ.” t If one should here ask, What is this to the purpose to talk so much of these sects?’ 1] answer: This knowledge shall generally serve to note the manner of them that go about to T deceive the world with false doctrine, which is good to learn. Another special service is to —. declare, how the author of this book either doth not know the state of the matter in these heresies he speaketh of, or else misreporteth them of purpose. And the arguing of Gelasius in this matter well opened, shall give light of the truth of the mystery of the sacrament, who against the Eutychians useth two arguments of examples: one, of the two different natures do remain in one person of man; and yet the Eutychians defamed that conjunction, with remain of two different natures, and called it δυόφυσιν, “double nature;” and Gelasius, to encounter that term, saith, They will with their μονόφυσις, one nature reserve mot one Christ and whole Christ.” And if two different natures, that is to say, soul and body, make but ene man, why not so in Christ? For where scripture speaketh of the outward man and inward man, that is to shew (Gelasius saith) two divers qualities in the same man, and not to divide the —. same? into two men; and so intendeth to shew there ought to be no seruple to grant two different — matures to remain in their property, for fear that every diverse nature should make a diverse person, and so in Christ divide the unity; concluding.that the integrity of Christ cannot be, but both the matures different remaining in their property. Carnal imagination troubled the Eutychians to have one person of two such different natures remaining in their property, which the Nestorians relieved with device of two persons, and the Eutychians by confusion of the human nature. Then cometh Gelasius to the argument of example from the sacrament of the body and blood of Christ, and noteth the person of Christ to be a principal mystery, and the sacrament an image and similitude of that mystery, which sense his words must needs have, because he calleth Christ the principal mystery; and as in one place he saith “the image and similitude of T the body and blood of Christ,” so by and by he calleth the sacrament “the image of Christ.” And here the words image” and similitude” express the manner of presence of the truth of the things represented, to be understanded only by faith as invisibly present. And St Ambrose by this word image” signifieth the exhibition of truth to man in this life. And to shew the sacrament to be such an image, as containeth the very truth of the thing whereof it is the image, Gelasius declareth in framing his argument in these words: “As bread and wine go into the divine substance, the Holy Ghost bringing it to pass, and yet remain in the property of their nature, so that principal mystery, those natures remaining whereof it is, declare unto us true and whole Christ to continue.”
In these words of Gelasius, where he saith the bread and wine go into the divine substance,” ds plainly declared the presence of the divine substance; and this divine substance can signify —— mone other substance but of the body and blood of Christ, of which heavenly nature, and earthly — mature of the bread and wine, consisteth this sacrament, the image of the principal mystery of ἣ And therefore as in the image be two divers natures and different, remaining in their pro- —. perty, so likewise in the person of Christ, which is the conclusion of Gelasius’ argument, should. remain two matures. And here were a great danger, if we should say that Christ’s body, which ds the celestial nature in the sacrament, were there present but in a figure; for it should then M imply that in Christ’s person, the principal mystery, it were also but in a figure. And there- Εἰ Jore as in the mystery of Christ’s person ordained to redeem us, being the principal mystery, there is mo figure, but truth in consideration of the presence of the two natures, whereof Christ
[BN [5 The same man, Orig. ed. Winch.]]
is; 80 in the sacrament, being a mystery ordered to feed us, and the image of that principal mystery, there is not an only figure but truth of the presence of the matures, earthly and celestial. I speak of the truth of the presence, and mean such an integrity of the natures present, as by the rules of owr faith is consonant and agreeable to that mystery, that is to say, in the person of Christ, perfect God and perfect man perfect God to be incarnate, and perfect man to be deitate, — as Gregory Nazianzen termeth it.
In the sacrament, the visible matter of the earthly creature in his property of mature for — the use of signification is mecessarily required, and also, according to the truth of Christ’s — words, his very body and blood to be invisibly with integrity present, which Gelasius calleth the — divine substance.” And I think it worthy to be noted that Gelasius, speaking of the bread and wine, reciteth not precisely the substance to remain, but saith, the substance or nature,” which —
911. nature he calleth after the property?, and the disjunctive may be verified in the last. And it is not necessary the examples to be in all parts equal, as Rusticus Diaconus handleth it very — learnedly, contra Acephalos?. And Gelasius in opening the mystery of the sacrament speaketh — of transition of the bread and wine into the godly substance; which word transition” is meet — to express “transubstantiation;” and therefore St Thomas expressed transubstantiation” with — the same word transire, writing, Dogma datur Christianis, quod in carnem transit panis et vinum in sanguinem. But in the mystery of Christs person there is mo transition of the — Deity into the hwmanity, or humanity into the Deity, but only assumption of the humanity with the adunation of those two perfect natures so different, one person and one Christ, who is God — incarnate, and man deitate, as Gregory Nazianzen saith, without mutation, conversion, transition, — transelementation, or transubstantiation, which words be proper and special to express how — eucharistia is constitute of two different natures, an heavenly and earthly nature; a mystery — institute after the example of the principal mystery, wherewith to feed us with the substance of — the same glorious body that hath redeemed us. And because in the constitution of this mystery — of the sacrament, there is a “transition” of the earthly creature into the divine substance, as Gela- — sius and St Thomas term it, and mutation,” as Cyprian and Ambrose teach it, which Theophylactus expresseth by the word transelementation,” Emissene by the word conversion,” and all their words reduced into their own proper sense expressed in one word of “transubstantiation:” — it cannot be convenient, where the manner of constitution of the two mysteries be so different, — there to require a like remaining of the two natures whereof the mysteries be. In the mystery of Christ’s person, because there was not of any of the two different natures either mutation, transition, conversion, or transelementation, but only assumption of the humanity, and aduna- — tion in the virgin’s womb, we cannot say the Godhead to have suffered in that mystery, which were — an absurdity, but to have wrought the assumption and adunation of man’s nature with it, nor man’s nature by that assumption and adunation diminished; and therefore profess truly — Christ to be whole God and whole man, and God in that mystery to be made man, and man God; whereas in the sacrament, because of transition, mutation, and conversion of their earthly. creatures, wrought by the Holy Ghost, which declareth those earthly creatures to suffer in this — conversion, mutation, and transition, we knowledge no assumption of those creatures or adunation with the heavenly nature, and therefore say mot, as we do in the principal mystery, that each mature is wholly the other; and as we profess God incarnate, so the body of Christ breaded; and as man is deitate, so the bread is corporate; which we should say, if the rules of our faith.— could permit the constitution of each mystery to be taught alike, which the truth of God’s word doth not suffer. Wherefore, although Gelasius and other argue from the sacrament to declare the mystery of Christ’s person, yet we may not press the argument to destroy or confound the property of each mystery, and so violate the rules of our faith; and in the authors mot press the words otherwise than they may agree with the catholic teaching, as those did in the words of Cyril, when he spake of “nature” and “subsistence,” whereof I made mention before, to be remembered here in Gelasius, that we press not the word substance” and “nature” in him, but as may agree with the “transition” he speaketh of, by which word other express “transubstantiation.” And against the Eutychians, for to improve their confusion, it sufficeth to shew two different matures to be in the sacrament, and to remain in their property, and the divine nature not to confound the earthly nature, nor as it were to swallow it, which was the dream of the Eutychians. And we must forbear to press all parts of the example in the other argument, from the person of man being one of the body5 and soul, which the church doth profess in
[[ Of presence, 1551.] [ The adunation of those two natures, and of [? After property, Orig. ed. Winch.] two perfect natures, 1551.] 4 [? See Bibliotheca Patrum, Tom. VI. Pars ii. [^ Of body, Orig. ed. Winch.];]
[p. 212. Colon. 1618.] P]
. Symbolo Athanasii, of all received. For Christ is one person of two perfect matures, whereof the one was before the other in perfection and creation of the other; the one impassible, and the other passible: man is of the soul amd body one, two different natures, but such as for their perfection required that unity, whereof none was before other perfect. Of Christ we saye is consubstantial to his Father by the substance of his Godhead, and consubstantial to man 4 by the substance of his manhood: but we may not say, “man is consubstantial by his soul to angels, and consubstantial in his body to beasts;” because then we should deduce also Christ by νι mean of us to be consubstantial to beasts. And thus I write to shew, that we may not press the example in every part of it, as the author of this book noteth upon Gelasius, who overturneth his doctrine of the figure.; CANTERBURY.
