And howsoever the body and blood of our Saviour Christ be there present, they may as well be present there with the substance of bread and wine, as with the accidents of the same, as the school authors do confess themselves, and it shall be well proved if the adversaries will deny it. Thus you see the strongest argument of the papists answered unto, and the chief foundation whereupon they build their error of transubstantiation utterly subverted and overthrown.
Winchester
Wherein this author mot seeing how little he hath done, concludeth yet as constantly as though he had thrown all down afore him, intending to shew that the doctrine of tramsub-. stantiation dependeth only of authority, (which is not so,) using the sayings of Duns and Gabriel, as he reporteth them, for his purpose; because they, as he saith, boast themselves what they could do, if the determination of the council were mot: and thus every idle speech may — have estimation with this author against the recewed truth. And from this point of the mat- — ter, the author of this book maketh a passage with a little sport at them he fancieth, or liketh to call so, English papists, by the way to enterprise, to answer all such as he supposeth vea- - sons for transubstantiation and authorities also. ’ First, he findeth himself mirth in devising (as he calleth them) the papists to say that Christ is made anew; which fancy, if it were so, is against the real presence as well as transub- 1 stantiation. In which words because every wise reader may see how this author playeth, I - will say mo more but this: Christ is not made anew, mor made of the substance of bread, as of a, matter; and that to be the catholic doctrine, this author, if he be right named, knoweth well enough, and yet spendeth two leaves in it. if 1 CANTERBURY. When I have proved most evidently, as well by the testimony of the scripture, as by the consent of the old authors of Christ’s church, both Greeks and Latins, from the beginning continually from time to time, that transubstantiation is against God’s most holy word, against the old church of Christ, against all experience of our senses, against all reason, and against the doctrine of all ages, until the bishops of
[[ In bread and wine, 1551, and Orig. ed.] o EE]
Rome devised the contrary; therefore I conclude that the said doctrine of transub- — stantiation may justly be called the Romish or papistical doctrine. And where I — have shewed further, that the chief pillars of the papistical doctrine, as Duns, Gabriel, — Durand, with other do acknowledge, that if it had not been for the determination of - the church of Rome, they would have thought otherwise, (which is a most certain 5 argument that this doctrine of transubstantiation came from Rome, and therefore is - worthily called a papistical doctrine;) all this must be answered with these words,. “as this author reporteth,” and “Duns and Gabriel boast what they could do:” whereas neither Duns nor any of the other either brag or boast, but plainly and frankly. declare what they think. And if I report them otherwise than they say, reprove me therefore, and tell me wherein. But these be but shifts to shake off the matter that you cannot answer unto. Therefore, until you have made me a more full and direct answer, I am more confirmed in my assertion, to call transubstantiation a papistical doctrine than I was before.
But here you put me in remembrance of an ignorant reader, whose scholar I was in Cambridge almost forty years passed, who, when he came to any hard chapter - which he well understood not, he would find some pretty toy to shift it off, and to - skip over unto another chapter, which he could better skill of. The same is a common practice of you throughout your wliole book, that when anything in my book presseth you so sore that you cannot answer it, then finely with some merry jest or unseemly taunt you pass it over, and go to some other thing, that you persuade yourself you can better answer; which sleight you use here in two matters together: the one is where I prove the doctrine of transubstantiation to come from Rome; the other is that of your said doctrine of transubstantiation it followeth, that Christ every day is made anew, and of a new matter. In which two matters you craftily slide away from mine arguments, and answer not to one of them. Wherefore I refer to the judgment of the indifferent reader, whether you ought not to be taken for convinced in these two points, until such time as you have made a full answer to my proofs and arguments. For where you say that Christ is not made of the substance of bread as of a matter,” this is but a slippery evasion. For if Christ be made of bread, either he is made of - the matter of bread, or of the form thereof. ^ But the form,” say you, remaineth, ~ and is not turned into Christ’s body.” Therefore, if Christ be made of bread, you must needs grant that he is made of the matter of bread. 4 Now for the answer to the second reason of the papists my book hath thus. 1 Another reason have they of like strength. If the bread should remain, —say they, then should follow many absurdities, and chiefly, that Christ hath iy taken the nature of bread, as he took the nature of man, and so joined it to ~ his substance. And then, as we have God verily incarnate for our redemption, — 50 should we have him impanate. 1 Thou mayest consider, good reader, that the rest of their reasons be Very — weak and feeble, when these be the chief and strongest. Truth it is indeed, that Christ should have been impanate, if he had joined the bread unto his “Substance in unity of person, that is to say, if he had joined the bread unto him in such sort, that he had made the bread one person with himself. But forasmuch as he is joined to the bread but sacramentally, there followeth no impa- - mation thereof, no more than the Holy Ghost is inaquate, that is to say, made
water, being sacramentally joined to the water in baptism. Nor he was not made a dove when he took upon him the form of a dove, to signify that he whom St John did baptize was very Christ.
But rather of the error of the papists themselves, as one error draweth another after it, should follow the great absurdity which they speak upon, that 3s to say, that Christ should be impanate and invinate. For if Christ do use the - bread in such wise, that he doth not adnihilate and make nothing of it, as the
papists say, but maketh of it his own body, then is the bread joined to his body in a greater unity than is his humanity to his Godhead. For his Godhead is adjoined unto his humanity in unity of person, and not of nature. But our Saviour Christ, by their saying, adjoineth bread unto his body in unity both of nature and person: so that the bread and the body of Christ be but one thing both in nature and person. And so is there a more entire union between Christ and bread, than between his Godhead and manhood, or between his soul and his body. And thus these arguments of the papists return, like riveted nails, upon their own heads. 1 WINCHESTER. Ἢ The solution to the second reason is almost as fondly handled, alluding from impanation to inaquation, although it was never said in scripture, This water is the Holy Ghost,” but in baptism to be water and the Holy Ghost also. And of the dove is mot said, This is the Holy Ghost,” but the Holy Ghost descended as im the resemblance of a dove. The substance of bread is not adnihilate, because God’s work is not adnihilation!, who giveth all being, an adnihilation is a defection of the creature from God; and yet Christ’s body is not augmented by the substance of bread, in which body it endeth by conversion, as im the better, without adnihilation, which is a changing by miracle. And when this author knoweth this, or should ’ have known it, or hath Jorgotten it, he writeth like one that were ignorant, and had rea i nothing in the matter, as it were to make himself popular, to join himself in ignorance with the rude unlearned people. i CANTERBURY.: As for my solution to the second reason, it is able to stand against your confutation thereof, and to overthrow it quite. For no more is Christ in the bread and wine in the Lord’s supper, than the Holy Ghost is in the water of baptism: and therefore if the Holy Ghost be not inaquate, no more is Christ impanate. And whe 1 the scripture saith, Upon whomsoever thou shalt see the Holy Ghost coming down;” and also when St John said, “I saw the Holy Ghost come down like a dove:” did he see any thing but the dove? And yet that which he saw, the scripture there, as well by the voice of God, as by the words of St John, calleth the Holy Ghost. Wherefore the scripture calleth the dove the Holy Ghost. For the speech was as much to say as, “This which I see come down, is the Holy Ghost:” and yet was that the dove, which he saw. And that the dove, which he saw, was the Holy Ghost, was as true a speech, as we, looking upon the bread which we see, do say, “This is the body of Christ.” And yet as that speech meaneth not that the Holy Ghost is made dove, so this speech meaneth not that the body of Christ is impanate; no more tha these words of Christ, spoken unto his mother Mary, and to St John, “Lo th) son,” and, Lo thy mother,” mean not that John was made Christ, nor that Mary his mother, was made John’s natural mother. E But of your saying it followeth, that the bread is humanate or incarnate. For: these words of Christ, “This is my body,” mean as you say, that bread is mad Christ’s flesh; then, as Verbum. caro factum. est, “The Word was made flesh,” cor cludeth that Christ was incarnate; so Panis caro factus est, “the bread is made flesh; concludeth that the bread is incarnate, seeing (as you say) it is not adnihilate. ^ But of adnihilation you write so strangely, that it seemeth you have written wh you dreamed in your sleep, rather than what you learned of any author catholic or = infide. For who ever heard that adnihilation could be wrought but by the onl power of God? For the gentile philosophers write according to nature, that Sicut € nihilo nihil fit, ita nihil in nihilum. redigitur; As nothing can be made of nought, 8 nothing can be turned into nought:” so that as it is the work of God only to ma of nought, so it can be but only his work also to turn things into nought. Ar what man, being never so rude or popular, having any discretion at all, would defin adnihilation as you do, that “a defection of a creature from God” should be adnihilatio
[[’ No adnihilation, 1551.] [? Was made his natural mother, 1551.] m]
E AGAINST TRANSUBSTANTIATION. 307 m “turning into nothing? For so should all the angels that fell from God be adnihilate; and so should likewise all apostasy, and all other that by sin relinquish the army of God, and follow his adversary the devil, and all papists, that abandoning Christ (as Judas did) run to antichrist, to whom it were better to be adnihilate, or never to be born, than eternally to remain in God’s indignation. Now followeth the last reason. Yet a third reason they have, which they gather out of the sixth of John, where Christ saith: I am lively bread, which came from heaven: if any man -eat of this bread, he shall live for ever. And the bread which I will give is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world.” Then reason they after this fashion. If the bread which Christ gave be his flesh, then it cannot also be material bread; and so it must needs follow, that the material bread is gone, and that none other substance remaineth, but the flesh of Christ only.
ΤῸ this is soon made answer, that Christ in that place of John spake not of the material and sacramental bread, nor of the sacramental eating, (for that was spoken two or three years before the sacrament was first ordained;) but he spake “of spiritual bread, many times repeating, “1 am the bread of life, which came from heaven,” and of spiritual eating by faith, after which sort he was at the same present time eaten of as many as believed on him, although the sacrament was not at that time made and instituted. And therefore he said: Your fathers did eat manna in the desert and died, but he that eateth this bread shall live for ever.” Therefore this place of St John can in no wise be understand of the sacramental bread, which neither came from heaven, neither giveth life to all that eat?. Nor of such bread Christ could have then presently said, This is my flesh,” except they will say, that Christ did then consecrate so many years before “the institution of his holy supper. i WINCHESTER. bi ΠΑ third reason this author frameth himself, whereby to take occasion to affirm how the sixth chapter of St John should not appertain to the sacramental manducation; the contrary l. ereof appeareth as well by the words of Christ in that sixth chapter, saying, “I will give,” not “1 do give,” which promise was fulfilled in the supper, as also by the catholic writers, and. specially by Cyril; and therefore I will not further strive with this author in l hat matter, but see how he can assail the authorities, whereunto he entereth with great con- Í idence 1 CANTERBURY. — ‘The third reason I framed not myself, as you say I did, but had it ready framed out of your own shop in your book of the “Devil’s Sophistry.” And as for the sixth chapter of John, I have sufficiently shewed my mind therein in my answer to Doctor Smith’s preface, which shall suffice also for answer to you in this place.
