3. Book I. Of the Sacrament, Part 1

[2 ol. ὩΣ Bu ΙΝ]

[AN ^ i” n? “LABES YS se dos b.]

js CRAFTY AND SOPHISTICAL CAVILLATION, 4 DEVISED BY

Sephen Gardiner, Doctor of Law, Late Bishop of Winchester

ih AGAINST THE TRUE AND GODLY DOCTRINE OF THE MOST HOLY SACRAMENT OF THE BODY AND BLOOD OF OUR SAVIOUR CHRIST (CALLED BY HIM 1 “AN EXPLICATION AND ASSERTION THEREOF”), WITH AN ANSWER E UNTO THE SAME, MADE BY THE MOST REVEREND FATHER

In God, Thomas Archbishop of Canterbury,,! Primate of All England and Metropolitan. The Title of the Book of Stephen Gardiner

Εἰ LATE BISHOP OF WINCHESTER: i AN EXPLICATION AND ASSERTION OF THE TRUE CATHOLIC FAITH, TOUCHING THE MOST BLESSED SACRAMENT OF THE ALTAR,

With Confutation of a Book Written Against the Same.!

i THE ANSWER OF THOMAS ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURY, &ch Here before the beginning of your book you have prefixed a goodly title; but it ——agreeth with the argument and matter thereof, as water agreeth with the fire. For your book is so far from an explication and assertion of the true catholic faith in the matter of the sacrament, that it is but a crafty cavillation and subtle sophistication, to obscure the truth thereof, and to hide the same, that it should not appear. And in 1 -your whole book, the reader (if he mark it well) shall easily perceive, how little learning — is shewed therein, and how few authors you have alleged, other than such as I brought — forth in my book, and made answer unto: but there is shewed what may be done by — fine wit and new devices to deceive the reader, and by false interpretations to avoid the plain words of scripture and of the old authors.

Wherefore, inasmuch as I purpose, God willing, in this defence of my former book, mot only to answer you, but by the way also to touch D. Smith? two things I would wish in you both: the one is truth with simplicity; the other is, that either of you both had so much learning as you think you have, or else that you thought of yourself “o more than you have in deed. But to answer both your books in few words: the one sheweth nothing else, but what railing without reason or learning, the other what frowardness armed with wit and eloquencé, be able to do against the truth. And Smith, because he would be vehement, and shew his heat in the manner of speech, here the matter is cold, hath framed in a manner all his sentences throughout his whole book by interrogations. But if the reader of both your books do no more, but diligently read over my book once again, he shall find the same not so slenderly made, ——but that I have foreseen all that could be said to the contrary; and that I have fully answered beforehand all that you both have said, or is able to say.

[d PD Made by Stephen, bishop of Winchester, — [? Dr Smith’s book was set forth under this]

[and exhibited by his own hand for his defence to title: “A confutation of the true and Catholic]

[the King’s Majesty’s Commissioners at Lambeth.”’ Doctrine, &c.”—Strype, Memorials of Cranmer. p.]

[Original edition. ] 1089. Oxford edition, 1840. App. Ixi. p. 900.]]

WINCHESTER. 3 Forasmuch as among other mine allegations for defence of myself in this matter, moved against me by occasion of my sermon! made before the king’s most excellent majesty, touching — partly the catholic faith of the most precious sacrament of the altar, which I see now impugned by a book set forth under the name of my lord of Canterbury’s grace; I have thought — - expedient for the better opening of the matter, and considering I am by name touched in the — Said book, the rather to utter partly that I have to say by confutation of that book; wherein — - ra I think nevertheless mot requisite to direct any speech by special name to the person of him 1 thot is entitled author, because it may possibly be that his name is abused, wherewith to set. forth the matter, being himself of such dignity and authority in the commonwealth, as for that respect should be inviolable. For which consideration, I shall in my speech of such reproof as the untruth of the matter necessarily requireth, omitting the special title of the author of the book, speak only of the author in general, being a thing to me greatly to be marvelled at, that such matter should now be published out of my lord of Canterbury’s pen; but because he is a man, I will not wonder, and because he is such a man, I will reverently use him, and forbearing further to name him, talk only of the author by that general name.

CANTERBURY.: of The first entry of your book sheweth to them that be wise, what they may look: for in the rest of the same, except the beginning vary from all that followeth. Now the beginning is framed with such sleight and subtlety, that it may deceive the reader notably in two things: the one, that he should think you were called into judgment before the king’s majesty’s commissioners at Lambeth? for your catholic faith in the sacrament; the other, that you made your book for your defence therein, which be. both utterly untrue. For your book was made or ever ye were called before the said - commissioners; and after you were called, then you altered only two lines in the - beginning of your book, and made that beginning which it hath now. This am I able - to prove, as well otherwise, as by a book which I have of your own hand-writing, wherein appeareth plainly the alteration of the beginning. i And as concerning the cause wherefore ye were called before the commissioners, whereas by your own importune suit and procurement, and as it were enforcing the. matter, you were called to justice for your manifest contempt and continual disobe- ο dience from time to time, or rather rebellion against the king’s majesty, and were justly - deprived of your estate for the same, you would turn it now to a matter of the sacrament, - that the world should think your trouble rose for your faith in the sacrament; which - was no matter nor occasion thereof, nor no such matter was objected against you,. wherefore you need to make any such defence. And where you would make that - matter the occasion of your worthy deprivation and punishment, (which was no cause. thereof, and cloke your wilful obstinacy and disobedience (which was the only cause. thereof), all men of judgment may well perceive, that you could mean no goodness. thereby, neither to the king’s majesty, nor to his realm. 3 But as touching the matter now in controversy, I impugn not the true catholic - faith which was taught by Christ and his apostles (as you say I do), but I impugn. the false papistical faith, invented, devised, and imagined by antichrist and his. ministers. And as for further forbearing of my name, and talking of the author in general. (after that you have named me once, and your whole book is directed against my 4 book, openly set out in my name), all men may judge that your doing herein is not for. reverence to be used unto me, but that by suppressing of my name, you may the ἢ more unreverently and unseemly use your scoffing, taunting, railing, and defaming Ἢ of the author in general; and yet shall every man understand that your speech is 8 directed to me in especial, as well as if you had appointed me with your finger. And gq

[[! Preached on St Peter’s-day, June 29, 1548, p. 340. Vol. 111. p. 379. Oxford ed. 1829. See 3]

[which he chose, because the gospel agreed to his Foxe’s Acts and Monuments, Vol. 11. p. 726, ed.]

[purpose.” The causes of accusation against him 1631.] τῇ]

[are set forth in Burnet’s Hist. Reform. Vol. τι. [3 See p. 3, note 2.]]

(^ your reverent using of yourself, before the king’s highness commissioners of late, doth plainly declare what reverent respect you have to them that be in dignity and authority. in the common wealth. This author denieth the real presence of Christ’s most precious body and blood in the sacrament D This author denieth transubstantiation.

This author denieth evil men to eat and drink the body and blood of Christ in the sacrament.

These three denials only impugn and tend to destroy that faith, which this author term- - eth the popish to err in, calling now all popish that believe either of these three articles by — him denied, the truth whereof shall hereafter be opened. Now, because faith, affirmeth some certainty: if we ask this author, what is his faith which he calleth true and catholic, it is only this, as we may learn by his book, that in our Lords supper be consecrate bread amd wine, and delivered as tokens only to signify Christ’s body and blood: he calleth them holy tokens, but yet moteth that the bread and wine be never the holier: he saith nevertheless they be mot bare tokens, and yet concludeth, Christ mot to be spiritually present in them, but only as a thing is present in that which signifieth it (which ds the nature of a bare token), saying in another place, there is nothing to be worshipped, Jor there is nothing present but in figure and in a sign: which whosoever saith, calleth the (hing in deed absent. And yet the author saith, Christ is in the man that worthily receiveth, piritually present, who eateth of Christ’s flesh and his blood reigning in heaven, whither the - good believing man ascendeth by his faith: and as our body is nourished with the bread - and wine received in the supper, so the true believing man is fed with the body and blood - ef Christ. And this is the sum of the doctrine of that faith, which this author calleth the true catholic faith. ^ CANTERBURY. d I desire the reader to judge my faith not by this short, envious, and untrue col- — lection and report, but by mine own book, as it is at length set out in the first part, from the 8th unto the 16th chapter. And as concerning holiness? of bread and wine (whereunto I may add the water 3 dn baptism) how can a dumb or an insensible and lifeless creature receive into itself —— any food, and feed thereupon? No more is it possible that a spiritless creature should receive any spiritual sanctification or holiness. And yet do I not utterly deprive the outward sacraments of the name of holy things, because of the holy use whereunto they serve, and not because of any holiness that lieth hid in the insensible creature. — “Which although they have no holiness in them, yet they be signs and tokens of the marj - vellous works and holy effects, which God worketh in us by his omnipotent power.

And they be no vain or bare tokens, as you would persuade, (for a bare token is 5 that which betokeneth only and giveth nothing, as a painted fire, which giveth neither light nor heat;) but in the due ministration of the sacraments God is present, working with his word and sacraments. R

— And although (to speak properly) in the bread and wine be nothing in deed to be worshipped, yet in them that duly receive the sacraments is Christ himself inhabiting, and is of all creatures to be worshipped.

A And therefore you gather of my sayings unjustly, that Christ is in deed absent; for d I say (according to God’s word and the doctrine of the old writers) that Christ is present in his sacraments, as they teach also that he is present in his word, when he i worketh mightily by the same in the hearts of the hearers. By which manner of b speech it is not meant that Christ is corporally present in the voice or sound of the speaker (which sound perisheth as soon as the words be spoken), but this speech - meaneth that he worketh with his word, using the voice of the speaker, as his instrument to work by; as he useth also his sacraments, whereby he worketh, and therefore is said. to be present in them.