I pity you, to see how ye swink^ and sweat to confound this anthor Gelasius. And yet his words be so plain against your papistical transubstantiation, that you have clearly lost all your pains, labours, and costs. For these be his words spoken of the sacrament: /sse non desinit substantia vel natura panis et vini; ‘The substance or nature οἵ bread and wine ceaseth not to be.” But to avoid and dally away these words that be so clear and plain, must needs be laid on load of words, the wit must be stretched out to the utmost, all fetches must be brought in that can be devised, all colours of rhetoric must be sought out, all the air must be cast over with clouds, all the water darkened with the cuttle’s ink; and if it could be, at the least as much as may be, all men’s eyes also must be put out, that they should not see. But I would wish that you stood mot so much in your own conceit, trusted not so much in your inventions and device of wit, in eloquence, and in craftiness of speech, and multitude of words, looking that mo man should dare encounter you, but that all men should think you speak well because you speak much; and that you should be had in great reputation among the i multitude of them that be ignorant, and cannot discern perfectly those that follow the right way of truth from other that would lead them out of the way into error and blind- 1 ness. This standing in your conceit is nothing else but to stand in your own light. 1 But where you say that these heresies of Nestorius and Eutyches were not so gross as I report,” that the one should say, that “Christ was a perfect man, but mot God;” and the other should say clean contrary, that he was very God, but not man:” of the grossness of these two heresies I will not much contend. For it might be that they were of some misreported, as they were indeed if credit be to be given fo divers ancient histories; but this I dare say, that there be divers authors that report of them as I do write, and consequently you grant the same in effect. For you report of the Eutychians, that they did perniciously say, that there was but ᾿ς μονόφυσις, “one nature in Christ:” and of the Nestorians you say, that they denied Christ to be conceived God or born God, but only man,” and then could not he be naturally God, but only man. And therefore neither by ignorance nor of purpose do I report them otherwise than you confess yourself, and than I have learned ef other that were before my time. For St Augustine in the place which you do eite of him, hath these words of Nestorius, Dogmatizare ausus est, Dominum nostrum Ἑ Jesum, Christum hominem tantum; “he presumed to teach,” saith St Augustine, — “that our Lord Jesus Christ was but man only.” And of Eutyches he saith, Hu- — manitatis in Christo denegavit veritatem; “he denied the truth of Christ’s manhood”.” And Gelasius writeth also thus: Jutychiani dicunt unam. esse naturam, id est divinam; 6 Nestorius nihilominus memorat singularem: “The Eutychians say, that there is but — ene nature in Christ, that is to say, the Godhead: and also Nestorius saith, there is but one nature,” meaning the manhood. By which words of St Augustine and Gelasius appeareth, as plainly as can be spoken, the plain contradiction between the Nestorians — and the Eutychians, that the one denied the humanity of Christ, and the other his divinity, as I have written in my book; so that neither of ignorance nor of purpose have I feigned any thing: but you, either of malice, or of your accustomed manner to ealumniate and find fault with every thing that misliketh you, be it never so well, seek
[με [5 Swink, i.e. labour.] as spurious. Augustine, they say, died A.D. 430, the]
[X heresibus Tom. VI. p. 15. Ed. Paris. 1636. This Nestorius, and Eutyches was condemned by that of [7 August, Appendix Trium Hzresium adlib.de Council of Ephesus was held, A.D. 431 to depose]
[i appendix is considered by the Benedictine editors Chalcedon,A.D.451. Ed. Bened, Tom. VTIT. p. 28.1]
occasion likewise here to carp and xeprehend where no fault is; being like unto Momus, — which, when he could find no fault with Venus’ person, yet he picked a quarrel to — her slipper. And not in this place only, but throughout your whole book, you use this fashion, that when you cannot answer to the principal matter, then you find fault with some bye-matter, whereby it seemeth you intend so to occupy the readers — mind, that he should not see how craftily you convey yourself from direct answering — of the chief point of the argument; which when you come unto, you pass it over slenderly, — answering either nothing, or very little, and nothing to the purpose.
But yet this bye-matter, which you bring in of the grossness of these two errors, helpeth little your intent, but rather helpeth to fortify my saying against your doctrine of transubstantiation, that your doctrine herein maketh a plain way for the Nestorians and the Eutychians to defend their errors, For if the bread and the body of Christ before the consecration in the sacrament be two natures, and after the consecration in that mystery is but one nature, and that is the body of Christ, into which the nature of bread in your phantasy is transformed and confounded; and if also this mystery be an example of the mystery of Christ’s incarnation, as the old authors report, why may not then the Eutychians say, that before the adunation in the virgins womb the Godhead and manhood were two natures, and yet after the adunation in that mystery of Christs incarnation there was but one nature, and that to be the nature of God, into which the nature of man was after their phantasy transfused and confounded? And thus have you made by your transubstantiation a goodly pattern and example for the Eutychians to follow in maintenance of their error.