And as for Cyril, is clearly against you, who declareth that when Christ said, I will give my flesh for the life of the world;” he fulfilled not that promise in his Supper, but in the cross. For if Christ had given to us life in his supper, what should he have needed after to die for the same purpose? The words of Cyril be these upon the words of Christ: Panis quem ego dabo, caro mea est quam ego dabo pro mundi vita. Morior, inquit, pro omnibus, ut per meipsum omnes vivificem, et caro mea omnium redemptio fiat; morietur enim mors morte mea‘. Which words mean thus much in English: I will die for all, that by my death I may give life to all, and that my flesh may be the redemption of all; for death shall die by my death.” Thus p Eat it, 1551, and Orig. ed.] ydo ὁ θάνατος ἐν θανάτῳ τῷ ἐμῷ. Cyril. In Tas ζωοποιήσω δι ἐμαυτοῦ, καὶ ἀντίλυτρον τῆς Aubert, Paris. 1638. ] — [ Ἀποθνήσκω, φησὶν, ὑπὲρ πάντων, ἵνα πάν- Joannem, Lib. rv. cap. X. Tom. IV. p. 353. Ed.
[E- σαρκὸς τὴν ἐμὴν ἐποιήσαμεν, τεθνήξεται So]
expoundeth Cyril the words of Christ, that when he said, ^I will give,” he did not fulfil that promise in his supper, but in the cross, giving us life by his death, not by eating and drinking of him in his supper, as you most ignorantly say. And yet al men may judge how much I bear with you, when I call it but ignorance.
Now followeth mine answer to the authors wrested by the papists.
Now that I have made a full, direct, and plain answer to the vain reasons and cavillations of the papists, order requireth to make likewise answer unto their sophistical allegations and wresting of authors unto their phantastical purposes. There be chiefly three places, which at the first shew seem much to make for their intent; but when they shall be throughly weighed, they make nothing. for them at all. 1 de — The first is a place of Cyprian in his sermon of the Lord’s supper, where he saith, as is alleged in the “Detection of the Devil’s Sophistry:” This bread, which our Lord gave to his disciples, changed in nature but not in outward form, is by the omnipotency of God’s word made flesh.” 3 Here the papists stick tooth and nail to these words, changed in nature:” ergo, say they, the nature of the bread is changed. Here is one chief point of. the Devil’s sophistry used, who in the allegation of scripture useth ever either to add thereto, or to take away from it, or to alter the sense thereof. And so have they in this author left out those words, which would open plainly all the whole matter. For next the words, which be here before of them recited, do follow these words: As in the person of Christ the humanity was seen, and the divinity was hid, even so did the divinity ineffably put itself into the visible sacrament.” Which words of Cyprian do manifestly shew, that the sacrament doth still remain with the divinity, and that sacramentally the divinity is poured into the bread and wine, the same bread and wine still remaining; like as the same divinity by unity of person was in the humanity of Christ, the same humanity still remaining with the divinity. 4 And yet “the bread is changed, not in the shape nor substance, but in nature,” as Cyprian truly saith; not meaning that the natural substance of bread is clean gone, but that by God’s word there is added thereto another higher property, nature and condition, far surpassing the nature and condition of common bread; that is to say, that the bread doth shew unto us, as the same Cyprian saith, that we be partakers of the Spirit of God, and most purely joined unto Christ, and spiritually fed with his flesh and blood, so that now the said mystical bread is both a corporal food for the body, and a spiritual food for the soul. Ἢ And likewise is the nature of the water changed in baptism, forasmuch as beside his common nature, which is to wash and make clean the body, 3 declareth unto us that our souls be also washed and made clean by the Holy Ghost. And thus is answered the chief authority of the doctors, which th papists take for the principal defence of their error. But for further declaratior of St Cyprian’s mind herein, read the place of him before recited, fol. 249, — WINCHESTER. First, in Cyprian, who speaketh plainly in the matter, this author findeth a fault, tha he is mot wholly alleged; whereupon this author brought in the sentence following, not necessary
[[ Panis iste quem Dominus discipulis porri- « Corruption of Scripture,” ἅς. p. 17. Coci Cen sur]
[gebat, non effigie sed natura mutatus, omnipotentia Patrum, Helmes. 1683. Riveti Critica Sacra, p. 1:]
[verbi factus est caro: et sicut in persona Christi Genev. 1626. Ed. Bened. and Cave’s Hist. Lit.]
[humanitas videbatur, et latebat divinitas; ita sacra- is supposed that it was written by Arnoldus, Abba]
[mento visibili ineffabiliter divina se infudit essen- Bonz-Vallis.] d]
[tia—Cyprian. de cena Domini, p. 468. Ed. Paris. [? Passing, 1551, and Orig. ed.] 1]
[1574. This is a spurious treatise. Vid. James’ [? Seep. 267.] [ Bringeth, Orig. ed. Winch.]
to be rehearsed for the matter of transubstantiation, and handsome to be rehearsed for the overthrow of the vest of this author’s new catholic faith; and whether that now shall be added was material in the matter of transubstantiation, I require the judgment of thee, O reader. The first words of Cyprian be these: This bread which our Lord gave to his disciples, changed in nature, but not in outward form, is by the omnipoteney of God’s word made flesh.” - These be Cyprian’s words, and then follow these: As in the person of Christ the humanity was - seen and the divinity hidden, even so the divinity ineffably infused itself into the visible sacrament.” - Thus saith Cyprian, as I can English him, to express the word infudit by Latin English, not liking the English word “shed,” because in our English tongue it resembleth spilling and evacuation of the whole; and much less I can agree to use the word “pouring,” although - infundo in Latin may in the use of earthly things signify so, because pouring noteth a suc- - eessive working, whereas God’s work is in an instant, and for that respect never shedding. But this author had a fancy to use the sound of the word pouring, to serve instead of an argument to improve transubstantiation, meaning the hearer or reader, in the conceiving of the sense of - Cyprian thus termed, should fancy the bread in the visible sacrament to be like a sop where- - upon liquor were poured; which is a kind of depravation, as thou, reader, by consideration - of Cyprian’s words and meaning mayest perceive; which Cyprian, having shewed how the bread is made flesh by the ommipotency of God’s word, and made by change, then, because this mystery of the sacrament, in consideration of the two natures, celestial and earthly, resem- ~ bleth the principal mystery of Christ’s person, St Cyprian saith in sense, that as in the per- - son of Christ the hwmanity was seen, and the divinity hidden, so likewise im this sacrament visible is also the divine nature hidden. This is the sense, where for declaration of the work - 9f God, presenting his divine mature, there is used the verb infundit in Latin, by which word the motion of the divine nature is spoken of in scriptures, not because it is a liquid substance to be poured, as the author of this book Englisheth it, signifying a successive operation, but rather as a word (if we should scan it as this author would) signifying the continuance of the term from whence, to the term whereunto, without leaving the one by motion to the other: Jor there is in the godly mature mo local motion, and therefore we say, Christ not leaving his Father descended from heaven, amd being in earth was also in heaven; which infusion in some part resembleth, but man’s words cannot express God’s divine operations. ΠΟ To the purpose: the first words of Cyprian shew the manner of the constitution of this sacrament to be by mutation of the earthly creatures into the body and blood of Christ: and then, ὃν the words following, sheweth the truth of the substance of the sacrament, to the intent we might use our repair to it and frame our devotion according to the dignity of it, esteeming,” E St Paul saith, our Lords body.” For the more evident declaration whereof, St Cyprian, by example of the mystery in Christ’s person, sheweth Christ’s humanity and divinity present ἐπ the visible sacrament, of which divinity there is special mention against such, which fancied the flesh of Christ to be given to be eaten, as divided from the divine nature, which was the heresy of the Nestorians, and such other, denying thereby the perfect unity of the two natures “in Christ, which the holy synod of Ephesus did specially condemn, as other fathers in their writings did specially prevent with distinct writing against that error. And therefore St Cy- “prian, not content to shew the presence of Christ’s flesh by mutation of the bread, doth after make special mention of Christ’s divinity, not concerning that he had said before, but further opening it; and so utterly condemneth the teaching of the author of this book, touching the presence of Christ to be only figuratively. Cyprian saith, that in the sacrament is the truth, and then there is present the true flesh of Christ, and the Godhead truly, which de- -wotion should knowledge.” And as for transubstantiation, according to the first words of St Cyprian, the bread is “changed not in form, bitin nature,” which is not in the properties of nature, nor in the operation of mature, neither in quantity or quality of mature, and “therefore in the inward nature, which is properly substance. This is the plain direct understanding, not by way of addition, as this author of his imagination deviseth, who useth The “word “spiritual” as a stop and opposition to the catholic teaching, which is not so, and clearly without learning compareth with this sacrament the water of baptism, of which we read not written that it is changed, as we read of the bread, and therefore the resemblance of water dn baptism is used only to blind the rude reader, and serveth for a shift of talk to wind out Qf that matter that cannot be answered; and as evil debtors shake off their creditors with a bye communication, so this author conveyeth himself away at a back door by water, not doing first as he promised to answer, so as he would avoid Cyprian directly by land. Hd [ Maketh, 1351. Orig. ed. Winch. reads with Ed. 1580.] [ Correcting, 1551.]