[i 1 [? the holiness, 1551. ]]

WINCHESTER. “i Now a catholic faith is an wniversal fuit, taught and preached through all, and so 1 received and believed, agreeable and consonant to the scriptures, testified by such as by all 1 ages have in their writings given knowledge thereof, which be the tokens and marks of a true catholic faith, whereof no one can be found in the faith this author calleth catholic, — re First, there is mo scripture that in letter maintaineth the doctrine of this author’s book. in For Christ saith not that the bread doth only signify his body absent, nor St Paul saith this Πού 80 in any place, nor any other canonical scripture declareth Christ’s words so. As for the sense and understanding of Christ’s words, there hath not been in amy age any one - approved and known learned man, that hath so declared and expounded Christ’s words in his supper, that the bread did only signify Christ’s body, and the wine his blood, as things — absent.

Canterbury

— The first part of your description of a catholic faith is crafty and full of subtlety; - by p for what you mean by “all” you do not express. The second part is very true, and agreeth fully with my doctrine in every thing, as well in the matter of transubstantiation, of the presence of Christ in the sacrament, and of the eating and drinking of him, as in the sacrifice propitiatory. For as I have taught in these four matters of controversy, - so learned I the same of the holy scripture; so is it testified by all old writers and - learned men of all ages; so was it universally taught and preached, received and believed, until the see of Rome, the chief adversary unto Christ, corrupted all together, and by hypocrisy and simulation in the stead of Christ erected antichrist; who, being the - son of perdition, hath extolled and advanced himself, and sitteth in the temple of God, - as he were God himself, loosing and binding at his pleasure, in heaven, hell, and earth; - condemning, absolving, canonising, and damning, as to his judgment he thinketh - good. But as concerning your doctrine of transubstantiation, of the real, corporal and natural presence of Christ’s body in the bread, and blood in the wine; that ill men. do eat his flesh and drink his blood; that Christ is many times offered; there is no scripture that in letter maintaineth any of them (as you require in a catholic faith), but the scripture in the letter doth maintain this my doctrine plainly, that the bread remaineth, Panis quem frangimus, nonne communicatio corporis Christi est? “15 not. = the bread which we break the communion of Christ’s body?’ And that evil men do ποῦ eat Christ’s flesh, nor drink his blood; for the scripture saith expressly: “He - that eateth my flesh and drinketh my blood, dwelleth in me and I in him,” which is. not true of ill men. And for the corporal absence of Christ, what can be more plainly Said in the letter than he said of himself, “that he forsook the world?” besides other - scriptures which I have alleged in my third book, the fourth chapter. And the. ix. Scripture speaketh plainly in the Epistle to the Hebrews, that Christ was never more offered than once. spi- But here you take suchra large scope, that you flee from the four proper matters YP that be in controversy, unto a new scope devised by you, that I should absolutely — deny the presence of Christ, and say, that the bread doth only signify Christ’s body absent; which thing I never said nor thought. And as Christ saith not so, nor Paul m saith not so, even so likewise I say not so; and my book in divers places saith clean — contrary, that Christ is with us spiritually present, is eaten and drunken of us, and dwelleth within us, although corporally he be departed out of this world, and is ascended » up into heaven. i WINCHESTER. ü And to the intent every notable disagreement from the truth may the more evidently appear, i I will here in this place (as I will hereafter likewise when the case occurreth) join as it were an issue with this author, that is to say, to make a stay with him in this point triable (as they say) by evidence and soon tried. For in this point the scriptures be already by the — author brought forth, the letter whereof proveth not. his faith. And albeit he travaileth and 4 bringeth forth the saying of many approved writers, yet is there no one of them that writeth il

5 4 in express words the doctrine of that faith, which this author calleth the faith catholic. And to make the issue plain, and to join it directly, thus I say: 2 No author known and approved, that is to say, Ignatius, Polycarp, Justin, Irene, Ter- tullian, Cyprian, Chrysostom, Hilary, Gregory Nazianzen, Basil, Emissen, Ambrose, Cyril, (— Jerome, Augustine, Damascene, Theophylact, none of these hath this doctrine in plain terms, that the bread only signifieth Christ’s body absent; mor this sentence, that the bread and wine be never the holier after consecration, mor that Christ’s body is mone otherwise present in the sacrament, but in a signification; mor this sentence, that the sacrament is mot to be worshipped, because there is nothing present but in a sign. And herein what the truth is, y may soon appear, as it shall by their works never appear to have been taught and preached, received and believed universally, and therefore can be called mo catholic faith (that is to — say) allowed in the whole, through and in outward teaching, preached and believed. /4 CANTERBURY. i In your issues you make me to say what you list, and take your issue where you — list; and then if twelve false varlets pass with you, what wonder is it? But I will - join with you this issue, that neither scripture nor ancient author writeth in express — words the doctrine of your faith. And to make the issue plain, and to join directly — with you therein, thus I say: that no ancient and catholic author hath your doctrine — in plain terms. And because I will not take my issue in bye matters (as you do), I will make it in the four principal points, wherein we vary, and whereupon my book. resteth.

This therefore shall be mine issue: that as no scripture, so no ancient author known - and approved, hath in plain terms your transubstantiation: nor that the body and - blood of Christ be really, corporally, naturally, and carnally under the forms of bread and wine: nor that evil men do eat the very body and drink the very blood of Christ: — mor that Christ is offered every day by the priest a sacrifice propitiatory for sin. — Wherefore by your own description and rule of a catholic faith, your doctrine and — feaching in these four articles cannot be good and catholic, except you can find it in — plain terms in the scripture and old catholic doctors; which when you do, I will hold 3 -up my hand at the bar, and say, “guilty”: and if you cannot, then it is reason that you. — do the like, per logem talionis.: WINCHESTER.

Jf this author, setting apart the word “catholic”, would of his own wit go about to prove, howsoever scripture hath been wnderstanded hitherto, yet it should be understanded indeed as — Ae now teacheth, he hath herein divers disadvantages and hindrances worthy consideration, which I will particularly note. ᾿ς First, the prejudice and sentence, given as it were by his own mouth against himself, now in the book called the Catechism in his mame set forth. Secondly, that about seven hundred years ago one Bertram (if the book set forth in his be his) enterprised secretly the like, as appeareth by the said book, and yet prevailed of. Thirdly, Berengarius, being indeed but an archdeacon, about five hundred years past, after he had openly attempted to set forth such like doctrine, recanted, and so failed in his Fourthly, Wicklif, not much above an hundred years past, enterprised the same, whose aching God prospered not.

Fifthly, how Luther in his works handled them that would have in our time raised up LL le same doctrine im Germany, it is manifest by his and their writings; whereby appeareth the enterprise that hath had so many overthrows, so many rebuts, so often veproofs, to be desperate, and such as God hath not prospered and favoured to be received at amy time openly as his true teaching. Herein whether I say true or mo, let the stories try me; and it is matter worthy to be noted, because Gamaliel’s observation written in the Acts of the Apostles is allowed to 3 ma k, how they prosper and go forward in their doctrine, that be authors of amy mew

CANTERBURY. E I have not proved in my book my four assertions by mine own wit, but by the - collation of holy scripture, and the sayings of the old holy catholic authors. And as for your five notes, you might have noted them against yourself, who by them have - much more disadvantage and hindrance than I have. As concerning the Catechism by me set forth, I have answered in my fourth book, - the eighth chapter, that ignorant men for lack of judgment and exercise in old authors mistake my said Catechism. 1 And as for Bertram, he did nothing else but, at the request of king Charles, set. out the true doctrine of the holy catholic church, from Christ unto his time, concerning - the sacrament. And I never heard nor read any man that condemned Bertram - before this time; and therefore I can take no hindrance, but a great advantage at his hands: for all men that hitherto have written of Bertram, have much commended him. And seeing that he wrote of the sacrament at king Charles request, it is not like that he would write against the received doctrine of the church in those days.. And if he had, it is without all doubt that some learned man, either in his time or sithence, would have written against him, or at the least not have commended him. so much as they have done.

Berengarius of himself had a godly judgment in this matter, but by the tyranny - of Nicholas the Second he was constrained to make a devilish recantation, as I have declared in my first book, the seventeenth chapter. a And as for John Wickliff, he was a singular instrument of God in his time to set forth the truth of Christs gospel; but antichrist, that sitteth in God’s temple boasting - himself as God, hath by God’s sufferance prevailed against many holy men, and — sucked the blood of martyrs these late years. And as touching Martin Luther, it seemeth you be sore pressed, that be fain to pray aid of him, whom you have hitherto ever detested. Phe fox is sore hunted that is fain to take his burrow, and the wolf that is fain to take the lion’s den for a shift, or to run for succour unto a beast which he most hateth. And no man condemmeth your doctrine of transubstantiation, and of the propitiatory sacrifice of the mass, more - severely and earnestly than doth Martin Luther. ᾿ But it appeareth by your conclusion, that you have waded so far in rhetorick, - that you have forgotten your logic. For this is your argument: Bertram taught this. doctrine and prevailed not; Berengarius attempted the same, and failed in his purpose;. Wickliff enterprised the same, whose teaching God prospered not; therefore God hath — athaa not prospered and favoured it to be received at any time openly as his true teaching. I will make the like reason. The prophet Osea taught in Samaria to the ten tribes the true doctrine of God, to bring them from their abominable superstitions and ido-. latry: Joel, Amos, and Micheas attempted the same, whose doctrine prevailed not; God - prospered not their teaching among those people, but they were condemned with their - doctrine; therefore God hath not prospered and favoured it to be received at any time openly as his true teaching. If you will answer (as you must needs do), that the cause why that among those - people the true teaching prevailed not, was by reason of the abundant superstition and 4 idolatry that blinded their eyes, you have fully answered your own argument, and! have plainly declared the cause, why the true doctrine in this matter hath not prevailed these five hundred years, the church of Rome (which all that time hath borne the, chief swing) being overflown and drowned in all kind of superstition and idolatry, and. therefore might not abide to hear of the truth. And the true doctrine of the sacra-. ment (which I have set out plainly in my book) was never condemned by no council,. nor your false papistical doctrine allowed, until the devil caused antichrist his son and heir, Pope Nicholas the Second, with his monks and friars, to condemn the truth and τ confirm these your heresies. p, And where of Gamaliel’s words you make an argument of prosperous success in ᾿ this matter, the scripture testifieth how antichrist shall prosper and prevail against saints no short while, and persecute the truth. And yet the counsel of Gamaliel -

1 OF THE SACRAMENT. 15 4 was very discreet and wise. For he perceived that God went about the reformation. of religion grown in those days to idolatry, hypocrisy and superstition, through traditions of Pharisees; and therefore he moved the rest of the council to beware, that 1 they did not rashly and. unadvisedly condemn that doctrine and religion which was 1 approved by God, lest in so doing they should not only resist the apostles, but God — himself. Which counsel if you had marked and followed, you would not have done so unsoberly in many things as you have done.