And yet, although the Eutychians said that “the nature of God and of man before their uniting were two,” yet I read not that they said, that they were two in the virgins womb, as you report of them; which is no great matter, but to declare how ignorant you be in the thing whereof you make so great boast, or how little you regard the truth, that wittingly will tell an untruth. But to say my mind frankly, what I think of your declaration of these two heresies, I think a great part thereof you dreamed in your sleep, of imagined, being in some trance, or rapt with some sophistical vision; and part of your dream agreeth neither with approved authors — and histories, nor with itself. For first, as touching the Eutychians, where you say that Gelasius “directeth his arguments of the two natures in man, and of the two — natures in the sacrament, chiefly against the Eutychians, to prove the nature of man to remain in Christ after the adunation;” whosoever readeth Gelasius shall find otherwise, that he directed his arguments indifferently, as well against Nestorius, as against Eutyches, and no more against the one than against the other. Nor no more did. the Eutychians abhor alius and alius, although some gathered so of their words, - than did the Nestorians; which words signify diversity of person,” as a/iud and - aliud signify “diversity of nature:” so as the body and soul in one man be aliud - and aliud by reason of diversity of natures, and yet be they not alius and alius, because - that both together make but one person. By means of which difference between alius. and a/iud, we say, Alius Pater, alius Filius, alius Spiritus Sanctus, and not aliud Pater, ὦ aliud Filius, aliud Spiritus Sanctus, forasmuch as they be three in persons, and but one in nature and substance. And because Christ is two in nature, that is to say, of - his Deity and humanity, and but one in person; therefore we say, aliud et aliud est. divinitas et humanitas, but not alius, sed unus est Christus. E And although Nestorius granted two natures in Christ, yet not, as you say, from his nativity, nor by adunation, but by cohabitation or inhabitation, so that he made but one ’ Christ, (although some otherwise take him,) and not alium et alium: after which sort the Godhead is also in other godly men, whom by grace he maketh partakers of his godly. nature, although by their natural generation they be but men, without the divine nature united in person, but after obtained by adoption and grace: as, by your example, a - man is made bishop, which by natural generation is born but a man. B And that this was Nestorius’ opinion, that Christ from his nativity was but man only, and had his Godhead after by adoption or accession, is evident of your own words, when you say, that the Nestorians denied Christ conceived God, or born God, and that the Godhead was an accession to Christ afterward by merit, and that he was conceived but only man,” although shortly after you go from the same, saying, —
that “both the Godhead and manhood were always in Christ;” such constancy is in your dreamed phantasies. i And where you have written thus much, as you say, because it should appear that Gelasius, by his arguments of the sacrament, and of the two natures of man, went About to prove that the Godhead remained in Christ after his incarnation; you might have bestowed your time better than to have lost so much labour, to impugn the truth. For although neither Nestorius nor Eutyches denied the Godhead of Christ to remain, yet Gelasius went not about only to confute them, but also to set out plainly the true catholic faith, that Christ being incarnated was perfect God and perfect man, and how that might be, both the said natures and substances remaining with all their natural proprieties and conditions, without transubstantiation, abolition, or confusion of any of the two natures. And this he declareth as well by the example of the sacrament, as of the body and soul of man. Wherefore, as true as it is that the body and soul of man, and Godhead and manhood of Christ, remain in their proper substances, natures, and properties, without transubstantiation or perishing of any of them, 8o must it be in the sacrament.
And in the said heresies, as you say, was some appearance of the truth, every ene having scripture, which in sound of words seemed to approve their errors, whereby - they deceived many. But as for your feigned doctrine of transubstantiation, it hath no pretence nor appearance of truth by God’s word; for you have not one scripture that maketh mention thereof, whereas I have many plain and manifest scriptures, that speaketh in plain terms, that bread is eaten and wine is drunken. And this author Gelasius, with divers other learned men, as well Greeks as Latins, of the old catholic ehurch, affirm in no doubtful words that the bread and wine be not gone, but remain still, From which scriptures and doctors whosoever dissenteth, declareth himself at the least to be ignorant, whereby yet he may excuse himself of a greater blot and infamy. A And this matter being so clear, neither your fine disguising, nor your painted colours, nor your gay rhetoric, nor witty inventions, can so hide and cover the truth that it shall not appear; but the more you labour to strive against the stream, the more - faint shall you wax, and at length the truth hath such a violence, that you shall be borne clean down with the stream thereof. 3 In the end you compare Nestorius and Cyril together, alluding, as it seemeth, to this contention between you and me; which comparison, if it be throughly considered, hath no small resemblance, although there be no little diversity also, Nestorius, say you, was a great archbishop; and so, say I, was Cyril also, Nestorius, say you, as appeareth, “had much learning, but cloked his heresy craftily.” But the histories of his time, who should know him best, describe him in this sort, that he was a man of mo great learning, but of an excellent natural wit and eloquence, and full of craft and subtilty, by means whereof he was so proud and glorious, that he contemned all men in respect of himself, and disdained the old writers, thinking himself more wise than they all. Now let the indifferent reader judge, whom he thinketh in this your allusion should most resemble the qualities and conditions of Nestorius.
And all this that you have brought in here of these two heresies, although it be 3 to no purpose in the principal matter, yet it serveth me to this purpose, that men i may conjecture whose nature and wit is most like unto the description of Nestorius, - and also how loth you be to come to the matter, and to make a direct answer to Gelasius” words, who saith in plain terms, “that the substance or nature of bread and wine — remaineth.” Even as glad you be to come to this as a bear is to come to the stake, F seeking to run out at this corner or that corner, if it were possible. But all will - not help; for you be so fast tied in chains, that, will you, nill you, at length you — must come to the stake, although you be never so loth. And Gelasius biteth so sore and hath catched so hard hold of you, that you can never escape, although you attempt all manner of ways, by tooth and by nail, to shake him off.
