And where you grant, that “accidents to be without substance is against the common course of natural things, but it is done by a spiritual miracle,” this is but a cloud to darken the light. For accidents to be without substances is not only against tbe common course of natural things, but also against the very nature of accidents, which. have none other being but in substances (as they be defined, accidentis esse est inesse,) and is also against all philosophy, reason, and working of God sithens the world - began. For God never created nor made, with miracle nor without miracle, sub- 3 stances without accidents, nor accidents without substances, as some vainly phantasy de materia prima. lt is against also the doctrine of the old catholic authors; for never none wrote that accidents were without substances, until the bishop of Rome. with his monks and friars defined the contrary. But note well here, good reader, the end of wit, when it is not stayed by Gods word, but shooteth at rovers, or runneth at large, as it were a young colt without a bridle. “That nothing is broken but the accidents, this is denied. Then would I fain learn of this great wise man, that so well can dissever substances from accidents, wha ) substance it is that is broken? Not the body of Christ, saith he, for that is whole in every part; nor the bread is not broken, saith he, for our faith teacheth us contrary: then must it be either Christ’s divinity or soul that is broken, or else is some other substance there which never man heard of before. i
ΐ Note also, good reader, how well this author agreeth with himself, which within 4 little compass denieth so many things, and affirmeth the same again. For first he Saith, that to separate substances from the accidents is to bring it to nothing; and yet he separateth from their accidents as well the substances of bread and wine, as of the body of Christ. Before he said, that nothing was broken but the accidents; now he denieth it. Before he saith, the body of Christ is not broken, and shortly after he saith that which is broken is no bread, but the body of Christ. And here it appeareth, how falsehood neither agreeth with truth nor with itself.
And where you allege, that “in the book of common prayer it is set forth, how in each part of that is broken of the consecrated bread is the whole body of our Saviour Christ,” what could you have alleged more against yourself? For if the consecrated bread be broken in parts, how can you “answer truly by faith, as a believing man,” which answer you make straightways after, that that which is broken is no bread?” And if you would answer, as you be wont to do, that the accidents of bread be called bread, yet that collusion will not serve you in this place. For seeing that this place speaketh of consecrated bread, answer me to this, whether the substanee or accidents be consecrated? And if you say the accidents, then forasmuch as consecration, by your doctrine, is conversion, it must follow that the accidents of bread be converted, and not the substance; and so should you call it transaccidentation, and not transubstantiation: and if you say, that the substance of bread is consecrated, then forasmuch as that which is consecrated is divided into parts, and in every part is the whole body of Christ, you must confess that the substance of bread remaineth with the parts thereof, wherein is received the body of Christ.
But yet will you say, peradventure, that although this make against transubstantiation, yet it proveth the real presence of Christ’s body, seeing that it “is whole in every part of the bread.” It is whole indeed in every part of the bread divided, as it is in the whole bread undivided; which is sacramentally, not really, corporally, carnally, and naturally, as you feign and imagine, and would constrain other to believe. And faith denieth not the bread, but teacheth it to remain as a sacrament. And calling of it Christs body is not making of it to be really so, no more than the calling of the blessed virgin John’s mother made not her to be naturally so indeed, nor him to be her son. For although Christ’s words effectually spoken be an effectual making, yet his words sacramentally and figuratively spoken declare not the figure or sacrament to be in deed the thing that is signified.
And if the rude and simple people understand not substance from accidents, as you here affirm, then this thing they may at the leastwise understand, how little they be beholden to you papists, that would bind them to believe, under peril of damnation, such things as they be not able to understand, making articles of their faith to snare them rather than to save them. But what skilleth that to the papists, how many men perish, which seek nothing else but the advancement of their pope, whom they say no man can find fault withal’? For though he “neither care for his own soul’s health, nor of his christian brother, but draw innumerable people captive with him into hell, yet,” say the papists, no man may reprehend him,” nor ask the question why he so doth.
And where you speak of the “soberness” and “devotion” of the school authors, whom before you noted for boasters; what soberness and devotion was in them, being all in manner monks and friars, they that be exercised in them do know, whereof you be none. For the devotion that they had was to their god that created them, which was their pope; by contention, sophistication, and all subtle means they could devise by their wit or learning, to confirm and establish whatsoever oracle came out of their gods mouth. They set up their antichrist directly against Christ, and yet under pretence of Christ made him his vicar-general, giving him power in heaven, earth, and in hell And is not then the doctrine of transubstantiation, and of the real and sensual presence of Christ in the sacrament, to be believed, trow you, seeing that it came out of such a god’s mouth, and was set abroad by so many of his angels?
’ Corpus Juris Canonici, Distinct. xl. cap. vi. Si Papa. Tom. I. col. 194, 5. Ed. Lugd. 1618.
and And is not this a simple and plain doctrine, I pray you, that visible forms and substances be transubstantiated, and yet accidents remain? A plain doctrine, be you assured, which you confess yourself that the simple and plain people understand not, nor yourself with the help of all the papists is not able to defend it; where the true — doctrine of the first catholic christian faith is most plain, clear and comfortable, without any difficulty, seruple or doubt, that is to say, that our Saviour Christ, although — he be sitting in heaven in equality with his Father, is our life, strength, food, and sustenance, who by his death delivered us from death, and daily nourisheth and increaseth us to eternal life. And in token hereof he hath prepared bread to be eaten and wine to be drunken of us in his holy supper, to put us im remembrance of his said death, and of the celestial feeding, nourishing, increasing, and of all the benefits — which we have thereby; which benefits through faith and the Holy Ghost are exhibited — and given unto all that worthily receive the said holy supper. This the husbandman at his plough, the weaver at his loom, and the wife at her rock can remember, and give thanks unto God for the same. This is the very doctrine of the gospel, with — the consent wholly of all the old ecclesiastical doctors, howsoever the papists for their pastime put visors upon the 5814 doctors, and disguise them in other coats, making a play and mocking of them.
Now followeth the second absurdity.
Secondly, these transubstantiators do say, contrary to all learning, that the Accidents of bread and wine do hang alone in the air, without any substance wherein they may be stayed. And what can be said more foolishly?