CANTERBURY. Ν Where in my former book I found a fault in the allegation of Cyprian, it wa s indeed no little fault, to allege those words that speak of the change of bread, and to leave out the example most necessary to be rehearsed, which should declare how it was changed; which change is not by transubstantiation, as the example sheweth, but as it is in the person of Christ, whose humanity was not transubstantiate, although it was inseparably annexed unto the deity. And the words following do not once touch the real and corporal presence of Christ’s flesh in the bread; so far it is from the overthrowing of the true catholic faith by me taught. But Cyprian in that place quite and clean overthroweth, as well your real presence, as your imagined transubstantiation, as hereafter by God’s grace shall be declared. But first it seemeth to me a strange thing, that such a learned man as you take yourself to be in the tongues, cannot English this verb infundo, whereas every grammarian can tell the signification of fundo, effundo, amd infundo. But it seemeth you have so dainty a stomach, that you can brook no meat but of your own dressing, though it be never so well dressed of other; yea, you had rather eat it raw, than to take it of another man’s dressing. And so much misliketh you all things that other men do, that you be ready to vomit at it. 3 n No English can please you to this word infundo but Latin English,” as you call ~ it; and that is such English as no English man can understand, nor Latin man neither, but only in that sense that I have Englished it. And I pray thee, gentle reader, consider the great weighty cause why no English can please in this place, and thou shalt find it nothing else but ignorance, either of the speech or of God. Pouring,” saith he, “maketh a successive working:” so doth “infusion” say I, and therefore in that respect as unfit a term as “pouring.” “But God’s work,” saith he, “is in an instant.” So is his pouring,” say I, and all that he doth, even as well as his infusion.” All man’s works be done in succession of time, (for a carpenter cannot build a house in a day,) but God in one moment could make both heaven and earth: so that God worketh without delay of time such things as in us require leisure and time. And yet God hath tempered his speech so to us in holy scripture, that he speaketh of himself in such words as be usual to us, or else could we speak here and learm mothing of God. And therefore whether we say “infusion” or pouring,” all is on thing, and one reason. For in us they be done by little and little, but God worketh the same suddenly in one moment. 4 And yet if you had well considered the matter, you should not have found the sacraments of God “like sops, wherein liquor is poured,” but you should have found “pouring” an apt word to express the abundance of God’s working by his grace ir the ministration of his holy sacraments. For when there cometh a small rain, ther we say it droppeth, or there is a few drops; but when there cometh a great multitude of rain together, for the great abundance of it, we use in common speech to say it poureth down: so that this word “pouring” is a very apt word to express the multitude of God’s mercies and the plentifulness of his grace poured into them whom he loveth, declared and exhibited by his words and sacraments. And howsoever yon be disposed by jesting and scoffing to mock out all things, (as your disposition hath been ever given to reprehend things that were well) yet the indifferent people may judge by this one place, among many other, that you seek rather an occasion 07 babble without cause, and with idle words to draw your book out at length, tha to seek or teach any truth.! ANI And if 1 should play and scoff in such a matter, as you do, I might dally with the word of “infusion,” as you do with the word “pouring.” For as you reject my word of pouring, because some fond reader might fancy the bread in the sacramen to be “like a sop wherein liquor were poured,” by like reason may I reject your English Latin of infuding,” because such a reader might fancy thereby the bread to be h water, wherein the divinity is steeped or infuded. As infused rhubarb is called, wh it is steeped certain hours in stilled water or wine without seething; and so be ros and violets likewise infused, when they be steeped in warm water to make jala thereof. But as apothecaries, physicians, surgeons, and alchemists use words of Gre
} 3 AGAINST TRANSUBSTANTIATION. 311 - Arabic, and other strange languages, purposely thereby to hide their sciences from τῳ many strange terms, and strange phrases of speech, to obscure and darken thereby ~ the knowledge of others, so far as they can; so do you in many parts of your book - the matter of the sacrament, and to make the same meet for the capacities of very few, ἮΝ Christ ordained to be understanded and exercised of all men. 1 — At the last, as you say, you come to your purpose, not to open the truth, but - to hide it as much as you may, and to gather of Cyprian’s words your own feigning and not his meaning, who meant nothing less than either of any transubstantiation, or of the corporal presence of Christ in the bread and wine.
And to set out Cyprian’s mind in few words, he speaketh of the eating, and not of the keeping of the bread; which, when it is used in the Lord’s holy supper, it is not only a corporal meat to nourish the body, but an heavenly meat to nourish the souls of the worthy receivers, the divine majesty invisibly being present, and by a spiritual transition and change uniting us unto Christ, feeding us spiritually with his flesh and blood unto eternal life, as the bread, being converted into the nature of our bodies, feedeth the same in this mortal life.
And that this is the mind of St Cyprian is evident, as well by the words that go before as by the words following the sentence by you alleged. For a little before Cyprian writeth thus: “There is given to us the food of immortal life, differing from common meats, which retaineth the form of corporal substance, and yet proveth God’s power to be present by invisible effect’.” And again after he saith: “This common bread, after it is changed into flesh and blood, procureth life and increase to our bodies. And therefore the weakness of our faith, being holped by the customable effect of things, is taught by a sensible argument that in the invisible sacraments is the effect of everlasting life, and that we be made one by a transition or change, not so much corporal as spiritual For he is made both bread, flesh, and blood, meat, substance, and life, to his church, which he calleth his body, making it to be partaker of him?” Note well these words, good reader, and thou shalt well perceive that Cyprian speaketh not of the bread kept and reserved, but as it is a spiritual nourishment received in the Lord’s supper, and as it is fruitfully broken and eaten in the remembrance of Christ’s death; and to them that so eat it, Cyprian calleth it “the food of immortal life.” And therefore when he saith “that in the invisible sacrament is the effect of everlasting life” he understandeth of them that worthily receive the sacrament: for to the bread and wine pertaineth not eternal life. Nevertheless the visible sacrament teacheth us, that by a spiritual change we be united to Christ’s flesh and blood, who is thé meat and sustenance of his church, and that we be made partakers of the life everlasting by the power of God, who by his effectual working is present with us, and worketh “with his sacraments.
And here is again to be noted, that Cyprian in this place speaketh of no real presence E saith he, “is a food and nourishment of the body.” And thus Cyprian proveth of Christ’s humanity, but of an effectual presence of his divine majesty; and yet “the nothing against my sayings, neither of the real presence of Christ’s flesh and blood, or of transubstantiation of bread and wine. i And where you be offended with this word “spiritual,” it is not my device, but used of St Cyprian himself, not past six or seven lines before the words by you cited, where he declareth the spiritual mutation or transition in the sacraments. And of the change in the sacrament of baptism, as well as in the sacrament of the body and blood of Christ, speaketh not only this author, but also Nazianzen, Emissene, Chry-Sostom, Ambrose, with all the famous ancient ecclesiastical authors. And this water doth
[[? Sed immortalitatis alimonia datur, a commu- adjuta infirmitas, sensibili argumento edocta est vi-]
[nibus cibis differens, corporalis substantiz retinens sibilibus sacramentis inesse vitz zeteruze effectum,]
[Ξ ideoque ex consueto rerum effectu fidei nostra]
[speciem, sed virtutis divin invisibili efficientia pro- et non tam corporali, quam spiritali transitione]
[bans adesse presentiam. Cyprian. de Cena Do- Christe nos uniri. Ipse enim et panis, et caro, et]
[mini, p. 467. Ed. Paris. 1574.] sanguis, idem cibus et substantia, et vita factus est P Panis iste communis, in carnem et sanguinem ecclesi: suz, quam corpus suum appellat, dans ei]
[mutatus, procurat vitam et incrementum corpori- participationem spiritus.—Ib. pp. 467, 8.]]
well to delay your hot wine, whereof you have drunken so much out of the cup o i the great whore of Babylon, that the true wine, representing to us our whole redemption by the true blood of Christ, you have clearly transubstantiate and taken away.
Now followeth my answer unto Chrysostom.
Another authority they have of St John Chrysostom, which they boast also to be invincible. Chrysostom, say they, writeth thus in a certain homily, D Eucharistia: “Dost thou see bread? Dost thou see wine? Do they avoid beneath, as other meats do? God forbid! think not so. For as wax, if it be put into the fire, it is made like the fire, no substance remaineth, nothing is left here; so also! think thou that the mysteries be consumed by the substance of the body.”
At these words of Chrysostom the papists do triumph, as though they ha won the field. “Lo,” say they, doth not Chrysostomus the great clerk say most plainly, that we see neither bread nor wine; but that, as wax in the fire, they be consumed to nothing, so that no substance remaineth?” But if they had rehearsed no more, but the very next sentence that followeth in Chrysostom, which craftily and maliciously they leave out, the meaning of St John Chrysostom would easily have appeared, and yet wil make them blush, if they be not utterly past shame. For after the foresaid words of Chrysostom, immediately follow these words: i Wherefore,” saith he, when ye come to these mysteries, do not think that you receive by a man the body of God, but that with tongues you receive fire by the angels seraphin?.^ And straight after it followeth thus: Think that the blood of salvation floweth out of the pure and godly side of Christ, and so coming to it, receive it with pure lips. Wherefore, brethren, I pray you and beseech you, let us not be from the church, nor let us not be occupied there with vain communication; but let us stand fearful and trembling, casting down our eyes, lifting up our minds, mourning privily without speech, and rejoicing in our hearts.”