First, you would shake him off by this pretence, that he useth his two arguments,. of the two examples of man and the sacrament, against the Eutychians only. But Gelasius will not so easily leave his hold. For he speaketh indifferently as well against - the Nestorians as the Eutychians, declaring by these two examples, how two different. matures may remain in Christ, and that the integrity of Christ cannot be. except both
the different natures remain in their properties; which condemmeth both the foresaid heresies, that affirmed but one nature to be in Christ, the Eutychians his divinity, and the Nestorians his humanity. And yet, if he had used these examples against the Eutychians only, they bite you as sore as if they were used against them both. For if he conclude by these two examples against the Eutychians, as you say he doth, that the integrity of Christ cannot be, but both natures different, that is to say, his manhood and Godhead, must remain in their property, then must it needs be so in the examples also. And then as Christ had in him two natures with their natural properties, neither perishing, but both remaining; and as man hath in him two natures, the soul and the body, both remaining still, so must in the sacrament also the nature of bread and wine remain without transubstantiation, or corruption of any of the natures, according to the said words of Gelasius: Jesse mom desinit substantia vel natura panis et vini; “The substance or nature of bread and wine ceaseth not to be.” ἥ And Gelasius bringeth not this image and similitude to that purpose that you would draw it, that is to say, to express the manner of Christ’s presence in the sacrament, but to express the manner of two natures in Christ, that they both so remain that neither is corrupted or transubstantiated, no more than the bread and wine be in the sacrament. And by this all men may see, that Gelasius hath fastened his teeth so surely, that you cannot so lightly cast him off with a shake of your chain. And if he meant to express the manner of Christ’s presence in the sacrament, as you feign he doth, that the manner is only by faith, whereof he speaketh not one word, yet are you nothing at liberty thereby, but held much more faster than you were before, For Gelasius speaketh of the action of the mystery, and Christ’s flesh and blood be present in the action of the mystery only by faith, therefore can they not be present in the bread or wine reserved, which have no faith at all. And presence by faith
Had only requireth no real, material, and corporal presence, For by faith is Christ present — in baptism, and by faith Abraham saw him, and. the holy fathers did eat his flesh and drink his blood before he was born. And Christ, humbling himself to take upon him our mortal nature, hath exalted us to the nature of his deity, making us to reign with him in his immortal glory, as it were gods. And this, saith Gelasius, God worketh in us by his sacraments, per que divina efficimur consortes nature, et tamen esse non desinit. substantia vel natura panis et vini: that is to say, “By the sacrament of Christs body and blood we be associate unto the divine nature, and yet ceaseth not the substance or nature of bread and wine to be.” So that the sacrament not being altered in substance, we be altered and go into the divine nature or substance, as Gelasius termeth it, being made partakers of God’s eternity.
And therefore when he speaketh of the going of the sacraments into the divine substance, he meaneth not that the substances of the sacraments go into the substance of God, (which no creature can do,) but that in the action of that mystery, to them that worthily receive the sacraments, to them they be turned into divine substance through the working of the Holy Ghost, who maketh the godly receivers to be the. partakers of the divine nature and substance. And that this was the intent and meaning of Gelasius, appeareth by two notable sentences of him, whereof one is this. “Surely,” saith he, the image and similitude of the body and blood of Christ is celebrate in the action of the mystery.” The other is, that “by the sacrament we be made. partakers of the godly nature.” He saith not, that the sacraments be, but that we. be made partakers of the nature of Christ’s Godhead. And if he should mean, as you have most untruly altered both his words and sense at your pleasure, not that the godly receivers, but that the substance of bread and wine, should go into the divine. substance; then were not they changed into his humanity, but into his deity, and so. were the bread and wine deified, or at the least made partakers of the divine nature and immortality. But forasmuch as Gelasius saith, that the two natures in Christ remain, in like case as the natures of the sacraments remain, (for he maketh his argu- - ment altogether of the remaining of the natures, by the verb permanere, and the participle permanens, then, as you say that the integrity of Christ cannot be, except both his natures different remain in their properties, so cannot the integrity of the - sacrament be, except the two natures of bread and wine remain in their properties. For else, seeing that the remaining of the natures is in the sacrament as it is in Christ, -
. s Gelasius saith, then if in the sacraments remain but the accidents and appearance of bread and wine, and not the substances of them, how could Gelasius by the resemblance of the two sacraments of bread and wine, prove the two substances and natures of Christ to remain? Might it not rather be gathered, that only the appearance of Christ’s humanity remaineth in accidents, and not the substance of itself, as Marcion saith, and as you say it is in the sacrament; or else, that Christ’s humanity is absorbed up by his divinity, and confounded therewith, as the Eutychians say, [and as you say’] that the bread and wine is by the body and blood of Christ? But the catholic faith hath taught from the beginning, according to holy scripture, that as the image or sacrament be two diverse natures and different, remaining in their properties, that is to say, bread and wine, so likewise in the person of Christ remain two natures, his divinity and his humanity. And I pray you, what danger is it to say, that Christs body is in the sacramental bread, but as in a figure? should that imply, that his body is in his person, but as in a figure? “That should be even as good an argument as this: Christ was in the brasen serpent, but in a figure; ergo he is now in heaven but in a figure. For the form of argumentation is all one in the one and the other. And if Christ be in us by virtue and efficacy, although in the sacraments representing the same (as Gelasius saith) he be but sacramentally, figuratively, and significatively, what peril is it to us? And what availeth it us his being in the sacrament, and not in us?