WINCHESTER. D The Master of the sentences, shewing divers men’s sayings in discussion, as they can, of this mystery, telleth what some say, that had rather say somewhat than nothing; which this author — rehearseth as a determination of the church, that indeed maketh no doctrine of that point so, but acknowledgeth the mystery to exceed our capacity. And as for the accidents to be stayed, that is to say, to remain without their natural substance, is without difficulty believed of men — that have faith, considering the almighty power of Christ, whose divine body is there present. And shall that be accounted for an inconvenience in the mystery, that any one man saith, whose saying is not as a full determination approved? If that man should encounter with this author, if he were alive so to do, I think he would say it were more tolerable in him, of a zeal to agree with the true doctrine, to utter his conceit fondly, than, of a malice to dissent from the true doctrine, this author so fondly to improve his saying. But if he should oppose this author in learning, and ask him how he will understand Fiat lux in creation of the world, where the light stayed that was then create? But I will proceed to peruse the other differences. ” CANTERBURY. Ἢ The doctrine that even now was so simple and plain is now again waxed so full οὗ ambiguities and doubts, that learned men in discussing thereof, as they can, be fain to “say rather something than nothing;” and yet were they better to say nothing at all, than - to say that is not true, or nothing to purpose. And if the Master of the Sentences - saying in this point vary from the common doctrine of the other papists?, why is ποῦ this his error rejected among other, wherein he is not commonly held? And why do. yourself after approve the same saying of the Master, as a thing believed without diffi culty, that the accidents be stayed without their natural substance? And then I would know of you wherein they be stayed, seeing they be not stayed in the air, as in their substance, nor in the bread and wine, nor in the body of Christ? For either you must appoint some other stay for them, or else grant, as I say, that they hang alone in the air, without any substance wherein they may be stayed. And either I understand you not in this place, (you speak so diffusely,) or else that thing which the Master spake, - and yourself have here affirmed, you call it a tolerable conceit fondly uttered.” And
[[ Absurdities, Orig. ed. Winch.] [? Of the papists, in 166}.]]
D; p. whereas to answer the matter of the staying of the accidents, you ask wherein the light was stayed at the creation of the world; this is a very easy opposal, and soon answered. unto. For first God created heaven and earth, and after made light, which was stayed in them as it is now, although not divided from the darkness in such sort as it was after. το Now followeth the third absurdity.
Thirdly, that the substance of Christ’s body is there really, corporally, and naturally present, without any accidents of the same, And so the papists make accidents to be without substances, and substances to be without accidents.
Winchester
How Christ’s body is in circumstance present, no man can define; but that it is truly present, and therefore really present, corporally also, and naturally, with relation to the truth of the body present, and mot to the manner of presence, which is spiritual, exceeding our capacity, and therefore therein without drawing away accidents or adding, we believe simply the truth, howsoever it liketh this author without the book to term it at his pleasure, and to speak of substance without accidents and accidents without substance, which perplexity in words cannot jest out the truth of the catholic belief. And this is on the author’s part nothing but jesting with a wrong surmise and supposal, as though men had invented and imagined that which by Jorce and truth of the scripture all good men have and must believe, that is to say, the true presence of the substance of the body and blood of Christ in the sacrament, according to the words of Christ, This is my body;” which exclude the substance of bread, declaring the substance of the body of Christ to be acknowledged and professed in the sacrament by the true faith of a christian man. Compare with this what this author writeth in his ninth difference in the Jorty-seventh leaf of his book, and so consider the truth of this report, and how this author agreeth with himself.
Canterbury
I suspect not the judgment of the indifferent reader so much, but that he can perceive how indirectly you answer to this third absurdity, and be loth, as it seemeth, to answer any thing at all.
But it is no little confirmation of the catholic faith, to see you papists vary so much among yourselves, and you alone to devise so many things contrary to all the rest, and yet you be uncertain yourself what you may say. They say also with one accord, saving only Smith and you, that “in the sacrament be not the qualities and quantities of Christs body.” For he is not there visible and sensible, with his voice to be heard, his colours to be seen, his softness to be felt, his quantities to be extended, and to be local in place, with his other accidents; so that they take away his accidents from the sacrament. Smith saith that he is there, not naturally, as you say, but against nature, with all his qualities and accidents. You dare neither add them nor draw them away, being uncertain whether they be there or no, and being also uncertain whether in the sacrament he have distinction of members or no. But telling the truth is but jesting and railing to you, which for lack of answer be glad to shift off the truth as a matter of jesting. And it is not my terming without the book and at my pleasure,” to speak of substances without accidents, and accidents without substances; for I speak none otherwise therein, than as it hath pleased the papists before to term the same in all their books of that matter, but I termed this matter so upon the papistical books, as they at their pleasure devised or dreamed without all manner of books written before their time. And the force of scripture constraineth no man to the belief of transubstantiation, although the body of Christ were really, corporally, and carnally present, who by his omnipotent power can be present as well with the substances, as with the accidents of bread and wine, as fully is declared before.
[[ὁ And but yet supernaturally. Orig. ed. Winch.] [ Vide p. 72.]]
And where you allege the disagreeing of me with myself, if you would have taken the pain to read some of the school authors, you should have learned that there is no disagreement in my sayings at all. For they say, that the body of Christ that is in the sacrament hath his proper forms and quantities,” as I said in the forty-seventh leaf’. But yet those accidents,” say they, “be in heaven, and not in the sacrament,” as I say in this place, not varying one mite from mine other saying. But ignorance in you thinketh a difference where none is at all.
Now followeth the fourth absurdity.
Fourthly, they say, that the place where the accidents of bread and wine be? hath no substance there to fill that place, and so must they needs grant vacuwm, which nature utterly abhorreth.”
This author goeth about to find so many absurdities, that he speaketh he wotteth not what, and where he seeth and feeleth quantity, accompteth the place void for want of substance; as though in consideration of common natural things severally as they be in nature, it were the substance that filled the place, and not rather quantity, although in the natural order of things there is mo quantity without substance, and is in this sacrament only by miracle. There wanted « substance in consideration of this absurdity, and was such a vacuum as mature plainly endureth.
Nteruy
All the authors that write what vacuum is, account a place that is not filled with a substance which hath quantity in it to be void and empty. So that my saying is not grounded upon ignorance, but upon the mind of all that write in that matter. Whereas your saying, that quantity alone filleth place, without substance,” hath no ground at all but the papists bare imagination. And if “quantity in the sacrament be without substance by miracle,” it is marvel that no ancient writer in no place of their books made any mention of such a miracle. But yourself grant enough for my purpose in this place, “that it is an absurdity in nature, and wrought only by miracle, that quantity occupieth a place alone without substance.” Which absurdity followeth not of the true and right faith, but only of your error of transubstantiation.
Now to the fifth absurdity.
Fifthly, they are not ashamed to say, that substance is made of acecidents, when the bread mouldeth or is turned into worms, or when the wine soureth.”
Winchester
. rue believing men are not ashamed to confess the truth of their faith, whatsoever arguments might be brought of experience in nature to the contrary. For Christ’s works we know to be true by a most certain faith: what mouldeth in bread, or soureth in wine, we be mot so assured; or whereon worms engender, it is not so fully agreed on among men. The learned lawyer Ulpian writeth, as I have before alleged, that wine and vinegar have in manner one substance, so as when wine soureth amd is vinegar, in manner the same substance remaineth; in whom it is thought mo absurdity to say by that means that the accidents only sour. And if. we agree with the philosophers that there is materia prima, which in all things is one and altereth not, but as a mew form cometh taketh a new name, fancying that as one wave in the water thrusteth away another, so doth one form. another; it should seem by this conclusion a 1 alteration to be in accidents, and the corruption of accidents to be the generation of mew accidents, the same materia prima being as it were substantia, that altereth mot. And t 17 write that may be said as it were to make a title to this author’s certainty, which is not so sure as he maketh it. Amongst men have been marvellous fancies in consideration of. natural things; and it is to me a very great absurdity of that secret, and therefore to our
[[’ Vide p. 72.] I? Where the bread and wine be. Orig. ed.] [? None, 1551.1 []
[knowledge an uncertain work, to deduce an argument, wherewith to impugn our] certain faith. But to come nearer to the purpose, it is wrong borne in hand, that we affirm worms to be engendered of accidents; but when the worms be engendered, we grant the worms to be, and will rather say, whereof they be we cannot tell, than to say that substance is made of accidents, and that doctrine is not annexed to the faith of transubstantiation, and such as entreat those chances and accidents do mot induce that conclusion, but do reasonably avoid it. And yet by the way in moulding and souring it should, meseemeth, be properly said that the accidents mould, and the accidents sour, because we call mould bread bread, sour wine wine; and in wine, as I said before, made vinegar, the former substance hath been in learning accounted in manner to remain: so as this author overshooteth himself, when he wmatcheth generation of worms with moulding and sowring, which differ so far in the speculation. But even as this author’s wit is overturned in consideration of the true faith, so doth it appear perverted in consideration of natural things.