And as for the prosperity of them that have professed Christ and his true doctrine, they prospered with the papists as St John Baptist prospered with Herod, and our Saviour Christ with Pilate, Annas, and Caiphas. Now which of these prospered best, say you? Was the doctrine of Christ and St John any whit the worse, because the eruel tyrants and Jews put them to death for the same?

Winchester

But all this set apart, and putting aside all testimonies of the old church, and resorting only to the letter of the scripture, there to search out an understanding, and in doing thereof to forget what hath been taught hitherto: how shall this author establish upon scripture that - e would have believed? What other text is there im seripture that encountereth with these i words of scripture, This is my body,” whereby to alter the signification of them? — There - ds mo scripture saith, Christ did not give his body, but the figure of his body; mor the giving - of Christ’s body in his supper, verily and really so understanded, doth mot necessarily im- - pugn and contrary any other speech or doing of Christ, expressed in scripture. For the - great power and ommipotency of God excludeth that repugnance which man’s reason would deem, of Christ’s departing from this world, and placing his humanity in the glory of his Father.

Canterbury

The scripture is plain, and you confess also that it was bread that Christ spake of when he said, “This is my body.” And what need we any other scripture to encounter with these words, seeing that all men know that bread is not Christ’s body, - the one having sense and reason, the other none at all? Wherefore in that speech - must needs be sought another sense and meaning, than the words of themselves do - give, which is (as all old writers do teach, and the circumstances of the text declare) j that the bread is a figure and sacrament of Christs body. And yet, as he giveth the — bread to be eaten with our mouths, so giveth he his very body to be eaten with our — faith. And therefore I say, that Christ giveth himself truly to be eaten, chewed, and digested; but all is spiritually with faith, not with mouth. And yet you would bear —— me in hand, that I say that thing which I say not; that is to say, that Christ did — mot give his body, but the figure of his body. And because you be not able to confute that I say, you would make me to say that you can confuted - As for the great power and omnmipotency of God, it is no place here to dispute what God can do, but what he doth. I know that he can do what he will, both in heaven and in earth, and no man is able to resist his will But the question here is — ef his will, not of his power. And yet if you can join together these two, that one -mature singular shall be here and not here, both at one time, and that it shall be —— gone hence when it is here, you have some strong syment!’, and be a cunning geomeI trician; but yet you shall never be good logician, that would set together two contra dictories: for that, the schoolmen say, God cannot do. 3 D WINCHESTER. D ὴ Jf this author without force of mecessity would induce it, by the like speeches, as when: € ist said, =r am the door,” “I am the vine,” he is Helias,” and such other; and because ΟΝ is a figurative speech in them, it may be so here, which maketh no kind of proof that 3 ds so here; but yet, if by way of reasoning I would yield to him therein, and call it a figurative speech, as he doth; what other point of faith is there then in the matter, but to: believe the story, that Christ did institute such a supper, wherein he gave bread and wine for ἃ token of his body and blood, which is now after this understanding mo secret mystery at

[Rk 2 [ Cement.]]

all, or any ordinance above reason? For commonly men use to ordain in sensible things 1 A remembrances of themselves when they die or depart the country. So as in the ordinance of this supper, after this understanding, Christ shewed not his omnipoteney, but only benevolence, that he loved us, and would be remembered of us. For Christ did not say, Whosoever eateth — — this token eateth my body, or eateth my flesh, or shall have amy profit of it in special, but, — “Do this in remembrance of me.”

CANTERBURY. I I make no such vain inductions, as you imagine me to do, but such as be established by scripture and the consent of all the old writers. And yet both you and Smith - use such fond inductions for your proof of transubstantiation, when you say, God can do this thing, and he can make that thing; whereof ye would conclude, that he doth clearly take away the substance of bread and wine, and putteth his flesh and blood in their places, and that Christ maketh his body to be corporally in many places - at one time; of which doctrine you have not one iota in all the whole scripture. And as concerning your argument made upon the history of the institution of Christs supper, like fond reasoning might ungodly men make of the sacrament οὗ baptism, and so scoff out both these high mysteries of Christ. For when Christ said - these words after his resurrection, Go into the whole world, and preach unto all I people, baptizing them in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost:” here might wicked blasphemers say, What point of faith is in these words, but to: believe the story, that Christ did institute such a sacrament, wherein he commanded: to give water for a token? which is now, after this understanding, no secret mystery - at all, or any ordinance above reason: so as in the ordinance of this sacrament, after this understanding, Christ shewed not his omnipotence. For he said not then, Whosoever receiveth this token of water, shall receive remission of sin, or the Holy - Ghost, or shall have any profit of it in especial but, “Do this.”

WINCHESTER. be And albeit this author would mot have them bare tokens, yet «nd? they be only tokens, they have mo warrant signed by scripture for amy apparel at all. For the sixth of John E speaketh mot of amy promise made to the eating of a token of Christ’s flesh, but to the eating — of Christ’s very flesh, whereof the bread (as this author would have it) is but a Figure in — (iss words, when he said, “This is my body.” And if it be but a figure in Christs ὦ words, it is but a figure in St Paul’s words, when he said, The bread which we break, is it mot the communication of Christ’s body?” that is to say, a figure of the communication: of Christ’s body (if this author’s doctrine be true), and mot the communication indeed. Where-Jore, if the very body of Christ be not in the supper delivered in deed, the eating there hath ὦ spe- mo special promise, but only commandment to do it in remembrance. After which doctrine T why should it be noted absolutely for a sacrament and special mystery, that hath nothing — and. hidden in it, but a plain open ordinance of a token for a remembrance; to the eating of x tat, which token is annexed mo promise expressly, nor any holiness to be accompted to be in the bread or wine (as this author teacheth), but to be called holy, because they be deputed to am Nn holy use? If I ask the use, he declareth to signify. If I should ask what to signify? There hi must be a sort of good words framed without scripture. For scripture expresseth no matter — of signification of special effect. af CANTERBURY. M not If I granted for your pleasure that the bare bread (having no further respect) E were but only a bare figure of Christ’s body, or a bare token (because that term br liketh you better, as it may be thought for this consideration, that men should think that I take the bread in the holy mystery to be but as it were a token of F recom- i] mend me unto you’), but if I grant, I say, that the bare bread is but a bare token of Christs body, what have you gained thereby? Is therefore the whole use of the bread in the whole action and ministration of the Lord’s holy supper but a naked or - nude and bare token? Is not one loaf being broken and distributed among faithful people in the Lord’s supper, taken and eaten of them, a token that the body of Christ i

[[! doctrines, 1551.] JO? Le. if] Al]

was broken and crucified for them; and is to them spiritually and effectually given, amd of them spiritually and fruitfully taken and eaten, to their spiritual and heavenly comfort, sustentation and nourishment of their souls, as the bread is of their bodies? j And what would you require more? Can there be any greater comfort to a christian qan than this? Is here nothing else but bare tokens? 4 But yet importune adversaries, and such as be wilful and obstinate, will never be satisfied, but quarrel farther, saying, What of all this? Here be a great many of gay words framed together, but to what purpose? For all be but signs and tokens as concerning the bread. But how can he be taken for a good christian man, that thinketh that Christ did ordain his sacramental signs and tokens in vain, without effectual grace and operation? For so might we as well say, that the water in bap- tism is a bare token, and hath no warrant signed by scripture for any apparel at all: for the scripture speaketh not of any promise made to the receiving of a token or figure only. And so may be concluded, after your manner of reasoning, that in baptism 3s no spiritual operation in deed, because that washing in water in itself is but a token. Li But to express the true effect of the sacraments: As the washing outwardly in water is not a vain token, but teacheth such a washing as God worketh inwardly, jin them that duly receive the same; so likewise is not the bread a vain token, but — sheweth and preacheth to the godly receiver, what Ged worketh in him by his almighty power secretly and invisibly. And therefore as the bread is outwardly eaten — indeed in the Lord’s supper, so is the very body of Christ inwardly by faith eaten % indeed of all them that come thereto in such sort as they ought to do, which eating mourisheth them into everlasting life.

And this eating hath a warrant signed by Christ himself in the sixth of John, where Christ saith: “He that eateth my flesh and drinketh my blood, hath life everlasting.” But they that to the outward eating of the bread, join not thereto an inward eating of Christ by faith, they have no warrant by scripture at all, but the bread and wine to them be vain, nude, and bare tokens.