And the two natures in the sacrament, which Gelasius taketh for the image and similitude of the two natures in Christ, be bread and wine, which as they remain, and that truly in their natures and substances, so do the two natures in Christ. And yet be the bread and wine sacraments of the terrestrial nature of Christ, that is to say, of his body and blood, but not of his celestial and divine nature, as you imagine. And they be called sacraments, because they be figures, which, if they were no figures, they were no sacraments. But it is not required, that the thing represented by the figure should be really and eorporally present in the figure, when the figure is ordained to represent a thing corporally j absent; and the figure were in vain, as Lactantius saith, if the thing were present?, 1 And at the least wise in this place Gelasius useth the natures and substances of Ἵ bread and wine, which be sacraments of Christ’s flesh and blood, to be images and T similitudes in this point, not of his flesh and blood, but of his divine and human mature; that as the bread and wine in the sacrament remain still in their proper kinds, without violation, annihilation, confusion, commixtion, or transubstantiation, so is it in i the two natures of Christs manhood and his Godhead. So that Gelasius useth this i similitude for the incarnation of Christ, not for the consecration of the sacrament, as you would pervert his meaning.:
And because you would have all your things strange, (as it were one that had come out of a strange country, where he had learned a strange fashion of speech never heard of before, or rather devised it himself) you call the colours of bread and wine - the matter of bread and wine, because colours only be visible, after your teaching. And then must the natural properties of colours be, to signify our feeding spiritual by the body and blood of Christ, that as they feed us spiritually, so do the colours cor- - peraly. And then making the argument ab opposito consequentis ad oppositum. anteedentis, as colours feed not our bodies, so Christ feedeth not our souls. This is the - conclusion of your goodly new devised divinity. x And to like effect cometh your other saying in the same sentence, because you ἢ were loth to commit but one horrible error in one sentence, that Gelasius calleth Christ’s body and blood his divine substance.” i This is a goodly hearing for the Eutychians, who say, that “in Christ is no more χ natures but his divine substance,” which by your interpretation must be true. For T if his Godhead be a divine substance, and his body and blood also a divine sub- - stance, why should Eutyches be reprehended for denying in Christ to be any other than divine substance? And so shall we bring to pass, that either Christ hath but. one substance, or two divine substances, although not of like sort, and so not one. human substance. And is it like, that Gelasius, who so long contended against Euty- 1 ches for two distinct substances in Christ, human and divine, would in the conclusion
[i [’ These words are found only in ed, 1551.] [ See p. 288.]]
of his disputation so much yield unto the heretic, to grant that Christ’s human substance should be a divine substance?
And it is worthy to be noted, and double noted, how you wrangle with the words of Gelasius, and wrest them clean out of tune. For where Gelasius saith, that “there remaineth the substance or nature of bread and wine,” to declare thereby the remaining of two natures in Christ, you say, that Gelasius saying may be verified in the last, and not in the first,” that is to say, that the nature of bread and wine remaineth. “And nature,” say you, “is there taken for the properties, which you call accidents” And so you make Gelasius a goodly teacher, that should so ambiguously speak of two things, when he meaneth but of one, For when he saith, that “the substance or nature remaineth,” you say, he meaneth that only the nature remaineth.” And were this tolerable in a learned man, when he meaneth the nature to remain and not the substance, to express it by these terms, The substance or nature remaineth? And if Gelasius mean that the substance of bread and wine remaineth not, but the natures, and then if by nature he understood the accidents, as you untruly surmise of him, and make them the image and similitude to prove Christ’s two natures; then they prove no more, but that the accidents of Christ’s natures remain, and not the substance: which saying, whether it be a favouring of the Eutychians, Nestorians, Valentinians, Marcionists, Apollinarists, and other of that sort, let the learned be judge.
And although “it be not necessary the examples to be in all parts equal” as you allege of Rusticus Diaconus, yet they must needs be like in the point wherefore they were taken to be examples, for else they were none examples. And therefore, seeing — that the bread and wine were of Gelasius brought for examples of Christ’s two natures, for this intent, to prove that the two natures of Christ remain in their substance, it must needs be so in the bread and wine, or else they served nothing to that purpose.
And the transition that Gelasius meant of, is in the persons that receive the sacraments, which be transformed into the divine nature, as Gelasius saith, by efficacy and virtue represented by the sacraments;” but the transition is not in the bread and wine, as you and your Thomas imagine of transition, which remain in the sacrament without substantial mutation, conversion, transition, transelementation, or transubstantiation, For if in the mystery of the sacrament were transition, mutation, conversion, and transelementation of the substance of bread and wine, how could that mystery be an example of the principal mystery of Christ’s incarnation, to prove thereby that ’ there is no transition, mutation, conversion, or transelementation of the two substances of Christ in his incarnation? Doth not the remaining of substance in the sacrament prove the remaining of substance in the incarnation? For how can the not remaining of substance be an example, image, and similitude to prove the remaining of the substance? But here appeareth what it is to wrestle against the truth, and to defend an evil cause, and what absurdities wit and eloquence be driven unto, when they strive against God and his word.
And where you think yourself over sore pressed with this argument and similitude of bread and wine to the two natures in Christ, I must needs press the argument and words so far, as pertaineth to the remaining of the natures and substance; for to that end was the image and similitude brought in by Gelasius. And then by argument from the cause, wherefore the resemblance was made, if the substance and nature of the bread and wine remain not in the sacrament, it followeth that the two natures and substance of Christ remain not in his person, which is no sound teaching: wherefore, to make the argument agree with the catholic teaching, we must needs say, that as in the person of Christ remain the two natures and substance of his Godhead and manhood, so in the sacrament remain the natures and substances of bread. and wine, that the comparisons may agree with themselves and with the catholie faith. Like as it is also in the other example of the body and soul, which two natures must needs remain in the person of man, without transubstantiation of any nature, if they shall resemble the remaining of the two natures in Christ. And how do the two natures in the sacrament remain in their property, I pray you declare, if the nature of bread and wine be gone? And how doth not the divine nature swallow up the earthly nature, if the nature of bread and wine be so turned into the divine nature, that it remaineth not, but is clearly extinct? ”
t If you may purge yourself in handling of this author by confession of your igno- rae, you must obtain it by great favour of them that will so accept it. For else. jn this one author is affirmed by you many great errors, with wilful depravation of. the authors mind, to give weapons to them that be enemies to the truth, and to the subversion of the catholic faith. And no less have you done in Theodoretus next following, because you would handle them both indifferently, and do no more injury to the one than to the other. And as for Cyprian, Ambrose, Theophylact, and Emissene, I have answered to them before. It is time now to hear Theodorete. Ξ Theodoretus also affirmeth the same both in his first and in his second dialogue. In the first he saith thus: He that called his natural body wheat and bread, and also called himself a vine, the self-same called bread and wine his body and blood, and yet changed not their natures!.”