Canterbury
I know not to what purpose you have written all this fond matter, except it be that you would the world should know how ignorant you be in philosophy, which have not learned so much as to know the diversity between the six kinds of movings,. generation, corruption, augmentation, diminution, alteration, and moving from place - to place: whereof the four last be from accidents to accidents, and the two first from substance to substance. So that all mutation is not in accidents, and the corruption of accidents to be the generation of new accidents, as you unlearnedly imagine, both of that and of materia prima, which never was no such thing indeed, but by imagination.
But because you bear me in hand, that I bear the papists wrong in hand, that they affirm worms to be engendered of accidents, I shall rehearse their own words, that the readers may know your ignorance herein, or else how loud a lie you make willingly. Hz speciebus sacramentalibus, say they, generantur vermes, si putrefiant. Of the sacramental forms, if they be rotten, be gendered worms.” But it is no point of true meaning men now to deny that ever they said any such things, as they have taught in their schools these four or five hundred years, as their own books do - plainly testify. And be these papists to be credited, which have taught untruly so many years, and now, when they be pressed withal, go clean from it, and say they never said so, but be wrong borne in hand?”
And because Smith denieth here the same that you do, that worms be engendered of the accidents in the sacrament, let him help you to answer this matter. And forasmuch as he saith, that “when the host reserved beginneth to mould and to putrify, and should engender worms, then another substance succeedeth it, of which such things are made,” let him tell what substance that is which succeedeth, and whereof that substance is made. à But to return to you again: such philosophy as you make here, learned I never - in Aristotle, Plato, nor Pliny; nor I trow none such to be found in any that ever - wrote. But as you delight all in singularity, and have made strange divinity, so must you invent as strange philosophy. For who ever heard the terminus a quo is changed, or terminus ad quem? And whatsoever seemeth to you, (as commonly it. seemeth to you that seemeth to no man else,) yet it seemeth to no man else that ever was learned, that accidents be properly changed, but that the substances or subjects be changed from accidents to accidents.
And it is the simplest reason that ever was made, that the accidents mould and sour, because the substance remaineth; so as mould bread is called bread, and sour wine is called wine. For so is hot water and cold water both called water: and yet it is the water that is now hot, now cold, not the accidents. For neither can hot be cold nor cold be hot, nor heat go into coldness, nor coldness into heat; but the subject that receiveth them is now hot, now cold, by alteration, as iron that is now cold is soon made hot; but coldness can never be hotness by no art nor science, forasmuch as they be contrary qualities. And likewise pureness cannot mould, nor
[M [^ Ed. 1551, and Orig. ed. Winch.]]
sweetness cannot be sour; but wine that is sweet may turn into sour wine, and bread that is pure may be changed into mouldy bread. But the more you strive in the matters of philosophy, the more appeareth your ignorance therein, even as it did before in the matters of our faith. And who can condemn your doctrine more clearly than your own Ulpian doth, as you do here allege him? that “in vinegar remaineth in manner the same substance that was in the wine;” whereof it must follow, that when the sacramental wine is turned into vinegar, there must be a substance remaining, which is in manner the same with the substance of the vinegar.
The sixth absurdity.
Sixthly, that substance is nourished without substance, by accidents only, if it chance any cat, mouse, dog, or other thing, to eat the sacramental bread, [or drink the sacramental wine’. ]
These inconveniences and absurdities do follow of the fond papistical transubstantiation, with a number of other errors, as evil or worse than these, whereunto they be never able to answer, as many of them have confessed themselves.
And it is wonder to see, how in many of the foresaid things they vary among themselves: whereas the other doctrine of the scripture and of the old catholic church, but not of the lately corrupted Romish church, is plain and easy, as well to be understanded, as to answer to all the aforesaid questions, without any absurdity or inconvenience following thereof; so that every answer shall agree with God’s word, with the old church, and also with all reason and true philosophy. i
For as touching the first point, what is broken, what is eaten, what drunken, and what chawn in this sacrament, it is easy to answer. The bread and wine, [1Co.x] as St Paul saith: “The bread which we break.”
And as concerning the second and third points, neither is the substance of bread and wine without their proper accidents, nor their accidents hang alone in the air without any substance; but, according to all learning, the substance of the bread and wine reserve their own accidents, and the accidents do rest in their own substances.
And also as concerning the fourth point, there is no point left void after consecration, as the papists dream; but bread and wine fulfil their place, as they did before.
And as touching the fifth point, whereof the worms or moulding is engendered,
357. and whereof the vinegar cometh, the answer is easy to make, according to all learning and experience, that they come according to the course of nature, of the substance of the bread and wine, too long kept, and not of the accidents alone, as the papists do fondly phantasy. 1 And likewise the substances of bread and wine do feed and nourish the body - of them that eat the same, and not only the accidents. a In these answers is no absurdity nor inconvenience, nothing spoken either. contrary to holy scripture, or to natural reason, philosophy, or experience, or. against any old ancient author, or the primitive or catholic church, but only against the malignant and papistical church of Rome. Whereas on the other side, that cursed synagogue of antichrist hath defined and determined in this matter many things contrary to Christ’s words, contrary to the old catholic: church, and the holy martyrs and doctors of the same, and contrary to all natural reason, learning, and philosophy. 5 And the final end of all this antichrist’s doctrine is none other, but by subtilty
[[! Eds. 1551 and 158? omit this passage.] 1]
1 AGAINST TRANSUBSTANTIATION. 333 and craft to bring christian people from the true honouring of Christ unto the. greatest idolatry that ever was in this world devised; as by God’s grace shall be plainly set forth hereafter.