These words of Chrysostom do follow immediately after the other words, which the papists before rehearsed. Therefore if the papists will gather of the words by them recited, that there is neither bread nor wine in the sacramentI may as well gather of the words that follow, that there is neither priest no Christ’s body. E For as in the former sentence Chrysostom saith, that we may not think that we see bread and wine;” so in the second sentence he saith, that we may not think that we receive the body of Christ of the priest’s hands.” Wherefore if upon the second sentence, as the papists themselves will say, it cannot be truly gathered, that in the holy communion there is not the body of Christ ministered by the priest; then must they confess also, that it cannot be well and trul gathered upon the first sentence, that there is no bread nor wine. j But there be all these things together in the holy communion, Christ hims olf spiritually eaten and drunken, and nourishing the right believers; the bread an
[[’ Nothing is left: so here also, 1551, and νομίσητε μεταλαμβάνειν τοῦ θείου σώματος, o A]
[Orig. ed.] ws ἐξ αὐτῶν τῶν σεραφὶμ τῇ λαβίδι Tov πυρὸς [2 Μὴ ὅτι ἄρτος ἐστὶν ἴδῃς, μηδ ὅτι οἶνός ἐστι ἥνπερ ‘Hoatas εἶδε, τοῦ θείου σώματος μεταλμ]
[νομίσῃς” οὐ γὰρ ὡς αἱ λοιπαὶ βρώσεις eis ἀφε- Bdvew νομίζετε, καὶ ὡς τῆς θείας καὶ ἀχράνο]
[δρῶνα χωρεῖ. ἄπαγε, μὴ τοῦτο νόει. ἀλλ᾽ ὥσπερ πλευρᾶς ἐφαπτόμενα τοῖς χείλεσιν, οὕτω τοῦ ι]
[κηρὸς πυρὶ προσομιλήσας οὐδὲν ἀπουσιάζει, οὐδὲν τηρίου αἵματος μεταλάβωμεν. ποιγαροῦν, ἀελ]
[περισσεύει” οὕτω καὶ ὧδε νόμιζε συναλίσκεσθαι τὰ Pol, τῶν ἐκκλησιῶν μὴ ἀπολειπώμεθα, μήτε ard)]
[μυστήρια τῇ τοῦ σώματος obcía.—Chrysostom. De ἐν αὐταῖς συντυχίαις ἑαυτοὺς ἀσχολῶμεν” oa]
[Eucharistia, (al. Hom. ix. de Penitentia,) Tom. ἔμφοβοι καὶ ἔντρομοι, κάτω νεύοντες τὸ ὄμμα, ἄν]
[IL p. 356. Ed. Bened.] δὲ τὴν ψυχήν” στενάζοντες ἀφώνως ἀλαλάζι [ Διὸ καὶ προσερχόμενοι μὴ ὡς ἐξ ἀνθρώπου τῇ kapdie.—Ibid.]
s wine as a sacrament declaring the same; and the priest as a minister thereof. Wherefore St John Chrysostom meant not absolutely to deny that there is bread and wine, or to deny utterly the priest and the body of Christ to be there; but he useth a speech, which is no pure negative, but a negative by comparison.
Which fashion of speech is commonly used, not only in the scripture, and among all good authors, but also in all manner of languages. For when two things be compared together, in the extolling of the more excellent, or abasing of the more vile, is many times used a negative by comparison, which nevertheless is no pure negative, but only in the respect of the more excellent, or the more base.
As by example. When the people, rejecting the prophet Samuel, desired to have a king, Almighty God said to Samuel: They have not rejected thee, but me.” Not meaning by this negative absolutely, that they had not rejected Samuel, in whose place they desired to have a king, but by that one negative by comparison he understood two affirmatives; that is to say, that they had rejected Samuel, and not him alone, but also that they had chiefly rejected God.
And when the prophet David said in the person of Christ, “I am a worm, and not a man:” by this negative he denied not utterly that Christ was a man; but the more vehemently to express the great humiliation of Christ, he said, that he was not abased only to the nature of man, but was brought so low, that he might rather be called a worm than a man.
This manner of speech was familiar and usual to St Paul, as when he said: “Tt is not I that do it, but it is the sin that dwelleth in me.” And in another place he saith: Christ sent me not to baptize, but to preach the gospel.” ’ And again he saith: My speech and preaching was not in words of man’s persuasion, but in manifest declaration of the Spirit and power.” And he saith also: Neither he that grafteth, nor he that watereth, is any thing, but God that giveth the increase.” And he saith moreover: “It is not I that live, but Christ liveth within me.” And, God forbid that I should rejoice in any thing, but in the cross of our Lord Jesu Christ.” And further: “We do not wrestle against flesh and blood, but against the spirits of darkness.”
In all these sentences, and many other like, although they be negatives, nevertheless St Paul meant not clearly to deny that he did that evil whereof he spake, or utterly to say that he was not sent to baptize, who indeed did baptize at certain times, and was sent to do all things that pertained to sal- vation; or that in his office of setting forth of God’s word he used no witty persuasions, which indeed he used most discreetly; or that the grafter and waterer be nothing, which be God’s creatures made to his similitude, and without whose work there should be no increase; or to say that he was not alive, who both lived, and ran from country to country to set forth God’s glory; or clearly to affirm that he gloried and rejoiced in no other thing than in Christ’s cross, who rejoiced with all men that were in joy, and sorrowed with all that were in sorrow; or to deny utterly that we wrestle against flesh and blood, which cease not daily to wrestle and war against our enemies, the world, the flesh, and the devil In all these sentences, St Paul, as I said, meant not elearly to deny these things, which undoubtedly were all true; but he meant that in comparison of other greater things these smaller were not much to be esteemed, but that the greater things were the chief things to be considered: as that sin committed by his infirmity was rather to be imputed to original sin or corruption of nature, which lay lurking within him, than to his own will and consent: and that although he was sent to baptize, yet he was chiefly sent to preach God’s word; and that although he used wise and dis-
creet persuasions therein, yet the success thereof came principally of the power of God, and of the working of the Holy Spirit; and that although the grafter and waterer of the garden be some things, and do not a little in their offices, yet it is God chiefly that giveth the increase; and that although he lived in this world, yet his chief life, concerning God, was by Christ, whom he had living within him; and that although he gloried in many other things, yea, in his own infirmities, yet his greatest joy was in the redemption by the cross of Christ; and that although our spirit daily fighteth against our flesh, yet our & chief and principal fight is against our ghostly enemies, the subtle and puissant wicked spirits and devils.
The same manner of speech used also St Peter in his first epistle, saying:
That the apparel of women should not be outwardly with braided hair, and setting on of gold, nor in putting on of gorgeous apparel, but that the inward man of the heart should be without corruption.” In which manner of speech he intended not utterly to forbid all braiding of hair, all gold and costly apparel to all women, (for every one must be apparelled according to their condition, state, and degree;) but he meant hereby clearly to condemn all pride and excess in apparel, and to move all women that they should — study to deck their souls inwardly with all virtues, and not to be curious out- wardly to deck and adorn their bodies with sumptuous apparel And our — Saviour Christ himself was full of such manner of speeches. Gather ποῦ unto you,” saith he, “treasure upon earth,” willing thereby rather to set our minds upon heavenly treasure, which ever endureth, than upon earthly treasure, — which by many sundry occasions perisheth, and is taken away from us. And yet worldly treasure must needs be had and possessed of some men, as the person, time, and occasion doth serve.
Likewise he said: When you be brought before kings and princes, think not what and how you shall answer.” Not willing us by this negative, that we should negligently and unadvisedly answer we care not what; but that we should depend of our heavenly Father, trusting that by his Holy Spirit, he will — sufficiently instruct us of answer, rather than to trust of any answer to be devised by our own wit and study.
And in the same manner he spake, when he said: “It is not you that speak, — but it is the Spirit of God that speaketh within you.” For the Spirit of God is he that principally putteth godly words into our mouths, and yet nevertheless we do speak according to his moving.
And to be short, in all these sentences following, that is to say: Call no — man your father upon earth:” Let no man call you lord or master: “Fear ποῦ them that kill the body: I came not to send peace upon earth:” “It is not in me to set you at my right hand or left hand:” You shall not worship the Father, neither in this mount nor in Jerusalem:” “I take no witness at no man:” “My doctrine is not mine:” “I seek not my glory.” In all these negatives, our Saviour Christ spake not precisely and utterly to deny all the foresaid things, but in comparison of them to prefer other things; as to prefer our Father and Lord in heaven above any worldly father, lord, or master in earth, and his fear above the fear of any creature, and his word and gospel above all worldly peace: also to prefer spiritual and inward honour- ing of God in pure heart and mind, above local, corporal, and outward honour, and that Christ preferred his Father’s glory above his own. Ἢ Now forasmuch as I have declared at length the nature and kind of these negative speeches, which be no pure negatives but by comparison, it is easy hereby to make answer to St John Chrysostom, who used this phrase of speech —
most of any author. For his meaning in his foresaid homily was not, that in the celebration of the Lord’s supper is neither bread nor wine, neither priest nor the body of Christ, which the papists themselves must needs confess; but his intent was to draw our minds upward to heaven, that we should not consider so much the bread, wine, and priest, as we should consider his divinity and Holy Spirit given unto us to our eternal salvation.
And therefore in the same place he useth so many times these words, “Think and think not,” willing us by these words that we should not fix our thoughts and minds upon the bread, wine, priest, nor Christ’s body; but to lift up our hearts higher unto his Spirit. and divinity, without the which his body availeth nothing, as he saith himself: “It is the Spirit that giveth life, the flesh availeth nothing.”
And as the same Chrysostom in many places moveth us not to consider the water in baptism, but rather to have respect to the Holy Ghost, received in baptism, and represented by the water; even so doth he in this homily of the holy communion move us to lift up our minds from all visible and corporal. things to things invisible and spiritual.
Insomuch that although Christ was but once crucified, yet would Chrysostom have us to think that we see him daily whipped and scourged before our eyes, and his body hanging upon the cross, and the spear thrust into his side, and the most holy blood to flow out of his side into our mouths. After which manner St Paul wrote to the Galatians, that Christ was painted and crucified before their eyes.