And in his second dialogue he saith more plainly. “For,” saith he, “as the bread and wine after the consecration lose not their proper nature, but keep their former substance, form, and figure which they had before, even so the body of Christ, after his ascension, was changed into the godly substance,”
Now let the papists choose which of these two they will grant, (for one of them they must needs grant,) either that the nature and substance of bread and wine remain still in the sacrament after the consecration, and then must they recant their doctrine of transubstantiation, or else that they be of the error of Nestorius and other, which did say, that the nature of the Godhead or of the manhood remained not in Christ after his incarnation or aseension?. For all these eld authors agree, that it is in the one, as it is in the other. h And if that I have here said be well considered, there may appear the great ignorance of this author in the alleging of Theodorete, the applying of him, and the speaking of Nestorius in the end. For as the Eutychians’ reasoning, as St Augustine saith, to confound the Nestorians, fell — nto an absurdity in the confusion of the two matures in Christ: so Theodoretus, reasoning against the Eutychians, fell in a vehement suspicion to be a Nestorian; like as St Augustine, reasoning against the Manichees for defence of free-will, seemed to speak that the Pelagians would allow; and reasoning against Pelagians, seemed to say that the Manichees would allow: such a danger it is to reduce extremities to the mean, wherein St Augustine was better purged than Theodorete was, although Theodorete was reconciled. But Jor example of that I have said, this f argument of Theodoretus against the Eutychians, to avoid confusion of natures in Christ, sheweth V. how in the sacrament, where the truth of the mystery of the two natures in Christ may be as it were in similitude learned, the presence of the body of Christ there in the sacrament doth not alter C the nature, that is to say, the property of the visible creatures. This saying was that the Nesto-rmians would draw for their purpose to prove distinct persons, against whom Cyril travailed to shew that in the sacrament the flesh of Christ, that was given to be eaten, was given, not as the flesh of a common man, but as the flesh of God; whereby appeared the unity of the Godhead to the manhood in Christ in one person, and yet no confusion, as Theodoretus doth by his argument declare. But whether the printer’s negligence, or this author’s oversight, hath confounded or confused this matter in the uttering of it, I cannot tell. For the author of this book concludeth solemnly thus by induction of the premises, that “even so the body of Christ was after the ascension i —— ehanged into the godly substance.” I ween the printer left out a “not,” and should have said, “not changed into the godly substance;” for so the sense should be, as Peter Martyr reporteth Theodorete. [ ‘O ydp ài τὸ φύσει σῶμα σῖτον kal ἄρτον kai προσκυνεῖται, ws ἐκεῖνα ὄντα ἅπερ πιστεύεται. Theod. Dial. i. Tom. IV. p. 26.— Ed. Hale. απλῶς εἰπεῖν τὴν τοῦ σώματος οὐσίαν” ἀθάνατον δὲ προσαγορεύσας, καὶ αὖ πάλιν ἑαυτὸν ἄμπελον ὀνο- παράθες τοίνυν τῷ ἀρχετύπῳ τὴν εἰκόνα, καὶ ὄψει 1 μάσας, οὗτος τὰ ὁρώμενα σύμβολα τῇ τοῦ σώματος τὴν ὁμοιότητα. χρι γὰρ ἐοικέναι τῇ ἀληθείᾳ τὸν καὶ αἵματος προσηγορίᾳ τετίμηκεν, οὐ τὴν φύσιν τύπον. καὶ ydp ἐκεῖνο τὸ σῶμα τὸ μὲν πρότερον Ed μεταβαλὼν, ἀλλὰ τὴν χάριν τῇ φύσει προστεθει- εἶδος ἔχει, καὶ σχῆμα, καὶ περιγραφὴν, καὶ ἁπαξ- M69—94] μετὰ τὴν ἀνάστασιν γέγονε, kai κρεῖττον φθορᾶς, i [? Οὐδὲ γὰρ μετὰ τὸν ἁγιασμὸν τὰ μυστικὰ καὶ τῆς ἐκ δεξιῶν ἠξιώθη καθέδρας, καὶ παρὰ πάσης
[5 σύμβολα τῆς οἰκείας ἐξίσταται φύσεως. μένει yap προσκυνεῖται τῆς κτίσεως; ἅτε δι σῶμα χρηματί-]
[rd ἐπὶ τῆς προτέρας οὐσίας, kal τοῦ σχήματος, καὶ Lov τοῦ δεσπότου τῆς φύσεως.---1}0. Dial. ii. Tom.]
[τοῦ εἴδους, καὶ ὅρατά ἐστι καὶ dvd, ola καὶ πρό- IV. p. 126.]]
[É Tepov ἣν” νοεῖται δὲ ἅπερ ἐγένετο, kal πιστεύεται [ Orig. ed. omits the words, or ascension.”’]]
And yet the triumph this author maketh against them he calleth for his pleasure papists, with his forked dilemma, maketh me doubt whether he wist what he said or mo; because he bringeth in Nestorius so out of purpose, saying the papists must either grant the substance of bread and wine to remain, or else to be of Nestorius’ heresy, that the nature of Godhead remained not.”
This author of the book, for the name of Nestorius, should have put Eutyches, and then said for conclusion, the nature of manhood remained not in Christ. And although in Theodorete the substance of bread is spoken of to remain, yet because he doth after expound himself to speak of that is seen and felt, he seemeth to speak of substance after the common capacity, and not as it is truly in learning understanded, an inward, invisible, and not palpable nature, but only perceived by understanding; so as this outward nature that Theodorete speaketh of, may according to his words truly remain, notwithstanding transubstantiation. This author declareth plainly his ignorance, not to perceive whither the argument of Theodorete and Gelasius tendeth, which is properly against the Eutychians rather than the Nestorians. For, and no propriety of bread remain, it proveth not the Godhead in Christ not to remain, but the humanity only to be as it were swallowed wp of the divinity, which the Eutychians intended, and specially after Christ’s resurrection, against whom the argument by Theodorete is specially brought, howsoever this author confoundeth the Nestorians’ and Eutychians names and taketh one for another, which in so high a matter is no small fault, and yet no great fault among so many other huger and greater, as be in this book committed.
Canterbury
If that which you have said to Gelasius be well considered and conferred with this in Theodorete, it seemeth by your process in both, that you know not what confusion of of natures is. And then your ignorance therein must needs declare that you be utterly ignorant of all their whole discourse, which tendeth only to prove that the two natures in Christ, his divinity and his humanity, be not confounded. And for ignorance of confusion, you confound all together. Gelasius and Theodorete prove, that the two natures in Christ be not confounded, because they remain both in their own substances and properties, so that the remaining declareth no confusion, which should be confounded if they remained not. If a drop of milk be put into a pot of wine, by and by it loseth the first nature and substance, and is confounded with the nature and substance of wine. And if wine and milk be put together in equal quantity, then both be confounded, because neither remaineth, neither perfect wine with his substance and natural proprieties, nor perfect milk with the substance and proprieties of milk; but a confusion, an humble-jumble or hotch-potch, a posset or syllabub is made of them both together, like as in man’s body the four elements be confounded to the constitution of the same, not one of the elements remaining in his proper substance, form, and pure natural qualities.