Tt hath been heard, without fables, of certain men that ave lived and been nourished with savours only. And in gold amd certain precious stones, that they give a kind of nurture to another substance, without diminution of their substance, experience hath shewed it so, and therefore the principle or maxim that this author gathereth hath no such absurdity in it as he noted, to say that “substance is nourished without substance.” But when vermin by chance happen to devour any host, as I am sure they cammot violate Christ’s most precious body, so what effect followeth of the rest, what meedeth it to be discussed? If it mourisheth, then doth that effect remain, although the substance be not there. If every nurture must needs be of substance, then would those that discuss those chances say the substance to return; but hell gates shall not make me speak against my faith. And if I be asked the question, whether the visible matter of the sacrament nourish; I will answer, Yea. Ergo, saith he, there is substance:” I deny it. He shall now from the effect to the cause argue by physic; I shall disprove the conclusion by the authority of faith: who is it most meet should yield to other? And if in nature many things be in experience contrary to the general rules, why may not one singular condition be in this visible matter of the sacrament, that, the only substance being changed, all other parts, properties, and effects may remain? Is it an absurdity for a maid to have a child, because it is against the rules of nature? Is it an absurdity the world to be made of nothing, because the philosopher saith, “Of nothing cometh nothing?” The principle of nature is, that whatsoever hath a beginning, hath an end; and yet it is no absurdity to believe our souls to have a beginning without end, and to be immortal. Wherefore, to conclude this matter, it is a great absurdity in this author, to note that for an absurdity in our faith, which repugneth only to the principles of philosophy or reason; when that is only to be acounted for an absurdity, that should repugn to the scripture and God’s will, which is the standard to try the rule of our faith. Howsoever reason or philosophy be offended, it forceth not, so God’s teaching be embraced and persuaded in fuit, which needeth mo such plaisters and salves as this author hath devised, to make a sore where none is, and to corrupt that 18 whole. CANTERBURY.
Men may here see what feigned fables be sought out to defend your errors and ignorance, which is now so manifest, that it appeareth you never read, or else have forgotten, the very principles and definitions of philosophy: of which this is one, that nutrition is a conversion of substance into substance, that is to say, of the meat into the substance of the thing that is fed. Another is thus: Ez eisdem sunt et nutriuntur omnia: “All things be nourished of things like themselves.” And so I grant you, that a man made of savours, and a man made of the virtue of gold and precious stones, may be nourished by the same, because he is made of the same. And yet it may be that some certain savour, or the virtue of some precious stone, may increase or continue some humour, whereof a man may be nourished, as we read of some men or certain people that have lived no small time by the savour of apples.
But still in your book you ery “faith, faith,” and “catholic faith,” when you teach but your own inventions, clean contrary to the true catholic faith and express word of God. And in all your arguments here you commit the greatest vice that can be in reasoning, called Petitio principii, taking that thing which is chiefly in controversy to be a principle to induce your conclusion. ^ Faith, faith,” say you, where is no faith, but your bare feigning. I have disproved your faith by God’s word, by the universal consent of all Christendom a thousand years together; and you cry out still, faith, faith” which is not the faith of Christ, but of antichrist. Let christian men now judge, “who should yield to other.” If you had proved your doctrine by faith, founded upon God’s word, I would condescend unto you, that it is no absurdity that accidents remain when the substance is gone. But God’s word is clearly against
you, not only in your doctrine of transubstantiation, but also in the doctrine of the real presence, of the eating and drinking, and of the sacrifice of Christ’s flesh and blood.
Winchester
The best plaister and medicine that could mow be devised, were to leave apart questions and idle talk, and meekly to submit our capacities to the true faith, and mot to overwhelm our understandings with search and inquiry, whereof we shall never find an end, entering the bottomless secrecy of God’s mysteries. Let us not seek that is above our reach; but that God hath commanded us let us do. Each man impugneth another’s learning with words, none controlleth in others living with better deeds. Let all endeavour themselves to do that God commandeth, and the good occupation thereof shall exclude all such idleness as is cause and occasion of this vain and noisome curiosity. And now to return to this author: whiles he seeth a mote in another man’s eye, he feeleth not a beam in his own: who recommendeth unto us specially Theodorete, whom he calleth an holy bishop, and with him doth bring forth a piece of an epistle of St Chrysostom. The doctrine of which two joined with the doctrine of this author, in such sense as this author would have all understanded to be called catholic, touching the Jwith of the sacrament, hath such an absurdity in it as was never heard of in religion. For this author teacheth for his part, that the body of Christ is only really in heaven and not in deed in the sacrament, according whereunto this author teacheth also, the bread to be very bread still; which doctrine if it be true, as this author will needs have it, then join unto it the doctrine of the secret epistle of Chrysostom amd Theodorete, whose doctrine is, that after the consecration that is consecrate shall be called mo more bread, but the body of Christ. By these two doctrines joined together it shall appear, that we must call that is consecrate by a name that we be learned by this author it is mot, and may not by the doctrine of Theodorete call it by the name of the which this author teacheth us in deed it is. And thus?: “itis in deed bread,” quoth this author; “but call it not so,” quoth this Theodorete: It is not in deed. the body of Christ,” quoth this author; “but yet in any wise call it so,” quoth Theodorete.
959. Here is plain simulation and dissimulation both together. For by forbidding of the name of bread, according to Theodorete’s teaching, we dissemble and hide that it is by this author’s teaching; and by using the name of our.Lord’s body, according to Theodorete’s teaching, we Jeign it to be that it is not by this author’s teaching, which saith, “there is only a figure?” and by this means, in so high a mystery, we should use untruths on both sides, in simulation and dissimulation, which is a marvellous teaching.
I deny mot but things signifying may have the name of that they signify by a figure of speech; but we read not in any doctrine given, that the thing signifying should have the name by figure, and be delivered from the name of that it is im deed. And yet this is now the teaching of this author in defence of his mew catholic faith, joined with the teaching of Theodorete, and the secret epistle of St Chrysostom, as this author would have them wnderstanded. But those men, Theodorete and Chrysostom, in the sense they meant, as I understand them,. taught a true doctrine. For they take the mame of the body of Christ in the sacrament to. be a real naming of the body of Christ there present in deed, and therefore a true perfect name, which, as St Chrysostom’s secret epistle saith, “the thing is worthy to have,” declaring. by that worthiness the thing named to be there in deed. And likewise I understand the other name of bread worthily done away, because the substance whereupon in reason the name was. grounded is changed, according to the true doctrine of transubstantiation: therefore that name - of bread in their doctrine is truly laid away, although Theodorete writeth the visible matter of bread and wine to be seen and felt as they were before, and therefore saith their substance, - which there signifieth the outward nature, is seen and felt to remains” which terms, with con- - venient understanding, may thus agree with the catholic teaching of transubstantiation, and - so in the sacrament on every part, both in the heavenly and earthly part, to be a full, whole, - and perfect truth, as the high mystery, being the sacrament of our perfect unity in body and. soul with Christ, doth require. Whereby in my judgment, as this author hath against his. own, determination in this enterprise uttered that confirmeth the truth of the real presence of Christ’s most precious body in the sacrament, which he doth in special entreating the words of St Augustine in the twenty-seventh leaf of his book3, besides that in divers other places he doth the like; so bringing us forth this Theodorete and his secret epistle of St Chrysostom, he hath brought forth that may serve to convince him in transubstantiation. Howbeit as for
[[! Vide pp. 274, 287, 8, 299.] [ As thus, 1551. ] [ Vide p. 277.1.]
transubstantiation, Zuinglius taketh it truly for a necessary consequence of the truth, if there be in the sacrament the real presence of Christ’s body, as there is in deed. For as a carnal man, - ot instruct by faith, as well after consecration as before, as he is of the earth, speaketh and calleth it bread, and asking him what it is will never answer otherwise, and if one asked him whether it were the body of Christ, would think the questioner mocked him; so the faithful spiritual man, answering to that question what it is, would after consecration, according to faith, answer the body of Christ, and think himself mocked if he were asked, is it not bread? unless he had been taught Christ to have said it had been both his body and bread. As for calling it by the name of bread which it was, he would not greatly stick, and one thing may have many names; but one thing is but one substance, whereby to answer to the question what it is, saving only in the person of Christ, wherein we know united the two substances of God and man. And this matter I repeat and summarily touch again, to leave in the reader’s breast the principal point of our beligf of this mystery to be of the real presence, that is to say, unfeigned substantial presence, and therefore the true presence of Christ’s most precious body in the sacrament, which hath been in all ages taught, and been as it is the catholic faith of Christendom, as appeareth by the testimony of the old authors in all ages.