Therefore saith Chrysostom in the same homily a little before the place rehearsed: What dost thou, O man? didst not thou promise to the priest which said, Lift up your minds and hearts; and thou didst answer, We lift them up unto the Lord? Art not thou ashamed and afraid being at that same hour found a lar? A wonderful thing! The table is set forth, furnished with God’s mysteries, the Lamb of God is offered for thee, the priest is careful for thee, spiritual fire cometh out of that heavenly table, the angels seraphin be there present, covering their faces with six wings. All the angelical power with the priest be means and intercessors for thee, a spiritual fire cometh down from heaven, blood in the cup is drunk out of the most pure side unto thy purification. And art not thou ashamed, afraid, and abashed, not endeavouring thyself to purchase God’s mercy? O man, doth not thine own conscience condemn thee? There be in the week one hundred and sixty-eight hours, and God asketh but one of them to be given wholly unto him, and thou consumest that in worldly business, in trifling and talking: with what boldness then shalt thou come to these holy mysteries? O corrupt - eonscience!1”. Hitherto I have rehearsed St John Chrysostom’s words, which do shew
[[ Τί ποιεῖς, ἄνθρωπε; οὐχ ὑπέσχου τῷ ἱερεῖ ἱερέως ὑπὲρ coU πρεσβευουσῶν, τοῦ πυρὸς τοῦ]
[εἰπόντι, ἄνω σχῶμεν ἡμῶν τὸν νοῦν καὶ τὰς καρ- πνευματικοῦ κατερχομένου, τοῦ αἵματος ἐν τῷ]
[δίας, καὶ εἶπας, ἔχομεν πρὸς τὸν Κύριον; οὐ φοβῇ, κρατῆρι εἰς σὴν κάθαρσιν ἐκ τῆς ἀχράντου πλευ-]
[οὐκ ἐρυθριᾷς κατ αὐτὴν τὴν φοβερὰν ὥραν Ψψεύ- pas κενουμένου, οὐ φοβῇ, οὐκ ἐρυθριᾷς καὶ κατὰ]
[or ὑρόμενος; βαβαὶ τοῦ θαύματος. τῆς ταύτην τὴν φοβερὰν ὥραν ψεύστης εὑρισκόμενος;]
[τραπέζης τῆς μυστικῆς ἐξηρτισμένης, τοῦ ἀμνοῦ ἑκατὸν ἑξήκοντα ὁκτὼ ὥρας ἐχούσης τῆς é(90o-]
[Tov Θεοῦ ὑπὲρ σοῦ σφαγιαζομένου, τοῦ ἱερέως μάδος, μίαν καὶ μόνην ὥραν ἀφώρισεν ἑαυτῷ ὁ]
[ὑπὲρ σοῦ ἀγωνιζομένου, πυρὸς πνευματικοῦ ἐκ Θεός” καὶ ταύτην εἰς πράγματα βιωτικὰ καὶ εἰς]
[τῆς ἀχράντου ἀναβλύζοντος τραπέζης, τῶν χερου- γελοῖα καὶ εἰς συντυχίας ἀναλίσκεις; μετὰ ποίας]
[Bip παρισταμένων, καὶ τῶν σεραφὶμ ἱπταμένων, λοιπὸν παῤῥησίας τοῖς μυστηρίοις προσέρχῃ: μετὰ]
[ξτργ ὰ πρόσωπα κατακαλυπτόν- ποίου συνειδότος μεμολυσμένου:; — Chrysost. De]
[τῶν; πασῶν τῶν ἀσωμάτων δυναμέων μετὰ τοῦ Eucharistia, ubi supra, p. 349.]]
how our minds should be occupied at this holy table of our Lord, that is to say, withdrawn from the consideration of sensible things unto the contemplation of most heavenly and godly things. And thus is answered this place of Chrysostom, which the papists took for an insoluble, and a place that no man was able to answer. But for further! declaration of Chysostom’s mind in this matter read the place of him before rehearsed, fol. 26 and 28.
Winchester
Answering to Chrysostom, this author complaineth, as he did in Cyprian, of malicious leaving out of that, which when it is brought in, doth nothing impair that went before. Chrysostom would we should consider the secret truth of this mystery, where Christ is the invisible priest, and ministereth in the visible church by his visible minister, the visible priest, whereof Chrysostom would by his words put us in remembrance; mot denying thereby the visible ministry, mo more than he doth in his other words deny the visible form of bread, and yet would not that we should look only wpon that, but whither faith directeth wus, that is to say, upon the very body of Christ there invisibly present, which faith knoweth, and knoweth it to be there the very body, and there therefore to be mo bread, which bread this true confession of Christ’s body present by faith excludeth. But touching the priest, St Chry-sostom’s words do by mo mean teach us that there is mo visible priest, but to think that the body of Christ is delivered of Christ’s hands, which excludeth not in like sort the minister visible, as faith doth the substance invisible? of bread in the sacrament. The one saying in Chrysostom is a godly exhortation according to the truth, the other is a doctrine of faith in the truth: — we be mot taught that the priest is Christ, but we be taught that the substance of the bread is made Christ’s body. And then the question, in the words of Chrysostom, Seest thou bread?” is as much to say as, Rememberest thy faith; as being one of the faithful that know? which term St Augustine used. And then Chrysostom, to confirm our faith in so high a mystery, — declareth how we should think Christ to deliver his body himself, as a thing far exceeding man’s power to do it. And with other heavenly words setteth forth the greatness of that mystery, which be words of godly and good meditation, convenient for so high a matter to adorn it accordingly; which because they be wholesome and meet allegories, wherewith to draw and lift wp our minds to celestial thoughts, we may mot thereby esteem the substance of that — mystery to be but in allegory. Here instead of a solution the author filleth three whole leaves with proof of that is not necessary, how a denial by comparison is mot utterly a denial, which is indeed true. And as one was answered at Cambridge when he pressed the responsal, — What say ye to mine argument?” which was mot indeed of his making: the responsal left — his Latin, and told the opponent before all his country friends in plain English: It is a — good argument, sir,” quoth he, “but nothing to the purpose.” And so is the entreating of this matter of denial by comparison good, but nothing to the purpose here: and it is an observation that requireth good judgment, or else may thereby be induced many absurdities. Chry- — sostom, as I said before, speaking to the christian man, seemeth to ask whether he useth his faith or mo. For if he seeth bread, he seeth mot with faith, which seeth the body of Christ there present, and so no bread. If the christian man think of a passage through him of the — celestial food, he hath therein mo spiritual thought such as faith engendereth, and therefore saith Chrysostom, absit. Here in these words of Chrysostom is mo denial with comparison, and therefore this author might have spared his treatise in these three leaves. For im those words, when Chrysostom saith, Think not thou receivest the body of Christ by a man;” there this author meglecteth 6 his own rule, as in his third book he maketh a solem argument ὦ that by those, St Chrysostom’s words, we receive not the body of Christ at all, seeing Chrysostom saith, we may mot think we receive it by man. So little substantially is this matter ὦ handled, as a man might say, here were many accidental words without a substance or miracle, ὦ how strange soever the same seem to this author otherwise. 1 [ A further, 1551, and Orig. ed.] [ With words of, 1551.] o [2 i. e. p. 273 and 286 of this volume.] [5 Of his own making, Orig. ed. Winch.] 4
[[? A mistake apparently for visible.] [5 So neglecteth, Ibid.]]
Canterbury
I complained not of your crafty handling of Chrysostom without a just cause; for when you had alleged the words that seemed to make for your purpose, you left out the words that make clearly against you, or which words at the least would open all the whole matter. And yet the words which you leave out, follow immediately the words by you alleged.
And where to discuss this whole matter you say in the beginning, that Chrysostom doth not deny the visible minister, no more than he doth the visible form of bread; here at the first chop you use another policy, not much commendable, altering prettily the words of Chrysostom, making of bread the form of bread. For Chrysostom speaketh of bread and wine, and not of the forms and accidents of them. And if the bread be no more but the visible accidents of bread, then is the minister also no more but the visible accidents of a minister, and so is the priest nothing else but the puppy of a priest. And then the communicants receive no bread of the priest, but a puppy of bread of a puppy of a priest. For Chrysostom speaketh in like form of words of the bread, as he doth of the priest, with these words, ’ Think not.” Think not that thou seest bread,” “think not that thou receivest of a priest.” And therefore if this form of speech exclude the substance of bread, it excludeth likewise the substance of the priest. And if the priest remain still, notwithstanding that speech, then may the bread remain also with the same speech. And if your argument be good, there is Christ’s body, ergo there is no bread; then may I conclude in the same form of reasoning, there is bread, ergo there is not Christs body. And so this author maketh nothing for you, but overthroweth your foundation clean, both of transubstantiation and of the real presence.
But to make the mind of Chrysostom somewhat more plain, he teacheth them that come to that holy mystery, with what things their minds should be chiefly occupied, not about earthly and visible things but about things celestial and invisible, and not to consider so much what we see with our eyes, as what we believe in our hearts, not so much what we receive bodily, as what we receive spiritually. And he teacheth not only what we should think we receive, but also of whom we should think to receive it, saying, “When you come to the mysteries, do not think that you receive by a man the body of God, but that you receive fire by the angel seraphin. The thing that we receive,” saith he, is not the body of God, and the person of whom we receive is not a man,” like as before immediately he said, that the thing which we see is not bread.” Now if it be not bread in deed that is seen, then it is not the. body of Christ in deed that is received, nor he is not a priest in deed of whom we receive it: and on the other side, if it be the very body of Christ that is received, and a very man of whom it is received, then it is very bread in deed that is seen. And where becometh then your transubstantiation?
But to declare briefly and plainly the very truth according to the mind of Chrysostom, as we see with our eyes and eat with our mouths very bread, and see also and drink very wine, so we lift up our hearts unto heaven, and with our faith we see Christ crucified with our spiritual eyes, and eat his flesh thrust through with a spear, and drink his blood springing out of his side with our spiritual mouths of our faith. And as Emissene said, “When we go to the reverend altar to feed upon spiritual meat, with our faith we look upon him that is both God and man, we honour him, we touch him with our minds, we take him with the hands of our hearts, and drink him with the draught of our inward man?” So that although we see and eat sensibly very bread and drink very wine, and spiritually eat and drink Christ’s very flesh and blood, yet may we not rest there, but lift up our minds to his deity, without the which his flesh availeth nothing, as he saith himself. Further answer needeth not to any thing that you have here spoken. For every learned reader may see at the first shew, that all that you have spoken is nothing else but very trifling in words.
Now followeth St Ambrose. e [ See p. 269.]
Yet there is another place of St Ambrose, which the papists think maketh much for their purpose, but after due examination, it shall plainly appear how much they be deceived. They allege these words of St Ambrose in a book entitled, De is, qui initiantur Mysteriis: Let us prove that there is not that thing which nature formed, but which benediction did consecrate; and that benediction is of more strength than nature: for by the blessing nature itself is also changed. Moses held a rod, he cast it from him and it was made a serpent. Again he took the serpent by the tail, and it was turned again into the nature of a rod. Wherefore thou seest, that by the grace οὗ the prophet the nature of the serpent and rod was twice changed. The floods of Egypt ran pure water, and suddenly blood began to burst out οὗ the veins of the springs, so that men could not drink of the flood: but at the prayer of the prophet the blood of the flood went away, and the nature of Water came again. The people of the Hebrews were compassed about, on the one side with the Egyptians, and on the other side with the sea: Moses lifted up his rod, the water divided itself and stood up like a wall and between the waters was left a way for them to pass on foot. And Jordan against nature turned back to the head of his spring. Doth it not appear now, that the nature of the sea-floods, or of the course of fresh water, was changed? The people was dry, Moses touched a stone, and water came out of the stone. Did not grace here work above nature, to make the stone to bring forth the water, which it had not of nature? Marath was a most bitter flood, so that the people being dry could not drink thereof. Moses put wood into the water, and the nature of the water lost his bitterness, which grace infused did suddenly moderate. In the time of Heliseus the prophet, an axe-head fell from one of the prophet’s servants into the water: he that lost the iron desired the prophet Heliseus’ help, who put the helve into the water, and the iron swam above. Which thing we know was done above nature, for iron is heavier than the liquor of water. Thus we perceive that grace is of more force than nature; and yet hitherto we have rehearsed but the grace of the blessing of the prophets. Now if the blessing of a man be of such value, that it may change nature, what do we say of the consecration of God, wherein is the operation of the words of our Saviour Christ? For this sacrament which thou receivest is done by the word of Christ. Then if the word of Elias was of such power that it could bring fire down from heaven, shall not the word of Christ be of that power, to change the kinds of the elements? Of the making of the whole world thou hast read, that God spake, and the things were done, he commanded and they were created.” The word then of Christ, that could of no things make things that were not, can it not change those things that be into that thing which before they were not? For it is no less matter to give to things new nature, than to alter natures.”