And where you say that seripture expresseth no matter of signification [of] special — effect in the sacraments of bread and wine, if your eyes were not blinded with popish —— errors, frowardness, and self-love, ye might see in the twenty-second of Luke, where Qhrist himself expresseth a matter of signification, saying: Hoc facite in mei commemo- ἡ — rationem: “Do this in remembrance of me.” And St Paul likewise, 1 Cor. xi., — hath the very same thing; which is a plain and direct answer to that same your last i question, whereupon you triumph at your pleasure, as though the victory were all your. For ye say, when this question is demanded of me, What to signify? “Here ᾿ - must be a sort of good words framed without scripture.” But here St Paul answereth; your question in express words, that it is the Lord’s death that shall be signified, represented, and preached in these holy mysteries, until his coming again. And this remembrance, representation and preaching of Christ’s death, cannot be without special effect, except you will say that Christ worketh not effectually with his word and sacraments. And St Paul expresseth the effect, when he saith: “The bread which we break is the communion of Clirist’s body.” But by this place and such like in your — hook, ye disclose yourself to all men of judgment, either how wilful in your opinion, er how slender in knowledge of the scriptures you be. And therefore like as the teaching is mew, to say it is an only figure, or only signi-; so the matter of signification must be newly devised, and new wine have mew bottles, and be thoroughly new, after fifteen hundred and fifty years, in the very year of jubilee (as hey were wont to call it) to be newly erected and builded in Englishmen’s hearts. CAEN E GN S ow CANTERBURY It seemeth that you be very desirous to abuse the people’s ears with this term,’ E. “new,” and with the ^ year of jubilee,” as though the true doctrine of the sacrament B. by me taught should be but a new doctrine, and yours old (as the Jews slandered MU Torani 9

the doctrine of Christ by the name of newness); or else that in this year of jubilee, you would put the people in remembrance of the full remission of sin, which they were wont to have at Rome this year, that they might long to return to Rome for pardons again, as the children of Israel longed to return to Egypt for the flesh that they were wont to have there.

But all men of learning and judgment know well enough that this your doctrine is no older than the bishop of Rome’s usurped supremacy, which though it be of good age by number of years, yet is it new to Christ and his word. If there were such darkness in the world now, as hath been in that world which you note for old, the — people might drink new wine of the whore of Babylon’s cup, until they were as drunk with hypocrisy and superstition, as they might well stand upon their legs, and no man once say, black is their eye. But now, (thanks be to God!) the light of his word so shineth in the world, that your drunkenness in this year of jubilee is espied, so that you cannot erect and build your popish kingdom any longer in Englishmen’s hearts, without your own scorn, shame and confusion. The old popish bottles must needs burst, when the new wine of God’s holy word is poured into them.

Winchester

Which mew teaching, whether it proceedeth from the spirit of truth or mo, shall more plainly appear by such matter as this author uitereth wherewith to impugn the true faith — taught hitherto. For among many other proofs, whereby truth after much travail in conhow tention at the last prevaileth and hath victory, there is mone more notable, than when the — very adversaries of truth (who pretend, nevertheless, to be truth’s friends) do by some evident untruth bewray themselves. According whereunto, when the two women contended before king of herself, and never disagreed from the truth of mature, but rather than the child should be iii. Solomon for the child yet alive, Solomon discerned the true natural mother from the other,. by their speeches amd sayings; which in the very! mother were ever conformable unto nature, and in the other, at the last evidently against nature. The very true mother spake always like killed (as Solomon threatened when he called for a sword) required? it to be given whole alive to the other woman. The other woman that was mot the true mother cared more for victory than for the child, and therefore spake that was in mature an evidence that she lied calling herself mother, and saying, Let it be divided,” which no? natural mother could say of her own child. Whereupon proceedeth Solomon s most wise judgment, which hath this lesson in it,—ever where contention is, on that part to be the truth, where all sayings and doings appear uniformly consonant to the truth pretended; and on what side a notable lie appeareth, the rest may be judged to be after the same sort. For truth meedeth mo aid of lies, craft, or sleight, 9f wherewith to be supported or maintained. So as in the entreating of the truth of this high and - ineffable mystery of the sacrament, on what part thou, reader, seest craft, sleight, shift, obliquity, or in amy one point am open manifest lie, there thou mayest consider, whatsoever pretence be Pl- made of truth, yet the victory of truth not to be there intended, which loveth simplicity, plainness, — direct speech, without admixtion of shift or colour.

CANTERBURY. H If either division or confusion may try the true mother, thé wicked church of Rome (not in speech only, but in all other practices) hath long gone about to oppress, ὦ ^” confound and divide the true and lively faith of Christ, shewing herself not to be the 1 true mother, but a most cruel stepmother, dividing, confounding and counterfeiting all things at her pleasure, not contrary to nature only, but chiefly against the plain words of scripture. ” ~~ For here in this one matter of controversy between you, Smith, and me, you i divide against nature the accidents of bread and wine from their substances, and the substance of Christ from his accidents; and contrary to the scripture you divide our - eternal life, attributing unto the sacrifice of Christ upon the cross only the beginning thereof, and the continuance thereof you ascribe unto the sacrifice of popish priests.

[Γ᾿ In the very true mother, 1551.] [? No true natural mother, 1551.] E [? Required rather, 1551.] [^ Supported and maintained, 1551.] d]

And in the sacraments you separate Christ’s body from his spirit, affirming that in. baptism we receive but his spirit, and in the communion but his flesh: and that. Christ’s spirit reneweth our life, but increaseth it not; and that his flesh increaseth our life, but giveth it not. And against all nature, reason, and truth, you confound - £he substance of bread and wine with the substance of Christ’s body and blood, in - such wise as you make but one nature and person of them all. And against scripture and all conformity of nature, you confound and jumble so together the natural members of Christ’s body in the sacrament, that you leave no distinction, proportion,. mor fashion of man’s body at all. B And can your church be taken for the true natural mother of the true doctrine - ef Christ, that thus unnaturally speaketh, divideth, and confoundeth Christ’s body?

Jf Solomon were alive, he would surely give judgment that Christ should be taken - from that woman, that speaketh so unnaturally, and so unlike his mother, and be - given to the true church of the faithful, that never digressed from the truth of God’s — word, nor from the true speech of Christ’s natural body, but speak according to the — same, that Christs body, although it be inseparable, annexed unto his Godhead, yet it — hath all the natural conditions and properties of a very man’s body, occupying one place, and being of a certain height and measure, having all members distinct and set — in good order and proportion. And yet the same body joined unto his divinity, is — mot only the beginning, but also the continuance and consummation of our eternal and celestial life. By him we be regenerated, by him we be fed and nourished from — time to time, as he hath taught us most certainly to believe by his holy word and ti sacraments, which remain in their former substance and nature, as Christ doth in his, — without mixtion or confusion. This is the true and natural speaking in this matter, — like a true natural mother, and like a true and right believing christian man.

. Marry, of that doctrine which you teach, I cannot deny but the church of Rome. is the mother thereof, which in scripture is called Babylon, because of commixtion — or confusion: which in all her doings and teachings so doth mix and confound - error with truth, superstition with religion, godliness with hypocrisy, scripture with traditions, that she sheweth herself alway uniform and consonant, to confound all the doctrine of Christ, yea, Christ himself, shewing herself to be Christ’s stepmother, and b the true natural mother of antichrist. - Amd for the conclusion of your matter here, I doubt not but the indifferent reader — shall easily perceive what spirit moved you to write your book. For seeing that your book is so full of crafts, sleights, shifts, obliquities, and manifest untruths, it may be easily judged, that whatsover pretence be made of truth, yet nothing is less intended, than that truth should either have victory, or appear and be seen at all.

r WINCHESTER.

And that thou, reader, mightest by these marks judge of that is here entreated by the author ag inst the most blessed sacrament, I shall note certain evident and manifest untruths, which this author is not afraid to utter, (a matter wonderful, considering his dignity, if he that is named be he author indeed,) which should be a great stay of contradiction, if anything were to be regarded against the truth.

3. First, I will note unto the reader, how this author termeth the faith of the real and substantial bresence of Christ’s body and blood in the sacrament to be the faith of the papists: which saying, vhat foundation it hath, thou mayest consider of that followeth.

ij - Luther, that professed openly to abhor all that might be noted popish, defended stoutly the wesence of. Christ’s body in the sacrament, and to be present really and substantially, even with he same words and terms. LOT Bucer, that is here in England, in a solemn work that he writeth upon the Gospels, -qprofesseth the same faith of the real and substantial presence of Christ’s body in the sacraent, which he affirmeth to have been believed of all the church of Christ from the beginning A LRerto Justus Jonas hath translated a catechism out of Dutch into Latin, taught in the city of “Nuremberg in Germany, where Hosiander is chief preacher, in which catechism they be accounted for no true christian men, that deny the presence of Christ’s body in the sacrament. The words “us

“really” and substantially” be not expressed as they be in Bucer, but the word “truly” is there, and, as Bucer saith, that is, substantially. Which catechism was translated into English — in this author’s name about two years past.

Philip Melancthon, no papist mor priest, writeth a very wise epistle in this matter to i colampadius, and signifying soberly his belief of the presence of Christ’s very body in the sacrament; and to prove the same to have been the faith of the old church from the beginning, allegeth the sayings of Irene, Cyprian, Chrysostom, Hilary, Cyril, Ambrose, Theophylact, which — authors he esteemeth both worthy credit, and to affirm the presence of Christ’s body in the sacrament plainly without ambiguity. He answereth to certain places of St Augustine, and saith all eolampadius enterprise to depend wpon conjectures, and arguments applausible to idle wits, with much more wise matter, as that epistle doth purport, which is set out in a book of a good volume among the other epistles of. GZcolampadius, so as no man may suspect anything counterfeit in the matter.

One Hippinus, or (Epinus, of Hamburgh, greatly esteemed among the Lutherams, hath written a book to the king’s majesty that mow is, published abroad in print, wherein much inveighing against the church of Rome, doth in the matter of the sacrament write as followeth — Eucharistia is called by itself a sacrifice, because it is a remembrance of the true sacrifice offered wpon the cross, and that in it is dispensed the true body and true blood of Christ, which is plainly the same in essence, that is to say substance, and the same blood in essence signifying, though the manner of presence be spiritual, yet the substance of that is present, is the same with that in heaven.”