So that if one nature remain not, the same is confounded. And if there be more natures that lose their substance, they be all confounded, except there be an utter consumption or annihilation of the thing that loseth his substance. And therefore the argument, which all the old ecclesiastical authors use, to save the confusion of the two natures in Christ, is to prove, that they both remain. And if we may learn. that by the similitude of the sacrament, as Gelasius and Theodorete teach, and you here confess the same, then must needs the substance of bread and wine remain, or else is there none example nor similitude of the remaining of two natures in Christ, but of their confusion; as by your feigned doctrine the substance of bread is confounded with the body of Christ, neither being annihilate, nor remaining, but transubstantiated, confounded, and converted into the substance of Christ’s body. And thus with your well understanding of the matter, you confound all together; whereas I with my ignorance, not blaspheming that holy union and mystery of Christ’s incarnation, do save all the natures whole, without mixtion, confusion, or transubstantiation, either of the divine and human nature in Christ, or of the soul and body in man, or of the bread and wine in the sacrament; but all the substance and natures be saved and remain clearly with their natural properties and conditions, that the proportion in that point may be like, and one to be the true image and similitude of the other. But surely more gross ignorance or wilful impiety than you have shewed in this matter, hath not lightly been seen or read of. 1 And where you say, that “I by oversight, or the printer by negligence, have le t
out a ‘not’,” if I should have put in that “not” of mine own head, contrary to the original in Greek, and to all the translators in Latin, and the translation of master Peter Martyr also, I should have been as far overseen as you be, which as it seemeth of purpose confound and corrupt, you care not whether any author’s words, or their meaning. And as for my “forked dilemma,” you shall never be able to answer thereto; but the more you travail therein, the more you shall entangle yourself. For either you 1 must grant, as unwilling as you be, that the nature and substance of bread and wine remain after the consecration, or else that the nature and substance of Christ’s humanity and divinity remain not after his incarnation; wherein erred not only Eutyches, whom you say I should have put for Nestorius, but also Marcion, Ebion, Valentinus, Nestorius, and other, as in my book I have declared.
And one thing is principally to be noted in your answer to Theodorete, how you can sophisticate and falsify all men’s sayings, be they never so plain. For where between me and the papists the matter here in contention is this, Whether the bread and wine remain in their proper nature and substance or no; I saying that they remain, and the papists saying that they remain not, the issue being in this point, whether they remain, or remain not; I bring for me Chrysostom, who saith, the nature of bread remaineth?^:” I bring Gelasius, who saith, that there ceaseth not the substance or nature of bread and wine?:” I bring this Theodorete, whose words be these: The bread and wine after consecration lose not their proper nature, but keep their former substances, form, and figure” Now how can any man devise to speak the truth in more plain words than these be? For they say the very same words that I say. And yet because the truth is not liked, here must be devised a crafty lawyer gloss, of them that never sought other but to calumniate the truth, and must be said, against all learning, reason, and speech, that substance is taken for the visible and palpable qualities or accidents. Well, yet then you confess that those old ancient authors agree with me in words, and say as I do, that the bread and wine be not transubstantiated, but remain in their former substance. And then the issue plainly passeth with me by the testimony of these three witnesses, until such time as you can prove that these authors spake one thing, and meant another, and that qualities and accidents be substances. And if you understood whereunto the argument of Theodorete and Gelasius tendeth, you would not say that they spake against the Eutychians, any more than they do against the Nestorians. For if the bread and wine remain not, as you say, but be swallowed up of the body and blood of Christ, then likewise in the principal mystery either the deity must be swallowed up of the humanity, or the humanity of the ἢ deity. The contrary whereof is not only against the Eutychians, but also against the Nestorians, Marcionists, and all other that denied any of his two natures to remain perfectly in Christ. weighty matter of our faith, my knowledge is not any whit the less, because the And whereas you, with all the rout of the papists, both privately and openly report me to be unlearned and ignorant, because you would thereby impair my credit in this papists say it is nothing, nor yours any deal the more, because the papists do say, that you only be learned, whom, for any thing that ever I could perceive in you, I have found more full of words and talk than of learning. And yet the note of ignorance I nothing pass of, if thereby the truth and God’s glory should not be hindered. 3 Now after the reproof of your doctrine of transubstantiation by all the old writers - ef Christ’s church, I write in my book after this manner.
Now forasmuch as it is proved sufficiently, as well by the holy scripture, as by natural operation, by natural reason, by all our senses, and by the most old and best learned authors, and holy martyrs of Christ’s church, that the substance of bread and wine do remain, and be received of faithful people in the blessed sacrament, or supper of the Lord; it is a thing worthy to be considered and [’ Vid p 299 In the original text of the passage transmutatum. Loci Communes, Class. 1v. cap. 10. translation of the sentence is: Sic et corpus domini. [3 Vid. p. 274.] [? Vid. p. 289.] here referred to thereisno negative. Peter Martyrs Genev. 1623. p. 603. ] H cum post assumptionem in divinam est substantiam [ Vid. p. 299.]
well weighed, what moved the school authors of late years to defend the con- 1 trary opinion, not only so far from all experience of our senses, and so far from all reason, but also clean contrary to the old church of Christ and to God’s most holy word. Surely nothing moved them thereto so much, as did the vain faith which they had in the church and see of Rome. super For Joannes Scotus, otherwise called Duns, the subtilest of all the school ἢ — authors, entreating of this matter of transubstantiation, sheweth plainly the cause thereof. “For,” saith he, the words of the scripture might be expounded more easily and more plainly without transubstantiation, but the church did choose this sense, which is more hard, being moved thereto, as it seemeth, chiefly because that of the sacraments men ought to hold as the holy church of Rome holdeth. But it holdeth, that bread is transubstantiate, or turned into the body, and wine into the blood, as it is shewed, de Summa “Trinitate et Fide Catholica. Firmiter credimus!” ἥδ And Gabriel also, who of all other wrote most largely upon the canon of the mass, saith thus: “It is to be noted, that although it be taught in the - scripture, that the body of Christ is truly contained and received of christian people under the kinds of bread and wine, yet how the body of Christ is there, whether by conversion of any thing into it, or without conversion, the body is there with the bread, both the substance and accidents of bread remaining there still, it is not found expressed in the bible. Yet forasmuch as of the sacraments men must hold as the holy church of Rome holdeth, as it is written, de Aere-ticis, ad abolendam; and that church holdeth and hath determined, that the bread is transubstantiated into the body of Christ, and the wine into his blood; therefore is this opinion received of all them that be catholic, that the substance of bread remaineth not, but really and truly is turned, transubstantiated, and changed into the substance of the body of Christ?.”