[[! Quantis igitur utimur exemplis, ut probemus cumclusus undique erat populus Hebreorum,]
[non hoc esse quod natura formavit, sed quod be- hine /Egyptiis vallatus, inde mari clausus: virgam]
[nedictio consecravit, majoremque vim esse bene- levavit Moyses, separavit se aqua, et in murorum]
[dictionis quam nature, quia benedictione etiam speciem congelavit, atque inter undas via pedes-]
[natura ipsa mutatur? Virgam tenebat Moyses, tris apparuit. Jordanis retrorsum conversus contra -]
[projecit eam, et facta est serpens. Rursus appre- naturam in sui fontis revertitur exordium. Nonne]
[hendit caudam serpentis, et in virge naturam re- claret naturam vel maritimorum fluctuum vel flu-]
[vertit. Vides igitur prophetica gratia bis muta- vialis cursus esse mutatam? Sitiebat populus]
[tam esse naturam et serpentis et virgze? Currebant patrum, tetigit Moyses petram, et aqua de petra -]
[JEgypti flumina puro aquarum meatu, subito de fluxit, Numquid non preter naturam operata]
[fontium venis sanguis cepit erumpere. Non erat est gratia, ut aquam vomeret petra, quam nom]
[potus in fluviis. Rursus ad prophet preces cruor habebat natura? Marath fons amarissimus erat, -]
[cessavit luminum, aquarum natura remeavit. Cir- ut sitiens populus bibere non posset. Misit Moyses -]
AGAINST TRANSUBSTANTIATION. Fa Thus far have I rehearsed the words of St Ambrose, (if the said book be his, which they that be of greatest learning and judgment do not think;) by which words the papists would prove, that in the supper of the Lord, after the words of consecration, as they be commonly called, there remaineth neither bread nor wine, because that St Ambrose saith in this place, that the nature of the bread and wine is changed.”,
But to satisfy their minds, let us grant for their pleasure, that the foresaid book was St Ambrose own work: yet the same book maketh nothing for their purpose, but quite against them. For he saith not, that the substance of bread and wine is gone, but he saith, that their nature is changed;” that is to say, that in the holy communion we ought not to receive the bread and wine as other common meats and drinks, but as things clean changed into a higher estate, nature and condition, to be taken as holy meats and drinks, whereby we receive spiritual feeding and supernatural nourishment from heaven, of the very true body and blood of our Saviour Christ, through the omnipotent power of God, and the wonderful working of the Holy Ghost. Which so well agreeth with the substance of bread and wine still remaining, that if they were gone away, and not there, this our spiritual feeding could not? be taught unto us by them.
And therefore in the most part of the examples, which St Ambrose allegeth for the wonderful alteration of natures, the substances did still remain, after the nature and properties were changed. As when the water of Jordan, contrary to his nature, stood still like a wall, or flowed against the stream towards the head and spring, yet the substance of the water remained the same that it was before. Likewise the stone, that above his nature and kind flowed water, was the self-same stone that it was before. And the flood of Marath, that changed his nature of bitterness, changed for all that no part of his substance. No more did that iron, which eontrary to his nature swam upon the water, lose thereby any part of the substance thereof. Therefore, as in these alterations of natures the substances nevertheless remained the same that they were before the alterations, even so doth the substance of bread and wine remain in the Lord’s supper, and be naturally received and digested into the body, notwithstanding the sacramental mutation of the same into the body and blood of Christ. Which sacramental mutation declareth the supernatural, spiritual, and inexplicable eating and drinking, feeding and digesting, of the body? and blood of Christ, in all them that godly, and according to their duty, do receive the sacramental bread and wine.
And that St Ambrose thus meant, that the substance of bread and wine remain still after the consecration, it is most clear by three other examples of the same matter, following in the same chapter. One is of them that be regenerated, in whom, after their regeneration, doth still remain their former
[d, lignum in aquam, et amaritudinem suam aquarum quod accipis, Christi sermone conficitur. Quod si]
[natura deposuit, quam infusa subito gratia tem- tantum valuit sermo Elie, ut ignem de cclo de-]
[peravit. Sub Eliseo propheta uni ex filis pro- poneret; non valebit Christi sermo, ut species]
[phetarum excussum est ferrum de securi, et statim mutet elementorum? De totius mundi operibus]
[mersum est. Rogavit Eliseum qui amiserat fer- legisti, Quia ipse dixit, et facta sunt: ipse]
[rum, misit etiam Eliseus lignum in aquam, et mandavit, et creata sunt,” Sermo ergo Christi qui]
[ferrum natavit: utique et hoc preter naturam fac- potuit ex nihilo facere quod non erat, non potest]
[tum esse cognoscimus. Gravior est enim ferri ea qua sunt in id mutare quod non erant? Non]
[species, quam aquarum liquor. Advertimus igitur enim minus est novas rebus dare quam mutare]
[majoris esse virtutis gratiam quam naturam ὃ et naturas.— Ambros. de lnitiandis, cap. ix. Tom.]
[adhuc tamen prophetic benedictionis numeramus IV. p. 166. Ed. Col Agrip. 1616. Vide supra,]
[gratiam, Quod si tantum valuit humana bene- p. 210, note 8.]]
[dictio, ut naturam converteret; quid dicimus de [? Ed. 1580 omits the word not. ]]
[1psa consecratione divina, ubi verba ipsa Domini [3 Of the same body, Orig. ed.]]
[Salvatoris operantur? Nam sacramentum istud [ The said sacramental bread, Ibid.]]
natural substance. Another is of the incarnation of our Saviour Christ, in the which perished no substance, but remained as well the substance of his Godhead, as the substance which he took of the blessed virgin Mary. The third example is of the water in baptism, where the water still remaineth water, although the Holy Ghost come upon the water, or rather upon him that is baptized therein.
And although the same St Ambrose, in another book entitled de Sacramentis, doth say that “the bread is bread before the words of consecration, but when the consecration is done, of bread is made the body of Christ!:” yet in the same book and in the same chapter, he telleth in what manner and form the same is done by the words of Christ; not by taking away the substance of the bread, but adding to the bread. the grace of Christ’s body, and so calling it the — body. of Christ.
And hereof he bringeth four examples. The first of the regeneration of a man: the second is of the standing of the water of the Red Sea: the third is of the bitter water of Marath: and the fourth is of the iron that swam above the water. In every of the which examples, the former substance remained still notwithstanding alteration of the natures. And he concludeth the whole matter in these few words: “If there be so much strength in the words of the Lord Jesu, that things had their beginning which never were before, how much more be they able to work, that those things that were before should remain, and also be changed into other things??” Which words do shew manifestly, that notwithstanding this wonderful sacramental and spiritual chang- — ing of the bread into the body of Christ, yet the substance of the bread remaineth the same that it was before.
Thus is a sufficient answer made unto three principal authorities, which the papists use to allege, to stablish their error of transubstantiation: the first of Cyprian, the second of St John Chrysostom, and the third of St Ambrose. Other authorities and reasons some of them do bring for the same purpose; but forasmuch as they be of small moment and weight, and easy to be answered unto, I will pass them over at this time, and not trouble the reader with them, but leave them to be weighed by his discretion.
WINCHESTER. 1 Now let us hear what this author will say to St Ambrose. He rehearseth him of good: length, but translateth him for advantage. As among other, in one place where St Ambrose saith, This sacrament, which thow receivest, is made by the word of Christ; this author ὦ translateth, Is done by the word of Christ,” because making must be understanded in the substance. of the sacrament chiefly before 4t is received, and doing may be referred to the effect chiefly: for which purpose it should seem the author of this book cammot away with the - word “made,” whereat it pleaseth him in another place of this book to be merry, as at an absurdity in the papists, when indeed both St Ambrose here, St Cyprian and St Hierome also in their places use the same word, speaking of this sacrament, and of the wonderful work - of God in ordaining the substance of it, by such a conversion as bread is made the body of Christ. But as touching the answer of this author to St Ambrose, it is divers. For first -
[[! Sed panis iste panis est ante verba sacramen- Ergo sermo Christi hoc conficit sacramentum.—]
[torum: ubi accesserit consecratio, de pane fit caro Ambros. de Sacramentis, Lib. 1v. cap. iv. Tom. -]
[Christi. Hoc igitur adstruamus. Quomodo potest IV. p. 173. Ed. Col. Agrip. 1616. Vide supra, -]
[qui panis est, corpus esse Christi? Consecratione. p. 210, note 8.] 3]
[Consecratio igitur quibus verbis est, et cujus ser- [3 Ambros. Ibid. Tom. IV. p. 173.] “m]
[monibus? Domini Jesu. Nam reliqua omnia qua [3 Si ergo tanta vis est in sermone Domini Jesu,]
[dicuntur, laudem Deo deferunt: oratio premittitur ut inciperent esse qua non erant: quanto magis]
[pro populo, pro regibus, pro ceteris: ubi venitur ut operatorius est, ut quae erant, in aliud commuten-]
[conficiatur venerabile sacramentum, jam non suis tur!—Ib. Lib. rv. cap. iv. Tom. IV. p. 172.]]