Canterbury
For the conclusion of all these questions, when you see that you can make no answer, but that you be driven to so many absurdities, and that I have answered so plainly unto every one, that there is left neither absurdity nor difficulty at all, then you devise the best way and most easy for yourself, to “lay apart all questions and idle talk;” when all these questions and idle talk needed not, if the papists of their idle brains had not devised their transubstantiation, and thereupon moved this idle talk themselves; which hath been occasion not only of much dissension in all christian realms, but of the effusion also of much innocent blood.
But when the papists, like unto Lucifer, have ascended into heaven, and searched by vain and arrogant questions the bowels and secrets of God’s majesty and his wisdom; yea, even whether God have made the world so well as he might have done; then they command other to keep silence, and “not to enter into the bottomless secrecy of God’s mysteries, nor to seek that is above their reach, but to endeavour themselves to do that God commandeth:” which counsel, as it is most godly and wholesome, so if the papists themselves had observed in the beginning, no man should have needed to have troubled his brains with such frivolous questions and idle talk. But the papists do like boys in the school, that make rods to beat other, and when they should be beaten with the rods which they made themselves, then they wish that all rods were in the fire. So the papists, when they see themselves overthrown in their own questions which they first devised themselves, and to be beaten with their own rods, then they cry, “Peace, hold hands, and question no more.”
But to answer the absurdities laid unto the papists charge, you recompense me again with two great huge absurdities. One is, that Christ is really but in heaven only:” the other is, that “bread is still bread.” Here thou mayest judge, gentle reader, what errors I defend, that am by force driven to such two absurdities, that I am fain to say as I have written in my book, and as the apostles and evangelists said. But beware, I would advise thee, that thou say not as God’s word teacheth; for if thou dost, thou mayest be sure to be taken of the papists for an heretic.
Finally, you come to your contradictions of bread and no bread, the body and not. the body, simulation and dissimulation; wherein when you have well practised yourself in all your book through, at the last you make as it were a play in a dialogue between Chrysostom, Theodorete, and me. But Chrysostom, Theodorete, and I shall agree well enough; for they tell not what in nowise may be, but what was commonly used; that is to say, not to call the bread by his proper name after consecration, but by the name of the body of Christ. And if you had well considered what I wrote in my book concerning figurative speeches, and negatives by comparison, which you also have allowed, you should have well perceived your labour here spent all in vain. For in all figures and sacraments the signs, remaining in their own proper natures, change nevertheless their names, and be called by the names of the more high and excellent bec
things which they signify. And both Chrysostom and Theodorete shew a cause thereof, which is this, that we should not rest in the sight of the sacraments and figures, but lift up our minds to the things that be thereby represented. And yet in the sacraments is neither simulation nor dissimulation, except you will call all figurative speeches simulation, and say that Christ simuled when he said he was a vine,” a “door,” a herdman,” the light of the world,” and such like speeches. But it pleaseth you, for refreshing of your wit, (being now so sore travailed with impugning of the truth,)
961. to devise a pretty merry dialogue of quoth he,” and quoth he.” And if I were disposed to dally and trifle, I could make a like dialogue of simulation” or ’ dissimulation,” of quoth he” and quoth you,” even between you and Christ.
But, as I have declared before, all things which be exalted to an higher dignity, be called by the names of their dignity, so much that many times their former names be forgotten, and yet nevertheless they be the same things that they were before, although they be not usually so called; as the surnames of kings and emperors, to how many be they known? or how many do call them thereby? but every man calleth them by their royal and imperial dignities. And in like manner is it of figures and sacraments, saving that their exaltation is in a figure, and the dignities royal and imperial be real and in deed. And yet he should not offend, that should call the princes by their original names, so that he did it not in contempt of their estates. And no more should he offend, that did calla figure by the name of the thing that it is indeed, so that he did it not in contempt of the thing that is signified. And therefore Theodorete saith not, that the bread in the sacrament may not be called bread, and that he offendeth that so calleth it; for he calleth it bread himself, but with this addition of dignity, calling it “the bread of life,” which it signifieth: as the cap of maintenance is not called barely and simply a cap, but with addition of maintenance. And in like manner we use not in common speech to call bread, wine, and water in the sacraments, simple and common water, bread, and wine: but according to that they represent unto us, we call them “the water of baptism,” “the water of life,” sacramental water,” sacramental and celestial bread and wine,” “the bread of life,” the drink that quencheth our thirst for ever.” And the cause Theodorete sheweth why they be so called, that we, hearing those names, should lift up our minds unto the things that they be called, and comfort ourselves therewithal” And yet neither in the sacraments, in the cap of maintenance, nor in the imperial or royal majesties, is any simulation or dissimulation; but all be plain speeches in common usage, which every man understandeth.
But there was never man that understood any author further from his meaning, than you do Theodorete and Chrysostom in this place. For they meant not of any real calling by changing of substances, but of a sacramental change of the names remaining the substances. For Theodorete saith in plain words, “that as Christ calle bread his body, so he called his body corn, and called himself a vine.” Was therefore “the substance of his body transubstantiated and turned into corn, or he into a vine? And yet this must needs follow of your saying, if Christ’s calling were a putting away of the former substance, according to the doctrine of transubstantiation. But that Theodorete meant not of any such changing of substances, but of changing of names, he declareth so plainly, that no man can doubt of his meaning. These be Theodorete’s own words: “Our Saviour without doubt changed the names, and gave to his body: the name of the sign, and to the sign the name of his body; and yet,” saith he, «they kept their former substance, fashion, and figure.” And the cause wherefore Christ: doth vouchsafe to call the sacramental bread by the name of his body, and to dignify so earthly a thing by so heavenly a name, Theodorete sheweth to be this, that the
862. godly receivers of the sacrament, when they hear the heavenly names, should lift up their minds from earth unto heaven, and not to have respect unto the bread outwardly only, but principally to look upon Christ, who with his heavenly grace amc omnipotent power feedeth them inwardly.” r But there never was such untruth used as you use in this author, to hide the truth and to set forth your untruth. For you alter Theodoretes words, and yet that sufficetl not, but you give such. new and strange significations to words as before was never invented. For where Theodorete saith, that “the sacraments remain,” you turn tl t
into the visible matter, and then that visible matter, as you take it, must signify accidents. And where Theodorete saith in plain terms, that “the substance remaineth,” there must substance also by your saying signify accidents, which you call here “outward nature,” contrary to your own doctrine, which have taught hitherto, that “substance is an inward nature, invisible and insensible.” And thus your saying here neither agreeth with the truth nor with yourself in other places.