Thus you have heard the cause, wherefore this opinion of transubstantiation at this present is holden and defended among christian people, that is to say, because the church of Rome hath so determined, although the contrary, by the papists’ own confession, appear to be more easy, more true, and more according. to the scripture. Ἶ But because our English papists, who speak more grossly herein than the. pope himself, affirming that the natural body of Christ is naturally in the bread ὦ and wine, cannot, nor dare not ground their faith concerning transubstantiation. upon the church of Rome; which, although in name it be called most holy, yet indeed it is the most stinking dunghill of all wickedness that is under heaven, and the very synagogue of the devil, which whosoever followeth cannot but stumble, and fall into a pit full of errors: because, I say, the English papists - dare not now stablish their faith upon that foundation of Rome, therefore they - seek fig-leaves, that is to say, vain reasons, gathered of their own brains and 1 authorities, wrested from the intent and mind of the authors, wherewith to cover and hide their shameful errors. Wherefore I thought it good somewhat to travail herein, to take away those fig-leaves, that their shameful errors may plainly to every man appear. ἡ The greatest reason, and of most importance, and of such strength, as they 3 think, or at the least as they pretend, that all the world cannot answer thereto, up. 15. this: Our Saviour Christ, taking the bread, brake it, and gave it to his. D. [^ Joan. Duns Scot. Op. Lugd. 1639. in Lib. 1v. at the end of this volume.] i 18, 19. The original passages of Duns and Gabriel Lect. xl. fol. 94. 2.] Η Ti Sentent. Dist. x1. Quest. 3. Tom. VIII. pp. 616, [2 Gabr. Biel. Canon. Miss Expos. Basil. 1515.
[Biel will be found in p. 34 of Cranmer’s Latin book 2]
É disciples, saying, This is my body. Now,” say they, “as soon as Christ had spoken these words, the bread was straightway altered and changed, and the substance thereof was converted into the substance of his precious body.”
But what christian ears ean patiently hear this doctrine, that Christ is every day made anew, and made of another substance than he was made of in his mother’s womb? For whereas at his incarnation he was made of the nature and substance of his blessed mother, now, by these papists’ opinion, he is made every day of the nature and substance of bread and wine, which, as they say, be turned into the substance of his body and blood.” O what a marvellous metamorphosis and abominable heresy is this, to say that Christ is daily made anew, and of a new matter! whereof it followeth necessarily, that they make us every day a new Christ, and not the same that was born of the virgin Mary, nor that was crucified upon the cross, [and that it was not the same Christ that was eaten in the supper, which was born and crucified,]? as it shal] be plainly -. proved by these arguments following.
First, thus: If Christ’s body that was crucified was not made of bread, but the body that was eaten in the supper was made of bread, as the papists say, then Christ’s body that was eaten [in the supper] was not the same that was crucified. [For if they were all one body, then it must needs follow, that either Christ’s body that was eaten was not made of bread, or else that his body that was crucified was made of bread.]
And in like manner it followeth: If the body of Christ in the sacrament be made of the substance of bread and wine, and the same body was conceived in the virgin’s womb, then the body of Christ in the virgin’s womb was made of bread and wine.
Or else turn the argument thus: The body of Christ in the virgin’s womb was not made of bread and wine; but this body of Christ in the sacrament is made of bread and wine: then this body of Christ is not the same that was eonceived in the virgin’s womb.
Another argument: Christ that was born in the virgin’s womb, as concerning his body, was made of none other substance but of the substance of his blessed mother: but Christ in the sacrament is made of another substance; and so it followeth, that he is another Christ. 1 And so the antichrist of Rome, the chief author of all idolatry, would bring faithful christian people from the true worshipping of Christ that was made and ἢ born of the blessed virgin Mary, through the operation of the Holy Ghost, and 3 suffered for us upon the cross, to worship another Christ made of bread and wine 1 through the consecration of popish priests, which make themselves the makers — of God. “For,” say they, “the priest by the words of consecration maketh ~ that thing which is eaten and drunken in the Lord’s supper, and that,” say they, “is Christ himself both God and man;” and so they take upon them to make both God and mand But let all true worshippers worship one God, one Christ, once corporally made, of one only corporal substance, that is to say, of the blessed virgin Mary; that once died, and rose once again, once ascended into heaven, and there sitteth
[[ The Orig. ed. omits the sentences within made of bread.]
[brackets] And moreover: If Christ’s body that was eaten [ This passage is in the 1551 and 1580 editions atthe last supper was the same that was crucified,]
[only The Orig. ed. has the following passages, and Christ’s body that was eaten at the supper was]
[not in either of the above editions: made of bread, as the papists feign, then Christ’s ‘And again: If Christ’s body that was cru- body that was crucified was made of bread.”]]
[ς cified was not made of bread, and Christ’s body that [5 Of a popish priest. And thus the popish]
[Was crucified was the same that was eaten at his last priests make themselves, Orig. ed.]]
[: supper, then Christ’s body that was eaten was not]
and shall sit at the right hand of his Father evermore; although spiritually he — be every day amongst us, and whosoever come together in his name, he is in. the midst among them.. And he is the spiritual pasture and food of our souls, - as meat and drink is of our bodies; which he signifieth unto us by the institution of his most holy supper in the bread and wine!, declaring that as the bread and — wine corporally comfort and feed our bodies, so doth he with his flesh and blood spiritually comfort and feed our souls. ” And now may be easily answered the papists argument, whereof they do so much boast: for brag they never so much of their conversion of bread and wine into the body and blood of Christ, yet that conversion is spiritual and putteth not away the corporal presence of the material bread and wine. But forasmuch as the same is a most holy sacrament of our spiritual nourishment, which we have by the body and blood of our Saviour Christ, there must needs remain the sensible element, that is to say, bread and wine, without the which there can be no sacrament. E As in our spiritual regeneration there can be no sacrament of baptism, if there be no water. For as baptism is no perfect sacrament of spiritual regeneration, without there be as well the element of water, as the Holy Ghost, spiritually regenerating the person that is baptized, which is signified by the said water; even so the supper of the Lord can be no perfect sacrament of spiritual food, except there be as well bread and wine, as the body and blood of our Saviour Christ, spiritually feeding us, which by the said bread and wine is signified.
← 15. Book II. Against Transubstantiation · Contents · 17. Book II. Against Transubstantiation →