[sermonibus sacerdos, sed utitur sermonibus Christi, €]
AGAINST TRANSUBSTANTIATION. a he doth traverse the authority of the book, which allegation hath been by other heretofore made, and answered unto in such wise, as the book remaineth St Ambrose’s still; and Melanc- - thon saith it seemeth mot to him unlike his, and therefore allegeth this very place out of him against QEcolampadius. This author will not stick in that allegation, but for answer saith, that “δὲ Ambrose saith not that the substance of the bread and wine is gone?” and that is true, he saith not so in syllables, but he saith so in sense, because he speaketh so plainly of a change in the bread into that it was mot; whereunto this author for declaration of change saith: the bread and wine be changed into an higher estate, nature, and condition,” which three words of “estate” “nature,” and “condition,” be good words to express the change of the bread into the body of Christ, which body is of another mature, another state and condition, than the substance of the bread, without comparison higher.
But then this author addeth, “to be taken as holy meats and drinks ” wherein if he mean to be taken so, but not to be so, as his teaching in other places of this book is, the bread to be never the holier, but to signify an holy thing; then is the change nothing in deed touching the nature, but only as a coward may be changed in apparel to play Hercules or Samson’s part in a play, himself thereby made never the hardier man at all, but only appointed to signify an hardy man; of which man’s change, although his estate and condition might in speech be called changed” for the time of the play, yet no man would term it thus to say, his nature were changed, whether he meant by the word nature” the substance of the man’s nature or property; for in these two points he were still the same man in Hercules’ coat, that he was before the play in his own: so as if there be nothing but a figure in the bread, then for 80 much this author’s other teaching in this book where he saith, “the bread is never the holier,” is a doctrine better than this, to teach a change of the bread to a higher nature, when it is only appointed to signify an holy thing. And therefore this author’s answer, garnished with these three gay words of estate,” nature,” and condition,” is devised but for a shift, such as agreeth mot with other places of this book, nor itself neither. And where St Ambrose marvelleth at God’s work in the substance of the sacrament, this author shifteth that also to the effect im him that receiveth, which is also marvellous in deed; but the substance of the sacrament is by St Ambrose specially marvelled at, how bread is made the body of Christ, the visible matter outwardly remaining, and only by an inward change, which is of the inward nature, called properly substance in learning, and a substance in deed, but perceived only by understanding, as the substance present of Christ’s most precious body is a very substance in deed of the body invisibly present, but present in deed, and only understanded by most true and certain knowledge of faith. And although this author noteth, how in the examples of mutations brought in by St Ambrose the substances nevertheless remained the same, that skilleth not: for the wonder of those marvels serve for an induction to relieve the weak faith of man in this miracle of the sacrament, and to repress the arrogancy of reason, presuming 844, to search such knowledge in God’s secret works, whereof if there might be a reason given, it meedeth mo faith. And where there is a like, there is mo singularity, as this miracle in the sacrament is notably singular, and therefore none other found like unto it. The sacramental mutation, which this author newly so termeth, is a mere shift to avoid, among such as be not learned, the truth of God’s miracle in this change, which is in deed such as St Ambrose - speaketh of, that of bread is made the body of Christ; which St Ambrose in another place - termeth it the grace of the body of Christ: and all is one, for it is a great grace to have the body of Christ for our food present there. And out of Christ’s mouth calling the body of - Christ is making the body of Christ: which words “calling,” signifying,” naming,” used - dn St Ambrose’s writings, do not limit Christ’s words, and restrain them to an only calling, — «n only signifying, or an only naming, but give an understanding agreeable to other of St Ambrose’s words, that shew the bread after consecration to be the body of Christ, the calling to be understanded a real calling of the thing that so is made, and likewise a real signifying of the thing in deed present, and a real naming as the thing is in deed; as Christ was named Jesus, because he is the Saviour of his people in deed. And thus perusing this author’s answers, I trust I have noted to the reader, with how small substance of matter this author impugneth transubstantiation, and how slenderly he goeth about to answer such authors as by their several writings confirm the same, besides the consent of Christendom universally receiving [ Ego hos libellos video non admodum dissimiles circiter illa tempora natos esse. Melancth, in afterwards he adds: Sed ut non sint Ambrosii, ( By inward understanding. Orig. ed. Winch.] esse aliorum Ambrosii scriptorum. But presently (Ecolampadii Dialog. p. 53.]
[. (sunt enim sic satis confuse scripti,) apparet tamen]
[i [ cRANMER.] 31]
the same; and how, in the mean way, this author hath by his own hands pulled down the —— same untrue doctrine of the figurative speech, that himself so lately hath devised; or rather, because this matter in his book goeth before, he hath in his second book marred his frame, or ever he cometh to the third book to set it wp.
Canterbury
Oh, what a capital crime is here committed, that I have Englished this word, conficere, “to do,” whose proper signification is, to accomplish, or, make an end of ἃ thing! which being once brought to pass, we use in common speech to say, “I have done:” as, “I have done my house,” “I have done my book,” “I have done my work,” [ have done my day’s journey;” that is to say, “I have perfectly done and finished.” — And is not this fully as much in speech, as to say, I have made my day’s journey,” or, “I have made my house, or my book?” But some fault you must find, where none is, partly to keep in use your old custom of calumniation, and partly to satisfy a new toy that you have in your head, that making is in the substance of the sacrament, and doing is in the effect. But whether it be translate “making” or “doing,” St Ambrose spake of the wonderful effectual working of God in the use and ministration of the sacraments, and that as well in baptism as in the Lord’s supper, and not of his working in the substances of the elements reserved. As for the authority of the book, I stand not in it, so that all your words therein be more than needeth, but to length your book; and yet was the book never allowed amongst men learned and of judgment to be St Ambroses..And Melancthon, whom you allege for the allowance of it, giveth it two nips, which you have left out of purpose, to serve your affection. For he saith not, as you report, that it seemeth not to him unlike, but that it seemeth not to him far unliké; and yet he confesseth that it is confusedly written,” which is a slender approbation that it should be St Ambrose.
And where you confess that St Ambrose saith not in words, that the substances of bread and wine be gone, and yet saith so in effect, because he speaketh of change, either you know that your argument is naught, and yet bring it in purposely to deceive some simple reader; or your ignorance is more than I would have thought, that of this word change” would argue change in substance, as though there could be no change but it must be in substance. But if you had well considered the examples of St Ambrose by me alleged, which he bringeth forth for the proofs and similitudes the.. Of the change of bread and wine in the sacrament, you should have found that in al the said examples remain the substances, notwithstanding the change: as in the water of Jordan staying to run after the natural course, in the dry stone that contrary. to his nature flowed out water, in the bitter water of Marath that was turned into. sweetness, in the iron that contrary to nature swam above the water, in the spiritual generation of man above all natural operation, in the sacramental mutation of the - water of baptism, and in the incarnation of our Saviour Christ; which all being brought by St Ambrose for example of the change in bread and wine, as in them the substances ^ remained, notwithstanding the changes, so is it in the bread and wine, whereof other, were brought for examples. 3 But in your handling here of St Ambrose, you seem to be utterly ignorant, and not to know difference between sacramental signs, in the use whereof Almighty God inwardly worketh, and other vain signs which be nothing else but outward shews to the eye. For if you understood the matter, would you resemble a knave playing in 4 a princes coat, in whom nothing is inwardly wrought or altered, unto a man being baptized in water, who hath put upon him outwardly water, but inwardly is apparelled with Christ, and is by the ommnipotent working of God spiritually regenerated and changed into a new man? Or would you compare him that banqueteth at a feast > represent an anniversary, or triumph, unto that man that in remembrance of Christ’s death eateth. and drinketh at his holy supper, giving thanks for his redemption, and comforting himself with the benefit thereof? If you have this opinion and veneration of the sacraments, it is well known what spirit you have, how ignorant you be, ar 1
“what is to be judged of you, And if you have no such opinion, becometh it you then to dally with such profane examples, tending to the profanation of the sacraments, and deceiving of the readers?
And as for the holiness of bread, I say now as I said before, that neither bread, wine, nor water have any capacity of holiness; but holiness is only in the receivers, and by the bread, water, and wine is sacramentally signified. And therefore the marvellous alteration to an higher estate, nature, and condition, is chiefly and principally in the persons, and in the sacramental signs it is none otherwise but sacramentally and in signification. And whether this be matter of truth, or a thing devised only for a shift, let the reader judge.
And where you say in your further answer to St Ambrose, that the visible matter of the bread outwardly remaineth, it seemeth you have not well marked the words of St Ambrose, who saith that the words of Christ changeth species elementorum. And then if species, as you have said before in many places, signify the visible matter, then the visible matter remaineth not, as you say, but is changed, as St Ambrose saith. And so St Ambrose’s words, that species elementorum. mutantur, be clean contrary to your words, that the visible matter remaineth. I will pass over here how you call accidents of bread the matter of bread, against all order of speech, because I have touched that matter sufficiently before.
And yet this is not to be passed over, but to be noted by the way, how plainly St Ambrose speaketh against the papists, which say that the body and blood of Christ remain sub speciebus panis et vini, “under the forms of bread and wine.” And St Ambrose saith, that species elementorum. mutantur, the forms of bread and wine be changed.”
And where you say, that in the examples of mutation brought in by St Ambrose, although the substance remain stil the same, yet that skilleth not:” your answer here seemeth very strange, to say that that thing skilleth not, which skilleth altogether, and maketh the whole matter. For if in the examples the substances remain, notwithstanding the mutation of the natures by benediction, then do not these examples prove, that the substance of bread and wine remain not. And if this were singular from the examples, as you say it is, then were not the other examples of this. For - if the substances remain in them, how can they be brought for examples to prove - that the substances of bread and wine remain not? when they be brought for examples, and things that be like, and not that the one should be singular, and unlike from the other. And where you allege this place of St Ambrose for you, nothing can “be spoken more directly against you. For the natures,” saith St Ambrose, of bread and wine be changed.” “And the nature,” say you, “is the outward visible - forms;” and “that that is changed remaineth not,” say you also: and so followeth then, — that the substances of bread and wine remain, and not the outward visible forms; which ἰδ directly against your feigned transubstantiation, and against all that you said hitherto — eoncerning that matter. — And where a “sacramental mutation” is to you a new term, it declareth nothing else but your ignorance in the matter. And although you seem to be ignorant in other authors, yet if you had expended diligently but one chapter of St Ambrose, you should have found three examples of this sacramental mutation, wherein the substances remain entire and whole: one is in the sacrament of Christ’s incarnation, another is in a person that is baptized, and the third in the water of baptism; which three examples I alleged in my book, but you thought it better slightly to pass them over, than to trouble your brain with answering to them.