And all these cautels’ and false interpretations, altering of the words, and corrupting of the sense both of all authors and also of scripture, is nothing else but shameless shifts to deceive simple people, and to draw them from the old catholic faith of Christ’s church unto your new Romish errors, devised by antichrist not above four or five hundred years assed. J And where you say, that “in the sacrament, in every part, both in the heavenly and earthly part, is an whole and perfect truth;” how is perfect truth in the earthly part of the sacrament, if there be no bread there at all, but the colour and accidents of bread? For if there be none other truth in the heavenly part of the sacrament, then is not Christ there at all, but only his qualities and accidents.
And as concerning your unjust gathering of mine own words upon St Augustine, I have answered thereunto in the same place.
And where you have set out the answer of the carnal and spiritual man after your own imagination, you have so well devised the matter, that you have made two extremities without any mean. For the true faithful man would answer, not as you have devised, but he would say, according to the old catholic faith and teaching of the apostles, evangelists, martyrs, and confessors of Christ’s church, “that in the sacrament or true ministration thereof be two parts, the earthly and the heavenly: the earthly is the bread and wine, the other is Christ himself: the earthly is without us, the heavenly is within us: the earthly is eaten with our mouths, and carnally feedeth our bodies; the heavenly is eaten with our inward man, and spiritually feedeth the same: the earthly feedeth us but for a time, the heavenly feedeth us for ever.” Thus would the true faithful man answer, without leaning to any extremity, either to deny the bread or inclosing Christ really in the accidences of bread; but professing and believing Christ really and corporally to be ascended into heaven, and yet spiritually to dwell in his faithful people, and they in him unto the world’s end. This is the true catholic faith of Christ, taught from the beginning, and never corrupted but by antichrist and his ministers.
And where you say, that “one thing is but one substance, saving only in the person of Christ,” your teaching is untrue, not only in the person of Christ, but also in every man, who is made of two substances, the body and soul. And if you had been learned in philosophy, you would have found your saying false also in every corporal thing, which consisteth of two substances, of the matter, and of the form. And Gelasius sheweth the same likewise in this matter of the sacrament. So untrue it is that you most vainly boast here, that your doctrine hath been taught in all ages, and been the catholic faith; which was never the catholic, but only the papistical faith, as I have evidently proved by holy scripture and the old catholic authors, wherein truly and directly you have not answered to one.
Winchester
In whose particular words although there may be sometime cavillations, yet I will note to the reader four marks and tokens imprinted rather in those old authors’ deeds than words, which be certain testimonies to the truth of their faith of the real presence? of Christ’s most precious body im the sacrament. The first mark is in the process of arguing used by them to the conviction of heretics by the truth of this sacrament, wherein I note not the particulars sentences, which sometime be dangerous speeches, but their whole doings. As Irene, who was dn the beginning of the church, argueth against the Valentinians that denied the resurrection of our flesh, whom Irene reproveth by the feeding of our souls and bodies with the divine, [’ Cautels, i. e. cautions.] [ Not their particular, ibid.
[ Of real presence, Orig. ed. Winch.]
[cRANMER. ] 22
glorified flesh of Christ in the sacrament; which flesh, and it be there but in a figure, then it should have proved the resurrection of our flesh slenderly, as it were but figuratively. And iff the catholic faith had mot been then certainly taught, and constantly believed without variance, Christ’s very flesh to be in deed eaten in that mystery, it would have been answered of the heretics, it had been but a figure; but that appeareth not, and the other appeareth, which is a testimony to the truth of matter in deed.
Hilary, reasoning of the natural conjunction between ws and Christ by mean of this — + sacrament, expresseth the same to come to pass by the receiving truly the very flesh of our Lord in our Lord’s meat, and thereupon argueth against the Ariams; which Arians, if it had not been so really in deed, would have answered, But all was spiritually, so as there — was no such natural and corporal communion in deed as Hilary supposed, but, as this author teacheth, a, figure, and it had been the catholic doctrine; so that argument of Hilary had been of mo force. St Chrysostom, Gelasius, and Theodorete, argue of the truth of this — mystery to convince the Apollinarists and Eutychians; which were none argument, if Christ’s — very body were not as really present in the sacrament for the truth of presence, as the God- — head is in the person of Christ; being the effect of the argument this, that as the presence of Christ’s body in this mystery doth not alter the property? of the visible natwres, no more doth the Godhead in the person of Christ extingwish his hwmanity; which against those heretics — served for am argument to exclude confusion of natures in Christ, and had been a dangerous arguing to be embraced of the Nestorians, who would hereby have furthered their heresy, — to prove the distinction of natures in Christ without any union; for they would have said: “As the earthly and heavenly natures be so distinct in the sacrament, as the one is mot spoken of the other, so be the natures of the humanity and Godhead not united in Christ;” which is — false; and in the comparings we may not look that all should amswer in equality, but only — for the point that it is made9 for, that is, as in the sacrament the visible element is not extinguished — by the presence of Christ’s most precious body, mo more is Christ’s humanity by his Godhead; and yet we may mot say, that as in the sacrament be but only accidents of the visible earthly — matter, that therefore in the person of Christ be only accidents of the humanity. For that mystery requireth the whole truth of man’s nature, and therefore Christ took upon him the whole man, body and soul. The mystery of the sacrament requireth the truth of the accidents only, — being the substance of the visible creatures converted into the body and blood of Christ. And this I write to prevent such cavillations as some would search for. But to return to our matter: — all these arguments were vain, if there were not in the sacrament the true presence of Christ’s — very body, as the celestial part of the sacrament, being the visible forms the earthly thing: which earthly thing remaineth in the former propriety with the very presence of the celestial thing. And this sufficeth concerning the first mark. — CANTERBURY. As for your four marks and tokens, if you mark them well, you shall perceive most manifestly your ignorance and error, how they note and appoint, as it were with their fingers, your doctrine to be erroneous, as well of transubstantiation as of the 3 real presence. y And to begin with your first mark: Irenee indeed proved the resurrection of our bodies - unto eternal life, because our bodies be nourished with the everlasting food of Christ’s body. And therefore as that food is everlasting, so it being joined unto his eternal deity, giveth to our bodies everlasting life. And if the being of Christ’s body in any ) creature should give the same life, then it might peradventure be thought of some fools, Ὁ that if it were in the bread, it should give life to the bread. But neither reason, learn-. ing, nor faith beareth, that Christ’s body being only in bread should give life unto a man. So that if it were an article of our faith, to believe that Christ is present in the - forms of bread and wine, it were an unprofitable article, seeing that his being in the bread should profit no man. 1 Trenee therefore meaneth not of the being of Christ in the bread and wine, but of the eating of him. And yet he meaneth not of corporal eating, (for so Christ saith himself,
CURES ENERO METER PRPNANNEIEMA HE. funem LECDR dr [! But a figure, Orig. ed. Winch.] [^ Argument, ibid.] r
[? And as it were, ibid. and 1551.] [^ Comparing, ibid. ]
[ Properties, Orig. ed. Winch.]. [ The point it is made, ibid. ] n
that his flesh availeth nothing,) but spiritual eating by faith. Nor he speaketh not of spiritual eating in receiving of the sacrament only, for then our life should not be eternal, nor endure no longer than we be eating of the sacrament; for our spiritual life continueth no longer than our spiritual feeding. And then could none have life but that receive the sacrament, and all should have perished that died before Christ’s supper and institution of the sacrament, or that die under age before they receive the sacrament.