Erasmus, noted a man that durst and did speak of all abuses in the church liberally, taken Jor mo papist, and among us so much esteemed, as his paraphrases of the gospel is ordered £o be had in every church of this realm, declareth in divers of his works most manifestly his ith of the presence of Christ’s body in the sacrament, and by his epistles recommendeth to upon £he world the work of Algerus in that matter of the sacrament, whom he noteth well exercised; in the scriptures, and the old doctors, Cyprian, Hilary, Ambrose, Jerome, Augustine, Basil, Chrysostom. And for. Erasmus own judgment, he saith we have an inviolable foundation of Christ’s own words, This is my body,” rehearsed again by St Paul: he saith further, the body of Christ is hidden under those signs; and sheweth also upon what occasions men have erred in reading the old fathers, amd wisheth that they which have followed Berengarius in error would also follow him in repentance. I will not, reader, encumber thee with more words of Erasmus. Mar- Peter Martyr, of Oxford, taken for no papist, in a treatise he made of late of the sacrament, ὦ rim which is now translated into English, sheweth how as touching the real presence of Christ’s body, it is not only the sentence of the papists, but of other also; whom the said Peter nevertheless doth with as many shifts and lies as he may impugn for that point, as well as he doth the papists for transubstantiation, but yet he doth not, as this author doth, impute that faith of the real presence of Christ’s body and blood to the only papists. Whereupon, reader, here I join with the author an issue, that the faith of the real and substantial presence of Christ’s body and blood in the sacrament is mot the device of papists, or their faith only, as this author doth considerately - slander it to be, and desire therefore that according to Solomon’s judgment this may serve for a. - note and mark, to give sentence! for the true mother of the child. For what should this mean, So without shame- openly and untruly to call this faith popish, but only with the envious word of u papist to overmatch the truth? 1: CANTERBURY. 1 This explication of the true catholic faith noteth to the reader certain evident and manifest untruths uttered by me (as he saith), which I also pray thee, good reader, to note for this intent, that thou mayest take the rest of my sayings for true, which - he noteth not for false, and doubtless they should not have escaped noting as well as. the other, if they had been untrue, as he saith the other be. And if I can prove these things also true, which he noteth for manifest and evident untruths, then me. thinketh it is reason that all my sayings should be allowed for true, if those be proved - true which only be rejected as untrue. But this untruth is to be noted in him generally, that he either ignorantly mistaketh, or willingly misreporteth almost all that I say. But now note, good reader, the evident and manifest untruths which I

[[’ For to give sentence, 1551.] i? Me think, 1551.] ul]

OF THE SACRAMENT. 21. utter as he saith. The first is, that the faith of the real presence is the faith of j the papists. Another is, that these words, My flesh is verily meat” I do translate thus?: My flesh is very meat” Another is, that I handle not sincerely the words. of St Augustine, speaking of the eating of Christ’s body. The fourth is, that by these words, “This is my body,” Christ intendeth not to make the bread his body, 1 but to signify that such as receive that worthily be members of Christ’s body. 5 These be the heinous and manifest errors which I have uttered. i As touching the first, that the faith of the real and substantial presence of Christ’s body and blood in the sacrament is the faith of the papists, this is no untruth, but a most certain truth. For you confess yourself, and defend in this book, that it is your faith: and so do likewise all the papists. And here I will make an issue with you, that the papists believe the real, corporal, and natural presence of Christ’s body and blood jn the sacrament. Answer me directly without colour, whether it be so or not. If they believe not so, then they believe as I do, for I believe not so: and then let them openly ᾿ς eonfess that my belief is true. And if they believe so, then say I true when I say that it t is the papists faith. And then is my saying no manifest untruth, but a mere truth; 2 and so the verdict in the issue passeth upon my side by your own confession. τῇ And here the reader may note well, that once again you be fain to fly for succour —— unto M. Luther, Bucer, Jonas, Melancthon, and (Epinus, whose names” were wont to be so hateful unto you, that you could never with patience abide the hearing of — them: and yet their sayings help you nothing at all. For although these men in — this and many other things have in times past, and yet peradventure some do (the — veil of old darkness not clearly in every point removed from their eyes), agree with the papists in part of this matter, yet they agree not in the whole: and therefore it is true nevertheless, that this faith which you teach is the papists faith. For if you would conclude, that this is not the papists faith, because? Luther, Bucer, and - ether, believe in many things as the papists do, then by the same reason you may conclude that the papists believe not that Christ was born, crucified, died, rose again, - and ascended into heaven, which things Luther, Bucer and the other, constantly both. taught and believed: and yet the faith of the real presence may be called rather the — faith of the papists than of the other, not only because the papists do so believe, — but specially for that? the papists were the first authors and inventors of that faith, — and have been the chief spreaders abroad of it, and were the cause that other were E blinded with the same error. —. Jut here may the reader note one thing by the way, that it is a foul clout that you would refuse to wipe your nose withal, when you take such men to prove your ᾿ς matter, whom you have hitherto accounted most vile and filthy heretics. And yet now you be glad to fly to them for succour, whom you take for God’s enemies, and 4 to whom you have ever had a singular hatred. You pretend that you stay yourself —— upon ancient writers: and why run you now to such men for aid, as be not only new, ᾿ “but also as you think, be evil and corrupt in judgment; and to such as think you, by your writings and doings, as rank a papist as is any at Rome?

— And yet not one of these new men (whom you allege) do thoroughly agree with — your doctrine, either in transubstantiation, or in carnal eating and drinking of Christ’s — flesh and blood, or in the sacrifice of Christ in the mass, nor yet thoroughly in the meal presence. For they affirm not such a gross presence of Christ’s body, as expelleth the substance of bread, and is made by conversion thereof into the substance of Christ’s — body, and is eaten with the mouth. And yet if they did, the ancient authors that were next unto Christ’s time (whom I have alleged) may not give place unto these new men in this matter, although they were men of excellent learning and judgment, howsoever 4 it liketh you to accept them.

But I may conclude that your faith in the sacrament is popish, until such time as Hh ou can prove that your doctrine of transubstantiation and of the real presence was Bh 3 [? I translate thus, 1551.] [$ Whose names before were wout, 1551.] E [ Flee, 1551.] [7 Because that Luther, 1551.] P i [^ Martin Luther, 1551. ] [ But for that specially, that the papists, 1551. ]

universally received and believed, before the bishops of Rome defined and determined the same. And when you have proved that, then will I grant that in your first note — you have convinced me of an evident and manifest untruth, and that I untruly charge you with the envious name of a papistical faith.

But in your issue you term the words at your pleasure, and report me otherwise than I do say: for I do not say that the doctrine of the real presence is the papists’ faith only, but that it was the papists faith, for it was their device. And herein will I join with you an issue: that the papistical church is the mother of transubstantiation, and of allthe four principal errors which I impugn in my book.

Winchester

It shall be now to purpose to consider the scriptures touching the matter of the sacrament, — which the author pretending to bring forth faithfully as the majesty thereof requireth, in the — rehearsal of the words of Christ out of the gospel of St John, he beginneth a little too low, and passeth over that pertaineth to the matter, and therefore should have begun a little higher at this — clause: And the bread which I shall give you is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the — - world. The Jews therefore strived between themselves, saying, How can this man give his flesh to. be eaten? Jesus therefore said unto them, Verily, verily I say unto you, Except ye eat the flesh — of the Son of man, and drink his blood, ye have no life in you. Whoso eateth my flesh, and — drinketh my blood, hath eternal life, and I will raise him wp at the last day. For my flesh is very meat, and my blood very drink. He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, dwelleth in me, and I in him. As the living Father hath sent me, and I live by the Father: even so he that eateth me shall live by me. This is the bread which came down from heaven. — Not as your fathers did eat manna and are dead. He that eateth this bread shall live for ever.”

Here is also a fault in the translation of the text, which should be thus in one place: For — my flesh is verily meat, and my blood is verily drink.” In which speech the verb that eoupleth — the words flesh” and, “meat” together, knitteth them together in their proper signification, so as the flesh of Christ is verily meat, and mot figuratively meat, as the author would persuade. And in these words of Christ may appear plainly, how Christ taught the mystery of the food of his humanity, which he promised to give for food, even the same flesh that he said he would give - Jor the life of the world; and so expresseth the first sentence of this scripture here by me wholly brought forth, that is to say, and the bread which I shall give you is my flesh, which I shall give for the life of the world;” and so is it? plain that Christ spake of flesh in the same sense that St John speaketh in, saying, The word was made flesh,” signifying by flesh the whole humanity. And so did Cyril agree to Nestorius, when he upon these texts reasoned how this — gating is to be understanded of Christ’s humanity, to which nature in Christ’s person is properly attribute to be eaten as meat spiritually to mowrish man, dispensed and given in the sacrament. j And between Nestorius and Cyril was this diversity in understanding the mystery, that Nestorius esteeming of each nature in Christ a several person, as it was objected to him, and so dissolving the ineffable unity, did so repute the body of Christ to be eaten as the body of a man separate. - Cyril maintained the body of Christ to be eaten as a body inseparable, united to the Godhead, and Jor the ineffable mystery of that union the same to be a flesh that giveth life. And then as Christ saith, “If we eat not the flesh of the Son of man, we have not life in us,” because Christ hath — ordered the sacrament of his most precious body and blood, to nourish such as be by his holy ] Spirit regenerate. And as in baptism we receive the Spirit of Christ, for the renewing of our — spirit Life 80 do we in this sacrament of Christ’s most precious body and blood receive Christ’s very fleshy — lie, and drink his very blood, to continue and preserve, increase and augment, the life received. were And therefore in the same form of words Christ spake to Nicodemus of baptism, that - to Ae speaketh here of the eating of his body and drinking of his blood, and in both sacraments giveth, dispenseth, and exhibiteth indeed, those celestial gifts in sensible elements, as Chrysost saith.. And because the true, faithful, believing men do only by faith know the Son of man. to be in unity of person the Son of God, so as for the unity of the two natures in Christ, in one person, the flesh of the Son of man is the proper flesh of the Son of God.? Saint Augustine said well when he noted these words of Christ, Verily, verily, unless ye eat the flesh of the Son of man,” &e., to be a figurative speech, because after the bare letter it — seemeth unprofitable, considering that flesh profiteth nothing in itself, esteemed in the own nature 1 [ These words, “and not figuratively meat,” [? And so it is, 1551.] i are not found in the 1551. ed. of Winchester’s book. ]