And where you say, that “calling bread the body of Christ is making it in deed the body of Christ, as Christ was called J esus, because he is the Saviour of all men indeed,” here it appeareth, that you consider not the nature of a sacrament. For when sacraments be named or called by the names of the things which they signify, yet they be not the same things indeed, but be so called, as St Augustine saith, “because they have some similitude or likeness to the things which they be called.” But Christ was called Jesus our Saviour, as the very true Saviour in deed; not as a sacrament or figure of salvation, as the bread is the sacrament of Christ’s flesh, and wine the 21—2
sacrament of his blood, by which names they be called, and yet be not the very things in deed.
Thus have I answered to the chief authors which you allege for transubstantiation, making your own authors not only to overthrow your building, but to dig up your foundation clean from the bottom, and nothing is left you but arrogancy of mind, and boasting of words, as men say that you still fancy with yourself, and brag that you be bishop of Winchester, even as a captain that glorieth in his folly, when he hath lost his castle with ordnance and all that he had.
And at length you be driven to your church, which you call the consent of Christendom universal, when it is no more but the papistical church, that defendeth your transubstantiation.
Now declareth my book the absurdities that follow the error of transubstantiation.
And now I will rehearse divers difficulties, absurdities, and inconveniences, of which must needs follow upon this error of transubstantiation, whereof not one doth follow of the true and right faith, which is according to God’s word.
First, if the papists be demanded, what thing it is that is broken, what is eaten, what is drunken, and what is chawed with the teeth, lips, and mouth in this sacrament, they have nothing to answer, but the accidents. For, as they say, “bread and wine be not the visible elements in this sacrament, but only their accidents.” And so they be forced to say, that accidents be broken, eaten, drunken, chawn, and swallowed without any substance at all: which is not only against all reason, but also against the doctrine of all ancient authors.
Winchester
In the second volume of the forty-third leaf, the author goeth about to mote siz absurdities in the doctrine of transubstantiation, which I intend also to peruse. The first is this.
First, if the papists be demanded,”
This is accompted by this author the first absurdity amd inconvenience, which is by him rhetorically set forth with lips, and mouth, and chawing, not substantial terms to the matter, but accidental. For opening of which matter, I will repeat some part again of that I have written before, when I made the scholar answer the rude man in declaration of substance; which is, that albeit that sensible thing which in speech uttered after the capacity of common wnderstanding is called substance, be comprehended of our senses, yet the inward nature of every thing which is in learning properly called substance, is not so distinctly known of ws, as we be able to shew it to the senses, or by words of difference to distinct in divers kinds of things — one substance from another. And herein, as Basil saith, “If we should go about by separatio of all the accidents to discern the substance by itself alone, we should in the experience fail o our purpose, and end vin nothing indeed3.” There is a natural consideration of the abstract, that cannot be practised in experience. And to me if it were asked of common bread, when we break it, whether we break the substance or only the accidents? first I must learnedly say, if the substance be broken, it is by mean of the accident in quantity; and then if it liked me te take my pleasure without learning in philosophy, as this author doth in divinity against the catholic faith, to say in division we break mot the substance of bread at all, the heresy d philosophy were mot of such absurdity, as this author maintaineth in divinity. For I have some probable matter to say for me, whereas he hath none. For my strange answer I would say, that albeit a natural thing as bread, consisting of matter and essential form with quantity, and thereby other accidents cleaving and annexed, may be well said to be in the whole broken, as we see by experience it i$; yet speaking of the substamce of it alone, if ome should ask whether that be broken, and it should be answered, “Yea,” then should the substance appear broken and whole all at one time, seeing in every broken piece of bread is a whole substance of bread. [! Vide supra. ] ἐνυπαρχουσῶν αὐτῇ ποιοτήτων ὑπεξαιρεῖσθαι Td [3 The whole passage stands in the Orig. ed. λόγῳ wepwpuevos.— Basil. in Hexameron. Homil.
[Winch.] Tom. I. p. 9. Ed. Paris. 1721.] - [? Eis οὐδὲν γὰρ καταλήξεις ἑκάστην τῶν Ao]
1 ^. AGAINST TRANSUBSTANTIATION. 395 and where the piece of bread broken is so little a crumb, as can no more in deed be divided, we say nevertheless the same to be in substance very bread, and for want of convenient quantity bread invisible: and thus I write to shew that such an answer, to say the accidents be broken, hath no such clear absurdity as this author would have it seem. But leaving of the matter of philosophy to the schools, I will grant that accidents to be without substance is against the eommon course of natural things, and therefore therein is a special miracle of God. But when the accidents be by miracle without substance, (as they be in the visible part of the sacrament,) then the same accidents to be broken, eaten, and drunken, with all additions this author for his pleasure maketh therein, is no miracle or marvel, and as for absurdity no point at all, for by quantity which remaineth is all division. We ought to confess, and good christian men do profess, the mystery of the sacrament to be supernatural, and above the order of nature; and therefore it is a travail in vain to frame the consideration of it to agree with the terms of philosophy. But where this author saith that nothing can be answered to be broken but the accidents: yes, verily, for in time of contention, as this is, to him that would ask what is broken, I would in other terms answer thus, That thou seest is broken. And then if he would ask further, what that is? I would tell him, The visible matter of the sacrament, under which is present invisibly the substance of the most precious body of Christ. If he will ask yet further, Is that body of Christ broken? I will say, No. For I am learned in faith, that that glorious body now im- passible cannot be divided or broken, and therefore it is whole in every part of that is broken, as the substance of bread is in common bread in every part that is broken. According whereunto it is in the book of common prayer set forth, how in each part of that is broken of the eonsecrate bread is the whole body of our Saviour Christs. If this questioner be further curious, and say, Is not that that is broken bread? I would answer as a believing man by faith, Truly no. For in faith I must call it, because it is truly so, the body of Christ invisibly there, and the breaking to be not in it, but in the visible figure. Yea, ye will call it so, saith this questioner, but yet it is bread. Nay, quoth I, my faith is a most certain truth, and believeth things as they verily bes for Christ’s word is of strength, not only to shew and declare as other men’s. words do, but therewith effectual to make it so to be, as it is by him called. And this I write because, howsoever clerks soberly entreat the matter, (such as mind well, I mean, to consider accidents and substance, which terms the rude understand τοί.) it is not necessary therefore in those terms to make answer to such as be contentiously curious, who labour with questions to dissolve the truth of the mystery; in declaration whereof if we as men stumble and term it otherwise than we should, that is mo inconvenience in the mystery, but an imperfection in us that be not able to express it, not having such gifts of God as other have, nor studying to attain learning as other have done. And whatsoever in schools, with a devout mind to answer all captious questions, hath for the exercitation of men’s senses been moved soberly and by way of argument objected, that is now picked out by this author, and brought to the common peoples ears, in which it might sound evil, they not being able to make answer thereunto, whereby they might be snarled and entangled with vain fancies against that truth, which before without curiosity of questions they truly and constantly believed. Finally, the doctrine of the sacraent is simple and plain, to have the visible forms of bread and wine for signification, the thing whereof is the very body and blood of Christ; which being the truth of the whole, it is mo absurdity to confess truly the parts as they be, if occasion require, howsoever it soundeth - to the ethnick or carnal man’s ears, for whose satisfaction there is no cause why the truth should be altered into a lie, wherewith to make melody to their understandings. For how- - soever carnal reason be offended with spiritual truth, it forceth not; but against the whole consent of the ancient doctors mo doctrine can be justified, with whose testimony how the Jaith of the church in the sacrament mow agreeth, it is manifest, howsoever it liketh this author to report the contrary.
Canterbury
Here may the reader perceive how much you sweat and labour, so that it pitieth me to see what travail you take, babbling many things nothing to the purpose, to answer my first absurdity. And yet at the end you be enforced to affirm all that I. [ That is broken is the whole body. Orig. ed. whole body of our Saviour Jesu Christ.” The Winch.] Order of the Communion, 1548, p. 10. (Parker
[x [^ And men must not think less to be received Society’s edition.)]]
[in part than in the whole, but in each of them the [6 Visible sign. 1bid.]]
326 THE SECOND BOOK. -. charge you withal, that is to say, that accidents be broken, eaten, drunken, chawed and swallowed, without any substance at all And more I need not to say here, than before I have answered to your clerkly dialogue between the scholar and the rude man, saving this, that you make all men so wise that they judge accidents in their common understanding to be called substances, and that no man is able to know the difference of one substance from another.
And here you fall into the same folly that Basil speaketh. For if he that goeth about to separate accidents from their substance fail of his purpose, and end in nothing in deed,” then you separating the accidents of bread from their substance, and the substance of Christ’s body from the accidents, by your own saying alleged of Basil, you must fail of your purpose, and in the end bring both the bread and body of Christ to nothing in deed. For the abstraction of accidents from their proper substances, and of substances from their proper accidents, as you truly say in that point, cannot be practised in experience, but is a corruption or adnihilation of both.
And where, to excuse this absurdity, that accidents in the sacramental bread should be broken alone without any substance, you bring in another absurdity, that in common bread the substance is not broken at all; this is no taking away of the first absurdity, but of one absurdity to make two: as once I knew a man, that when he had made a lie, and perceived that he was suspected, by and by he would make two or three much greater lies to excuse the first withal. But if you should say, that we break not the substance of bread at all it were no more unlearnedly said in philosophy than it is untruly said in divinity.
And where you say that you have probable matter for you, and I have none for me,” it is clean contrary. For you have utterly nothing for you, but all the whole world against you, if you say that the substance of common bread is not broken at all. And I have for me the very plain words of Christ, of the apostle, and of the evangelists. “The bread which we break,” saith St Paul. And Christ took bread and brake it,” say the three evangelists. But there is no bread, say you, nor mo substance of bread is broken. And this “probable matter” have you for yourself, if men will believe yourself alone better than the apostle and the evangelists.
And what should you talk in vain of substance alone, to dazzle the eyes of the ignorant, when there is no such thing, nor never was sithens the world began; and seeing your question in that place is of common bread, where the substance is never alone without accidents? And if the substance of bread might be alone, yet your reason against the breaking of it is so far from all reason, that it should prove as well, that the substance joined to the quantity and accidents cannot be broken, as the substance alone. For in every piece of bread is a whole substance, and then by your argument it cannot be broken.
← 16. Book II. Against Transubstantiation · Contents · 18. Book II. Against Transubstantiation →