But the true meaning of Irenee, Hilary, Cyprian, Cyril, and other that treated of this matter was this, that as Christ was truly made man and crucified for us, and shed his blood upon the cross for our redemption, and now reigneth for ever in heaven; so as many as have a true faith and belief in him, chawing their cuds, and perfectly remembering the same death and passion, which is the spiritual eating of his flesh and drinking of his blood, they shall reign in everlasting life with him. For they spiritually and truly by faith eat his flesh and drink his blood, whether they were before the institution of the sacrament or after. And the being or not being of Christ’s body and blood really and corporally in the sacrament under the forms of bread and wine, neither maketh nor marreth, nor is to no purpose in this matter. But for confirmation of this our faith in Christ’s death and passion, and for a perpetual memory of the same, hath Christ ordained this holy sacrament, not to be kept, but to be ministered among us to our singular comfort; that as outwardly and corporally we eat the very bread and drink the very wine, and call them “the body and blood of Christ,” so inwardly and spiritually we eat and drink the very body and blood of Christ. And yet carnally and corporally 86. he is in heaven, and shall be until the last judgment, when he shall come to judge both the quick and the dead. And in the sacrament, that is to say, in the due ministration of the sacrament, Christ is not only figuratively, but effectually unto everlasting life.
And this teaching impugneth the heresies of the Valentinians, Arians, and other heretics: and so doth not your feigned doctrine of transubstantiation, of the real presence of Christ’s flesh and blood in the sacrament, under the forms of bread and wine; and that ungodly and wicked men eat and drink the same, which shall be cast away from the eternal life, and perish for ever. And for further answer to Hilary, I refer the reader to mine other answer made to him before.
And for St Chrysostom, Gelasius, and Theodorete, if there be no bread and wine in the sacrament, their arguments serve for the heretics’ purpose, and clean directly against themselves. For their intent against the heretics is to prove, that to the full perfection of Christ is required a perfect soul and a perfect body, and to be perfect God and perfect man; as to the full perfection of the sacrament is required pure and perfect bread and wine, and the perfect body and blood of Christ. So that now turning the argument, if there be no perfect bread and wine, as the papists falsely surmise, then may the heretics conclude against the catholic faith, and convince Chrysostom, Gelasius, and Theodorete with their own weapon, that is to say, with their own similitude, that as in the sacrament lacketh the earthly part, so doth in Christ lack his humanity. And as to all our senses seemeth to be bread and wine, and yet is none indeed; so shall they argue by this similitude, that in Christ seemed to all our senses flesh and blood, and yet was there none in very deed. And thus by your devilish transubstantiation of bread and wine, do you transubstantiate also the body and blood of Christ, not convincing but confirming most heinous heresies. And this is the conclusion of your ungodly feigned doctrine of transubstantiation.
And where you would gather the same conclusion, if Christ’s flesh and blood be not really present, it seemeth that you understand not the purpose and intent of these authors. For they bring not this similitude of the sacrament for the real presence, but for the real being: that as the sacrament consisteth in two parts, one earthly and another heavenly, the earthly part being the bread and wine, and the heavenly the body and blood of Christ, and these parts be all truly and really in deed, without colour or simulation, that is to say, very true bread and wine indeed, the very true body and blood of Christ indeed; even likewise in Christ be two natures, his humanity and earthly substance, and his divinity and heavenly substance, and both these be true natures and 22—9
substances, without colour or dissembling. And thus is this similitude of the sacrament brought in for the truth of the natures, not for the presence of the natures. For Christ was perfect God and perfect man when his soul went down to hell, and his body lay in the grave, because the body and soul were both still united unto his divinity; and yet it was not required that his soul should be present with the body in the sepulture: no more is it now required that his body should be really present in the sacrament; but as the soul was then in hell, so is his body now in heaven. And as it is not required that wheresoever Christ’s divinity is, there should be really and corporally his manhood; so it is ποὺ required that where the bread and wine be, there should be corporally his flesh and blood.
But as you frame the argument against the heretics, it serveth so little against them, that they may with the same frame and engine overthrow the whole catholic church. For thus you frame the argument: As the presence of Christ’s body in this mystery doth not alter the propriety of the visible natures, no more doth the Godhead in the person of Christ extinguish his humanity.” Mark well now, good reader, what followeth hereof. As the presence of Christ’s body in this mystery doth not alter,” say you, the propriety of the visible natures, no more doth the Godhead in the person of Christ extinguish his humanity.” But the presence of Christ’s body in this mystery doth so alter the visible natures,” as the papists say, “that the substances of bread and wine be extinguished, and there remaineth no substance but of the body of Christ;” ergo, likewise in the mystery of Christ’s incarnation the humanity is extinguished by the presence of his Godhead, and so there remaineth no more but the substance of his divinity, as the Eutychians said.
And thus the similitude of Chrysostom, Gelasius, and Theodorete, joined to the saying of the papists, frameth a good argument for the heretics. But those authors framed their argument clean contrary, on this wise: that the bread and wine be not transubstantiate or extinguished, but continue still in their own substances, figures, fashion, and all natural proprieties; and therefore doth the humanity of Christ likewise endure and remain in proper substance with his natural proprieties, without extinction or transubstantiation. For those authors take no bread and wine for the visible proprieties only of bread and wine, but for very true bread and wine, with all their natural qualities and. conditions.
And the heretics shall soon find out your cavillation, where, to avoid the matter, you say that “the mystery of the sacrament requireth not the truth of the substance.” For why should the authors bring them forth to prove the truth of the substance in Christ, if there were no true substance in them? Thus all your shifts and sophistications be but wind, or colours cast over the truth to blear men’s eyes, which colours rubbed off, the truth appeareth clear and plain. And your first mark is not clearly put out, but turned to a mark and spectacle for yourself, wherein you may clearly see your own error, and how foul you have been deceived in this matter, and open. your eyes, if God will give you grace to put away your indurate heart, to see the: clear truth. ἃ WINCHESTER.