alone; but as the same flesh in Christ is united. to the divine nature, so is it, as Christ said, (after Cyril’s exposition,) spirit and life, not changed into the divine nature of the spirit, but for the ineffable union in the person of Christ thereunto. It is vivificatrix, as Cyril said, and as the holy Ephesine council decreed: A flesh giving life” according to Christ’s words: Who eateth. my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath eternal life, and I will raise him up at the latter day.” And then to declare unto us, how in giving this life to us Christ useth the instrument of his very human body, it followeth: For my flesh is verily meat, and my blood is verily —. drink3.” So like as Christ sanctifieth by his godly Spirit, so doth he sanctify ws by his godly flesh, and therefore repeateth again, to inculcate the celestial thing of this mystery, and saith: “He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, dwelleth in me and I in him which is the natural and corporal wnion between us and Christ. Whereupon followeth, that es Christ is naturally in his Father, and his Father in him, so he that eateth verily the flesh of Christ, he is by nature in Christ, and Christ is naturally in him, and the worthy receiver hath life increased, augmented, and confirmed by the participation of the flesh of Christ. il And because of the ineffable union of the two natures, Christ said, This is the food that came down from heaven,” because God (whose proper flesh it is) came down from heaven, «μὰ hath another virtue than anna had, because this giveth life to them that worthily re- Η ceive it: which manna (being but a figure thereof) did ποῖ, but being in this food Christ’s very flesh, inseparably united to the Godhead, the same is of such efficacy, as he that worthily eateth. of it shall live for ever. And thus I have declared the. sense of Christ’s words, brought I Jorth out of the gospel of St John. Whereby appeareth, how evidently they set forth the docrine of the mystery of the eating of Christ’s flesh, and drinking his blood in the sacrament, b which must needs be understanded of a corporal eating, as Christ did after order in the in- stitution of the said sacrament, according to his promise and doctrine here declared.

Canterbury

Here before you enter into my second untruth (as you call it), you find fault by the way, that in the rehearsal of the words of Christ, out of the Gospel of St John, I begin a little too low. But if the reader consider the matter for the which I allege ft John, he shall well perceive that I began at the right place where I ought to begin. For I do not bring forth St John for the matter of the real presence of Christ in the n sacrament, whereof is no mention made in that chapter; and as it would not have 3 served me for that purpose, no more doth it serve you, although you cited the whole t - gospel. But I bring St John for the matter of eating Christs flesh and drinking his blood, wherein I passed over nothing that pertaineth to the matter, but rehearse the.— whole fully and faithfully. And because the reader may the better understand the 3! - matter, and judge between us both, I shall rehearse the words of my former book, which be these. Tnug supper of the Lord, otherwise called the holy communion or sacrament of the body and blood of our Saviour Christ, hath been of many men, Ww 3. TP and by sundry ways very much abused, but specially within these four or five hundred years. Of some it hath been used as a sacrifice propitiatory for sin, and otherwise superstitiously, far from the intent that Christ did first ordain E 1 the same at the beginning, doing therein great wrong and injury to his death L— and passion. And of other some it hath been very lightly esteemed, or rather contemned and despised as a thing of small or of none effect. And thus between both the parties hath been much variance and contention in divers parts of christendom. Therefore to the intent that this holy sacrament or Lord’s supper — may hereafter neither of the one party be contemned or lightly esteemed, nor οὗ the other party be abused to any other purpose than Christ himself did first appoint and ordain the same, and that so the contention on both parties b: may be quieted and ended, the most sure and plain way is to cleave unto ES - ——

— [ My blood verily drink, 1551.] doctrine and use of the Sacrament of the Body and. The title of this book runs thus in the original Blood of our Saviour Christ.” ]

[3 Ἢ edition: The first book is of the true and Catholic [ Places, 1551.]]

holy scripture: wherein whatsoever is found, must be taken for a most sure ground, and an infallible truth; and whatsoever cannot be grounded upon the same, touching our faith, is man’s device, changeable and uncertain. And therefore here are set forth the very words that Christ himself and his apostle St Paul spake, both of the eating and drinking of Christ’s body and blood, and also of the eating and drinking of the sacrament of the same. First, as congm at cerning the eating of the body and drinking of the blood of our Saviour Christ, the body οἵ he speaketh himself in the sixth chapter of St John in this wise: John vi, “Verily, verily, I say unto you, except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, you have no life in you. Whoso eateth my flesh and drinketh my blood, hath eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day. For my flesh is very meat, and my blood is very drink. He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, dwelleth in me and I in him. As the living Father hath sent me, and I live by the Father, even so he that eateth me, shall live by me. This is the bread which came down from heaven. Not as your fathers did eat manna,

and are dead. He that eateth this bread shall live for ever.”

Here have I rehearsed the words of Christ faithfully and fully, so much as pertaineth to the eating of Christ’s flesh, and drinking of his blood. And I have begun 19, neither too high nor too low, but taking only so much as served for the matter. The govt But here have I committed a fault (say you) in the translation, for verily meat” m verily translating “very meat.” And this 15 another of the evident and manifest untruths ΡΣ Β by me uttered, as you esteem it. Wherein a man may see, how hard it is to escape “the reproaches of Momus. For what an horrible crime (trow you) is committed here, Origenesin £o call very meat” that which is “verily meat”! As who should say, that “very Levit. Hom. » » «. ».. «. » « n HORE meat” is not “verily meat,” or that which is verily meat were not “very meat. caro ejus ve- The old authors say “very meat,” ἀληθὴς βρῶσις, verus cibus, in a hundred places. i αι» And what skilleth it for the diversity of the words, where no diversity is in the potus. Kt in? and whether we say, “very meat,” or “verily meat,” it is a figurative speech EET pe! a M, “very mend? ont yaily sven, puse op xi. Caro — in this place, and the sense is all one. And if you will look upon the New Testament Sep, of san lately set forth in Greek by Robert Stevens, you shall see that he had three Greek mm est po- copies, which in the said sixth chapter of John have ἀληθῆς and not ἀληθῶς. So I eel. cap. that I may be bold to say, that you find fault here where none is. ves ete” And here in this place you shew forth your old condition (which you use much in guieurve. this book) in following the nature of a cuttle!, “The property of the cuttle,” saith Pliny, Augustin. “is to cast out a black ink or colour, whensoever she spieth herself in danger to be Cov mal: taken, that the water being troubled and darkened therewith, she may hide herself and ctsanguis ” SO escape untaken.” After like manner do you throughout this whole book; for when tus est Da you see no other way to fly and escape, then you cast out your black colours, and mask cp.” Quo yourself so in clouds and darkness, that men should not discern where you be come, iip ii which is a manifest argument of untrue meaning: for he that meaneth plainly, speaketh fusestpotus Plainly; e£ qui sophistice loquitur, odibilis est, saith the wise man, For he that Rmi s speaketh obscurely and darkly, it is a token that he goeth about to cast mists before Karo me δρᾷ men’s eyes that they should not see, rather than to open their eyes that they may mesh, clearly see the truth. Thénatreor And therefore to answer you plainly, the same flesh that was given in Christ’s last ibid; Supper was given also upon the cross, and is given daily in the ministration of the y edi sacrament. But although it be one thing, yet it was diversely given. For upon the Chrstis ve. Cross Christ was carnally given to suffer and to die; at his last supper he was spiritually pvenin the) given in a promise of his death; and in the sacrament he is daily given in remembrance but yet. Of his death. And yet it is all but one Christ that was promised to die, that died ntualy- indeed, and whose death is remembered; that is to say, the very same Christ, the eternal Word that was made flesh. And the same flesh was also given to be spiritually eaten, and was eaten in deed, before his supper, yea, and before his incarnation also.

[[’ Of the cuttle, 1331.] ”]

(gi ’ which eating, and not of sacramental eating, he spake in the sixth of John: My - flesh is very meat, and my blood is very drink. He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh. my blood, dwelleth in me, and I in him.” And Cyril, I grant, agreed to Nestorius in the substance of the thing that was eaten, (which is Christ’s very flesh,) but in the manner of eating they varied. For b. imagined a carnal eating (as the papists do) with mouth, and tearing with teeth. But Cyril in the same place saith, that Christ is eaten only by a pure faith, and not that he is eaten corporally with our mouths, as other meats be, nor that he is. eaten in the sacrament only.

And it seemeth you understand not the matter of Nestorius, who did not esteem Christ to be made of two several natures and several persons, (as you report of him;) - but his error was, that Christ had in him naturally but one nature and one person, affrming that he was a pure man, and not God by nature, but that the Godhead by ἢ grace inhabited, as he doth in other men. 1 And where you say that in baptism we receive the spirit of Christ, and in the ~ sacrament of his body and blood we receive his very flesh and blood; this your saying Jis no small derogation to baptism, wherein we receive not only the spirit of Christ, but also Christ himself, whole body and soul, manhood and Godhead, unto everlasting life, as well as in the holy communion. For St Paul saith, Quicumque in Christo baptizati estis, Christum. induistis: As many as be baptized in Christ, put Christ upon them:” nevertheless, this is done in divers respects; for in baptism it is done in -respeet of regeneration, and in the holy communion in respect of nourishment and augmentation.

But your understanding of the sixth chapter of John is such as never was uttered of any man before your time, and as declareth you to be utterly ignorant of God’s mysteries, For who ever said or taught before this time, that the sacrament was the cause why Christ said, “If we eat not the flesh of the Son of man, we have not life in us?” The spiritual eating of his flesh, and drinking of his blood by faith, by digesting his death in our minds, as our only price, ransom, and redemption from eternal dammation, is the cause wherefore Christ said: That if we eat not his flesh, and drink not his blood, we have not life in us; and if we eat his flesh, and drink his blood, we have everlasting life” And if Christ had never ordained the sacrament, yet should —we have eaten his flesh, and drunken his blood, and have had thereby everlasting life; as all the faithful did before the sacrament was ordained, and do daily when they receive not the sacrament. And so did the holy men that wandered in the wilderness, Land in all their life-time very seldom received the sacrament; and many holy martyrs, either exiled, or kept in prison, did daily feed of the food of Christ’s body, and drank “daily the blood that sprang out of his side, or else they could not have had everlasting i fe, as Christ himself said in the gospel of St John, and yet they were not suffered r vith other christian people to have the use of the sacrament. And therefore your argument in this place is but a fallax a non causa, ut causa, which is another trick of the devil’s sophistry.