Another certain token is the wondering and great marvelling that the old authors make how the substance of this sacrament is wrought by God’s ommipotency. Baptism is marvell& at, for the wonderful effect that is in man by it, how man 18 regenerate, not how the wate or the Holy Ghost is there. But the wonder in this sacrament is specially directed to the work of God in the visible creatures, how they be so changed into the body and blood of Chris de which is a work wrought of God before we receive the sacrament. Which work Cyprian sait is ineffable, that is to say, not speakable; which is not so if it be but a figure, for then it be easily spoken, as this author speaketh it with ease, I think, he speaketh it so often. of presence by signification, if it may be so called, every man may speak and tell hows butt the very presence in deed, and therefore the real presence of Christ’s body in the sacramen
[1 Ed. 1580 reads inducate,” which is evidently a misprint. ] y]
mo creature tell how it may be, that Christ ascended into heaven with his human body, «nd therewith continually reigning there should make present in the sacrament the same body in deed, which Christ in deed worketh, being nevertheless then at the same hour present in heaven, as St Chrysostom doth with a marvel say. If the marvel were only of God’s work in man in the effect of the sacrament, it is in baptism, it were another matter: but I said before, the wonder is in the work of God, in the substance of the sacrament, before it be received; which declareth the old authors that so wonder to understand the real presence of Christ’s very body, and not an only signification, which hath no wonder at all. And thereJore seeing St Cyprian wondereth at it, and calleth the work ineffable, St Chrysostom wondereth at it, St Ambrose wondereth at it, Emissene wondereth at it, Cyril wondereth at it: what should we now doubt whether their faith were of a signification only, as this author would have it, which is no wonder at all, or of the real presence, which is indeed a wonderful work? Wherefore where this manifest token and certain mark appeareth in the old fathers, there can no construction? of syllables or words dissuade or pervert the truth thus testified.
Canterbury
As touching this your second mark in the ministration of the sacraments, as well of the Lord’s holy supper as of baptism, God worketh wonderfully by his omnipotent power in the true receivers, not in the outward visible signs. For it is the person baptized that is so regenerate that he is made a new creature, without any real alteration of the water. And none otherwise it is in the Lord’s supper; for the bread and wine remain in their former substance, and neither be fed nor nourished, and yet in the man that worthily receiveth them is such a wonderful nourishment wrought by the mighty power of God, that he hath thereby everlasting life. ^ And this is the “ineffable work of God,” whereof Cyprian speaketh.
So that as well in the Lord’s supper as in baptism the marvellous working of God, passing the comprehension of all man’s wit, is in the spiritual receivers, not in the bread, wine, and water, nor in the carnal and ungodly receivers. For what should it avail the lively members of Christ, that God worketh in his dead and insensible creatures? But in his members he is present, not figuratively, but effectually, and effectually and ineffably worketh in them, nourishing and feeding them so wonderfully, that it passeth all wits and tongues to express. And nevertheless corporally he is ascended into heaven, and there shall tarry until the world shall have an end. And therefore saith Chrysostom, that Christ is both gone up into heaven, and yet is here received of us, but diversely. For he is gone up to heaven carnally, and is here received of us spiritually. And this wonder is not in the working of God in the substance of the sacrament before it be received, as you feign it to be, nor in them that unworthily receive it carnally, but in them that receive Christ spiritually, being nourished by him spiritually as they be spiritually by him regenerated, that they may be fed of the same thing whereof they be regenerated, and so be throughly os ex ossibus ejus, et caro ex carne ejus: “bone of his bones, and flesh of his flesh.”
And considering deeply this matter, Cyprian wondereth as much at God’s work in baptism, as in the Lord’s supper; Chrysostom wondereth as much, Emissene wondereth as much, Cyril wondereth as much; all catholic writers wonder as much, as well how God doth spiritually regenerate us to a new life, as how he doth spiritually feed and nourish us to everlasting life. And although these things be outwardly signified unto us by the sacramental bread, wine, and water, yet they be effectually wrought in us by the omnipotent power of God. Therefore you had need to seek out some other mark or token for your purpose, for this serveth nothing at all: for by his wonderful working Christ is no more declared to be present in the bread and wine, than in the water of baptism.
There cannot construction, 1551. Orig. ed. Winch. reads with ed. 1580.
A third token there is by declaration of figures: as for example, St Hierome, when he declareth upon the epistle ad “Titum so advisedly at length, how panes propositionis were the figure of — the body of Christ in the sacrament; that process declareth the mind of the author to be, that — in the sacrament is present the very truth of Christ’s body, not in a figure again, to join one shadow to another, but even the very truth to answer the figure; and therefore mo particular words im St Hierome can have amy understanding contrary to his mind declared in this process. 5
Canterbury
To St Hierome I have answered sufficiently before to your confutation of my third book, almost in the end’, which should be in vain to repeat here again; therefore I will go to your last mark. -
Winchester
Fourthly, another certain mark is, where the old authors write of the adoration of this sacrament, which cannot be but to the things godly, really present. And therefore St Augustine writing in his book De Catechisandis Rudibus, how the invisible things be honoured im this sacrament, meaning the body and blood of Christ, and in the ninety-eight psalm, speaketh — tus of adoration; Theodoretus also speaking specially of adoration of this sacrament: these E authors by this mark, that is most certain, take away all such ambiguity as men might by suspicious divination gather sometime of their several words, and declare by this mark of adoration plainly their faith to have been, and also their doctrine understanded as they meant of the real presence of Christ’s very body amd blood in the sacrament, and Christ himself God and man to be there present, to whose divine nature, and the hwmanity unite thereunto, adoration may only be directed of us. And so to conclude wp this matter, forasmuch as one of these four marks and notes may be found testified and apparent in the ancient writers, with other words and sentences conformable to the same, this should suffice to exclude all arguments 1 of any bye sentences and ambiguous speeches, and to uphold the certainty of the true catholic — Jaith in deed, which this author by a wrong name of the catholic faith impugneth, to the great slander of the truth, and his own reproach. ἡ CANTERBURY. 4 Your fourth mark also of adoration proveth no more that Christ is present in the. ^ (Lord’s supper, than he is present in baptism. For no less is Christ to be honoured 3 of him that is baptized, than of him that receiveth the holy communion. And no less ought he that is baptized to believe that in baptism he doth presently in deed. and in truth put Christ upon him, and apparel him with Christ, than he that receiveth - the holy communion ought to believe that he doth presently feed upon Christ, eating his flesh and drinking his blood: which thing the scripture doth plainly declare, and the old authors in many places do teach. And moreover the form of baptism doth so manifestly declare Christ to be honoured, that it commandeth the devil therein to honour him by these words: Da honorem Deo: Da gloriam. Jesu Christo; with many other words declaring Christ to be honoured in baptism. And although our Saviour: Christ is specially to be adored and honoured, when he by his holy word and sacraments doth assure us of his present grace and benefits; yet not only then, but alway in all our acts and deeds, we should lift up our hearts to heaven, and there glorify Christ with his celestial Father and co-eternal Spirit. So untrue it is that you say, “that adoration cannot be done to Christ, but if he be really present.” “The papists teach us to have in honour and reverence the forms and accidents of bread and wine, if they
[[^ Vide supra pp. 192-195. ] 3]
← 17. Book II. Against Transubstantiation · Contents · 19. Book V. Of the Oblation and Sacrifice →