And that in the sixth of John Christ spake neither of corporal nor sacramental eating of his flesh, the time manifestly sheweth. For Christ spake of the same present time that was then, saying: “The bread which I will give is my flesh,” and, He! hat eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, dwelleth in me, and I in him, and hath everlasting life:” at which time the sacramental bread was not yet Christ’s flesh. For s he sacrament was not then yet ordained; and yet at that time all that believed in Christ, did eat his flesh, and drink his blood, or else they could not have dwelled in Christ, nor Christ in them. — Moreover, you say yourself, that in the sixth of St John’s gospel, when Christ Sa, “The bread is my flesh,” by the word “flesh” he meant his whole humanity, (as is meant in this sentence, The word was made flesh,” which he meant not in the word “body,” when he said of bread, “This is my body;” whereby he meant not Ais whole humanity, but his flesh only, and neither his blood nor his soul. And in he sixth of John Christ made not bread his flesh, when he said, “The bread is my flesh:” but he expounded, in those words, what bread it was that he meant of, when

he promised them bread that should give them eternal life. He declared in those words, that himself was the bread that should give life, because they should not have their fantasies of any bread made of corn. And so the eating of that heavenly bread could not be understanded of the sacrament, nor of corporal eating with the mouth; but of spiritual eating by faith, as all the old authors do most clearly expound amd declare. And seeing that there is no corporal eating, but chewing with the teeth or swallowing (as all men do know), if we eat Christ corporally, then you mus confess that we either swallow up Christ’s flesh, or chew and tear it with our teeth, (as pope Nicholas constrained Berengarius to confess,) which St Augustine saith is a wicked and heinous thing. But in few words to answer to this second evident and manifest untruth (as you object against me), I would wish you as truly to understand these words of the sixth chapter of John, as I have truly translated them. 7 WINCHESTER.; 1 Now, where the author, to exclude the mystery of corporal manducation, bringeth forth of St Augustine such words as entreat of the effect and operation of the worthy receiving of the sacrament; the handling is mot so sincere as this matter requireth. For, as hereafter shall be entreated, that is mot worthily and well done, may (because the principal intent faileth) be called not done, and so St Augustine saith: Let him not think to eat the body of Christ, that dwelleth not in Christ;” not because the body of Christ is not received, which by St Augustine’s mind evil men do to their condemnation, but because the effect of life. fuileth. And so the author by sleight, to exclude the corporal manducation of Christ’s most precious body, uttereth such words, as might sound Christ to have taught the dwelling im Christ to be an eating: which dwelling may be without this corporal manducation in him. that cannot attain the use of it, and dwelling in Christ is an effect of the worthy manducation, and not the manducation itself, which Christ doth order to be practised in the most precious sacrament institute in his supper. Here thou, reader, mayest see how this doctrine of Christ (as I have declared it) openeth the corporal manducation of his most holy fles of and drinking of his most precious blood, which he gave in his supper under the form of bread and wine.

Canterbury

7. meat, and drink that drink, is to dwell in Christ, and to have Christ dwelling in him; and therefore no man can say or think that he eateth the body of Christ or drinketh his blood, except he dwelleth in Christ, and have Christ dwelling in him. Thus have you heard of the eating and drinking of the very flesh and blood of our Saviour Christ.” Thus allege I St Augustine truly, without adding any thing of mine own head, o taking any thing away. And what sleight I used is easy to judge: for I cite di — [p Flesh, 1551.] ad 4

rectly the places, that every man may see whether I say true or no. And if it be. mot true, quarrel not with me, but with St Augustine, whose words I only rehearse. the words of Cyprian, and of Christ himself, to stablish a false doctrine to the high And that which St Augustine saith, spake before him St Cyprian, and Christ him- - self also plainly enough; upon whose words I thought I might be as bold to build.& true doctrine for the setting forth of God’s glory, as you may be to pervert both — dishonour of God, and the corruption of his most true word. For you add this word worthily,” whereby you gather such an unworthy meaning of St Augustine’s words as you list yourself. And the same you do to the very words of Christ himself, who speaketh absolutely and plainly, without adding of any such word as you » put thereto, What sophistry this is, you know well enough. Now if this be per-. mitted unto you, to add what you list, and to expound how you list, then you - may say what you list without controlment of any man, which it seemeth you E look for. —. And not of like sort, but of like evilness do you handle (in reprehending of my — second untruth, as you call it) another place of St Augustine in his book de doctrina Christiana, where he saith, that the eating and drinking of Christ’s flesh and blood — is a figurative speech: which place you expound so far from St Augustines meaning, that whosoever looketh upon his words, may by and by discern that you do —mot, or will not, understand him. But it is most like (the words of him being so plain and easy) that purposely you will not understand him, nor nothing else that -is against your will rather than you will go from any part of your will and re- — ceived opinion. For it is plain and clear that St Augustine in that place speaketh - mot one word of the separation of the two natures in Christ; and although Christ’s - flesh be never so surely and inseparably united unto his Godhead (without which union it could profit nothing), yet being so joined, it is a very man’s flesh, the eating whereof (after the proper speech of eating) is horrible and abominable. Wherefore the eating of Christs flesh must needs be otherwise understanded, than after the proper and common eating of other meats with the mouth, which eating “after such sort could avail nothing. And therefore St Augustine in that place de- elareth the eating of Christ’s flesh to be only a figurative speech. And he openeth the figure so as the eating must be meant with the mind, not with the mouth, that —ds to say, by chewing and digesting in our minds, to our great consolation and profit, ~ that Christ? died for us. Thus doth St Augustine open the figure and meaning of Christ, when he spake of the eating of his flesh and drinking of his blood. And his flesh being thus eaten, it must also be joined unto his divinity, or else it could not —give everlasting life, as Cyril and the council Ephesine truly decreed. But St Au-I gustine declared the figurative speech of Christ to be in the eating, not in the union. And whereas, to shift off the plain words of Christ, spoken in the sixth of John, I “He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, dwelleth in me, and I in him,” you say that dwelling in Christ is not the.manducation; you say herein directly —agaimst St Cyprian, who saith, Quod mansio nostra in ipso sit manducatio, “That our dwelling in him is the eating:” and also against St Augustine, whose words be these: Hoc est ergo manducare escam illam, et illum bibere potum, in Christo manere, et illum manentem in se habere: “This is to eat that meat, and drink that drink, to i dwell in Christ, and to have Christ dwelling in him.” And although the eating and drinking of Christ be here defined by the effect, (for the very eating is the believing.) yet wheresoever the eating is, the effect must be also, if the definition of St Augus- “tine be truly given. And therefore, although good and bad eat carnally with their teeth bread, being the sacrament of Christ’s body; yet no man eateth his very flesh, which is spiritually eaten, but he that dwelleth in Christ, and Christ in him.

And where in the end you refer the reader to the declaration of Christ’s words, Jd is an evil sequel: you declare Christ’s words thus, ergo, they be so meant. For by like reason might Nestorius have prevailed against Cyril, Arius against Alex- n er, and the Pope against Christ. For they all prove their errors by the doctrine

[— [? Was crucified and died, 1551.]]

of Christ after their own declarations, as you do here in your corporal manducation, But of the manducation of Christ’s flesh, I have spoken more fully in my fourth book, the second, third, and fourth chapters. E Now before 1 answer to the fourth untruth which I am appeached of, I will rehearse what I have said in the matter, and what fault you have found. My book hath thus. 5 Now as touching the sacraments of the same, our Saviour Christ did institute them in bread and wine at his last supper which he had with his apostles or the night before his death, at which time, as Matthew saith, When they were - eating, Jesus took bread, and when he had given thanks, he brake it, and gave it to his disciples, and said, Take, eat: this is my body. And he took the. eup, and when he had given thanks he gave it to them, saying, Drink ye all. of this, for this is my blood of the new testament, that is shed for many for the remission of sins. But I say unto you, I will not drink henceforth of this fruit of the vine, until that day when I shall drink it new with you in my Fathers kingdom.’ ”

This thing is rehearsed also of St Mark in these words. 4 As they did eat, Jesus took bread, and when he had blessed, he brake it, and gave it to them, and said, Take, eat: this is my body. And taking the cup, when he had given thanks, he gave it to them, and they all drank of it, and he said to them, This is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many. Verily I say unto you, I will drink no more of the fruit of the vine, until that day that I drink it new in the kingdom of God.” “

The evangelist St Luke uttereth this matter on this wise

“When the hour was come, he sat down, and the twelve apostles with him. And he said unto them, I have greatly desired to eat this Pascha with you before I suffer: for I say unto you, henceforth I will not eat of it any more, - until it be fulfilled in the kingdom of God. And he took the cup, and gave thanks, and said, Take this, and divide it among you: for I say unto you, I will not drink of the fruit of the vine, until the kingdom of God come. And he took bread, and when he had given thanks, he brake it, and gave it unto - them, saying, This is my body, which is given for you: this do in remembrance of me. Likewise also when he had supped, he took the cup, saying, This - cup is the new testament in my blood, which is shed for you.” 1 Hitherto you have heard all that the evangelists declare, that Christ spake or did at his last supper, concerning the institution of the communion and sacrament of his body and blood. Now you shall hear what St Paul saith concerning the same, in the tenth chapter of the first to the Corinthians, where he writeth thus: E: [s not the cup of blessing, which we bless, a communion of the blood. of Christ? Is not the bread, which we break, a communion of the body of. Christ? We being many, are one bread, and one body: for we all are partakers of one bread, and one cup.”

And in the eleventh he speaketh on this manner

That which I delivered unto you I received of the Lord. For the Lord Jesus the same night in the which he was betrayed took bread, and when he had given thanks, he brake it, and said, Take, eat; this is my body, which is broken for you: do this in remembrance of me. Likewise also he took the

. eup when supper was done, saying, This cup is the new testament in my — blood. Do this, as often as ye drink it, in remembrance of me: for as oft as. you shall eat this bread, and drink this cup, you shew forth the Lord’s death ἡ till he come. Wherefore whosoever shall eat of this bread, or drink of this. cup unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord. But let & man examine himself, and so eat of the bread, and drink of the cup. For he that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh his own damnation, because he maketh no difference of the Lord’s body. For this cause many are weak and sick among you, and many do sleep.”

By these words of Christ rehearsed of the evangelists, and by the doctrine also of St Paul, which he confesseth that he received of Christ, two things specially are to be noted.

First, that our Saviour Christ called the material bread which he brake, his body; and the wine, which was the fruit of the vine, his blood. And yet j he spake not this to the intent that men should think that the material bread is his very body, or that his very body is material bread; neither that wine — made of grapes is his very blood, or that his very blood is wine made of grapes: ~ but to signify unto us, as St Paul saith, that the cup is a communion of; - Christ’s blood that was shed for us, and the bread is a communion of his flesh that was crucified for us. So that although in the truth of his human nature, Christ be in heaven, and sitteth on the right hand of God the Father, yet whosoever eateth of the bread in the supper of the Lord, according to Christ’s institution and ordinanee, is assured of Christs own promise and testament, that he is a member of his body, and receiveth the benefits of his passion which he suffered for us upon the cross. And likewise he that drinketh of that holy cup in the supper of the Lord, according to Christ’s institution, is certified by Christ’s legacy and testament, that he is made partaker of the blood of Christ which was shed for us. And this meant St Paul, when he saith, “Is not the cup of blessing which we bless a communion of the blood of Christ? Is not y the bread which we break a communion of the body of Christ?” so that no —man can contemn or lightly esteem this holy communion, except he contemn. also Christ’s body and blood, and pass not whether he have any fellowship ψ with him or no. And of those men St Paul saith, “that they eat and drink ~ their own damnation, because they esteem not the body of Christ.”

The second thing which may be learned of the foresaid words of Christ — and St Paul is this: that although none eateth the body of Christ and drinketh: 1 is blood, but they have eternal life, (as appeareth by the words before recited — ef St John,) yet both the good and the bad do eat and drink the bread and I “wine, which be the sacraments of the same. But beside the sacraments, the 5 Γ pod eat everlasting life, the evil everlasting death. Therefore St Paul saith: — Whosoever shall eat of the bread, or drink of the cup of the Lord unworthily, he shall be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord.” Here St Paul saith hot, that he that eateth the bread, or drinketh the cup of the Lord unworthily, eateth and drinketh the body and blood of the Lord; but, is guilty of the body —and blood of the Lord. But what he eateth and drinketh St Paul declareth, saying: “He that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh his (omn damnation.” Thus is declared the sum of all that scripture speaketh of the eating and drinking both of the body and blood of Christ, and also of the sacrament of the same. x And as these things be most certainly true, because they be spoken by

[$ [’ Eateth, 1551.]]

Christ himself, the author of all truth, and by his holy apostle St Paul, as he received them of Christ; so all doctrines contrary to the same be most certainly - false and untrue, and of all christian men to be eschewed, because they be con- - trary to God’s word. And all doctrine concerning this matter, that is more - than this, which is not grounded upon God’s word, is of no necessity, neither: ought the people’s heads to be busied, or their consciences troubled with the - same. So that things spoken and done by Christ, and written by the holy - evangelists and St Paul, ought to suffice the faith of Christian people, as touching the doctrine of the Lord’s supper, and holy communion or sacrament of - hig body and blood. 1 Which thing being well considered and weighed, shall be a just occasion to - pacify and agree both parties, as well them that hitherto have contemned or. lightly esteemed it, as also them which have hitherto for lack of knowledge or otherwise ungodly abused it. Christ ordained the sacrament to move and stir all men to friendship, love, and concord, and to put away all hatred, variance, and discord, and to testify a — brotherly and unfeigned love between all them that be the members of Christ: but the devil, the enemy of Christ and of all his members, hath so craftily juggled herein, that of nothing riseth so much contention as of this holy sacrament. — God grant that, all contention set aside, both the parties may come to this ] holy communion with such a lively faith in Christ, and such an unfeigned love. to all Christ’s members, that as they carnally eat with their mouths this sacramental bread, and drink the wine, so spiritually they may eat and drink the very flesh and blood of Christ which is in heaven, and sitteth on the right i hand of his Father; and that finally by his means they may enjoy with - him the glory and kingdom of heaven! Amen.:

Winchester

Now let us consider the texts of the evangelists, and St Paul, which be brought in by the. author as followeth. 3 When they were eating, Jesus took bread, and when he had given thanks, he brake it, - giving it to his disciples, and said, Take, eat; this is my body. And he took the cup, amd.. when he had given thanks, he gave it to them, saying, Drink ye all of this; for this is my. blood of the mew testament, that is shed for many for the remission of sins. But I say unto — you, I will not drink henceforth of this fruit of the vine, until that day when I shall drink 1 it mew with you in my Father’s kingdom.” ᾿ As they did eat, Jesus took bread, and when he had blessed, he brake it, and gave it to them,.and said, Take, eat; this is my body. And taking the cup, when he had given thanks, ᾿ he gave it to them: and they all drank of it. And he said unto them, This is my blood of.. the new testament, which is shed for many. Verily I say unto you, I will drink mo more of the fruit of the vine, until that day that I drink it new in the kingdom of God.”

When the hour was come, he sat down, and the twelve apostles with him; and he said: unto them, I have greatly desired to eat this Pascha with you, before I suffer: for I say unto you, henceforth I will not eat of it any more, until it be fulfilled in the kingdom of God. And he took the cup, and gave thanks, and said, Take this, and divide it among you: for I say unto you, I will not drink of the fruit of the vine, until the kingdom of God come. And he took bread, and when he had given thanks, he brake it, and gave it unto them, say- - ing, This is my body which is given for you: this do in remembrance of me. Likewise also - when he had supped, he took the cup, saying, This cup is the mew testament in my blood, - which is shed for you.” ’ “Is mot the cup of blessing which we bless a communion of the blood of Christ? Is mot the bread which we break a communion of the body of Christ? We, being many, are one bread, and one body; for we are all partakers of one bread, and of one cup.” J

“That which I delivered unto you, I received of the Lord. For the Lord Jesus, the same night in the which he was betrayed, took bread, and when he had given thanks, he brake it, and

Eme ceu 0 ri EET RA “o said, Take, eat; this is my body, which is broken for you: do this in remembrance of me. ikewise also he took the cup when supper was done, saying, This cup is the mew testament dn my blood: do this, as often as ye drink it, in remembrance of me. For as often as you - shall eat this bread, and drink this cup, ye shew forth the Lord’s death till he come. Wherefore whosoever shall eat of this bread, or drink of this cup wnworthily, shall be guilty of the - body and blood of the Lord. But let a man examine himself, and so eat of the bread, and - drink of the cup. For he that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh his own - dammation; because he maketh no difference of the Lord’s body. For this cause many are weak and sick among you, and many do sleep.” j After these texts brought in, the author doth in the fourth chapter begin to traverse Christ’s intent, that he intended not by these words, “This is my body,” to make the bread his body, — but to signify that such as receive that worthily be members of Christ’s body. The catholic church, acknowledging Christ to be very God and very man, hath from the beginning of these texts of scripture confessed truly Christ’s intent, and effectual miraculous work to make the - bread his body, and the wine his blood, to be verily meat and verily drink, using therein his humanity wherewith to feed us, as he used the same wherewith to redeem us; and as he doth 3 ametify us by his holy Spirit, so to sanctify us by his holy divine flesh and blood; and as life is renewed in us by the gift of Christ’s holy Spirit, so life to be increased in us by the — gift of his holy flesh. So he that believeth in Christ, and receiveth the sacrament of belief, which is baptism, receiveth really Christ’s Spirit: and likewise! he that, having Christ’s Spirit, weceiveth also the sacrament of Christ’s body and blood, doth really receive in the same, and also - effectually, Christ’s very body and blood. And therefore Christ in the institution of this sacrament. said, delivering that he consecrated: This is my body,” &c. And likewise of the cup: “This is my blood,” &c. And although to man’s reason it seemeth strange that Christ, standing or sitting at the table, should deliver them his body to be eaten: yet when we remember Christ to be very God, we must grant him omnipotent, and by reason thereof, repress in our thoughts all imaginations how it might be, and consider Christ’s intent by his will, preached unto us by scriptures, and believed universally in his church. But if it may now be thought seemly for us to be so bold, in so high a mystery, to begin to discuss Christ’s intent: what should move us to think that Christ would wse so many words, without effectual and real Wsignification, as he rehearsed touching the mystery of this sacrament? First, in the sixth of John, when Christ had taught of the eating of him?, being the bread descended from heaven, and declaring that eating to signify believing, whereat was no mur- —mwwring, that then he should enter to speak of giving of his flesh to be eaten, and his blood to be drunken, and to say that? he would give a bread, that is, his flesh, which he would give for ᾿ the life of the world. In which words Christ maketh mention of two gifts; and therefore: as he is truth, must needs intend to fulfil them both. And therefore as we believe the gift of flesh to the Jews to be crucified; so we must believe the gift of his flesh to be eaten, and of that gift, livery and, seisme?, as we say, to be made of him, that is in his promises faithul (as Christ is) to be made in both. And therefore when he said in his supper, Take, eat, this is my body,” he must needs intend plainly as his words of promise required. And hese words in his supper purport to give as really then his body to be eaten of us, as he gave is body indeed to be crucified for us; aptly nevertheless, and conveniently for each effect, and wrefore in manner of giving diversely, but in the substance of the same” given, to be as his words bear witness, the same, and therefore said, This is my body that shall be betrayed you;” expressing also the use, when he said, Take, eat:” which words, in delivering of material bread, had been superfluous; for what should men do with bread when they take it, but eat it, specially when it is broken?

---

← 2. Prefaces to the Reader · Contents · 4. Book I. Of the Sacrament, Part 2 →