But as Cyril saith: Christ opened there unto them the practice of that doctrine he spake of in the sixth of St John, and because he said he would give his flesh for food, which he i ould give for the life of the world, he for fulfilling of his promise said: Take, eat, this is my body,” which words have been taught and believed to be of effect, and operatory, and Christ under the form of bread to have been his very body. According whereunto St Paul moteth the receiver to be guilty, when he doth mot esteem it our Lord’s body, wherewith it pleaseth Christ to feed such as be in him regenerate, to the intent that as man was redeemed i p “So he; original ed. of Winchester’s book.] [5 Livery: i.e. the act of giving.] —. P? To say he would give, 1551.] 3 [7 The same body given, 1551. ]
[? Himself, 1551.] [5 Seisme: i.e. seizin, the act of taking.] ᾿ς [ Wherefore, 1551.] 15 Given, 1551.]
by Christ, suffering in the nature of his humanity, so to purchase for man the kingdom of heaven, lost by Adams fall. Even likewise in the nature of the same humanity, giving it to — be eaten, he ordained it! to nourish man, and make him strong to walk, and continue his journey, to enjoy that kingdom. And therefore to set forth lively unto ws the communication — of the substance of Christ’s most precious body in the sacrament, and the same to be indeed — delivered, Christ used plain words, testified by the evangelists. St Paul also rehearsed the same words in the same plain terms in the eleventh to the Corinthians; amd in the tenth, giving (as it were) an exposition of the effect, useth the same proper words, declaring the effect to be the communication of Christ’s body and blood. And one thing is notable touching the scripture, that in such motable speeches uttered by Christ, as might have an ambiguity, the evangelists by some circumstance declared it, or sometime opened it by plain interpretation: as when Christ said “he would dissolve the temple, and within three days build it again s” the evangelist by and by addeth for interpretation: This he said of the temple of his body.” And when Christ said, He is Elias,” and “I am the true vine,” the circumstance of the text openeth the ambiguity. E St But to shew that Christ should not mean of his very body when he so spake?, neither. St - Paul after, nor the evangelists in the place, add any words or circumstances, whereby to take. away the proper signification of the words “body” and “blood,” so as the same might seem - not in deed given (as the catholic faith teacheth), but in. signification, as the author would have. ^ it. For, as for the words of Christ, The Spirit giveth life, the flesh profiteth nothing,” be to declare the two matures in Christ, each in their property apart considered, but not as they be in Christ’s person united the mystery of which union such as believed mot Christ to be God could mot consider, and yet to insinuate that unto them, Christ made mention of his descension from heaven, and after of his ascension thither again, whereby they might wnderstand him very God, whose flesh taken in the virgiws womb, and so given spiritually to be eaten of us, is (as I have before opened) vivifick, and giveth life. D And this shall suffice here to shew how Christ’s intent was to give verily (as he did im. deed) his precious body and blood to be eaten amd drunken, according as he taught them to. be verily meat and drink; and yet gave amd giveth them so under form of visible creatures - to us, as we may conveniently and without horror of our mature receive them, Christ therein condescending to our infirmity. As for such other wrangling as is made in understanding - of the words of Christ, shall after be spoken of by further occasion. Ἢ CANTERBURY. 3 Now we be come to the very pith of the matter, and the chief point whereupon. rhy the whole controversy hangeth, whether in these words, “This is my body,” Christ called bread his body: wherein you and Smith agree like a man and woman that dwelled in Lincolnshire, as I have heard reported, that what pleased the one misliked the other, saving that they both agreed in wilfulness. So do Smith and you agree both in. this point, that Christ made bread his body, but that it was bread which he called his body, when he said, “This is my body,” this you grant, but Smith denieth it. And because all Smith’s buildings clearly fall down, if this his chief foundation be overthrown, therefore must I first prove against Smith, that Christ called the material bread his body, and the wine which was the fruit of the vine his blood. “For why: did you not prove this, my Lord?” saith Smith: “would you that men should take you for a prophet, or for one that could not err in his sayings?” E First I allege against Smith’s negation your affirmation, which, as it is more true in this point than his negation, so for your estimation it is able to countervail his saying, if there were nothing else: and yet, if Smith had well pondered what I have written in the second chapter of my second book, and in the seventh and eighth chapters of my third book, he should have found this matter so fully proved, that. he neither is, nor never shall be able to answer thereto. For I have alleged the scripture, I have alleged the consent of the old writers, holy fathers, and martyrs, to prove that Christ called bread his body, and wine his blood. For the evangelists, - speaking of the Lord’s supper, say, that “he took bread, blessed it, brake it, and gave - it to his disciples, saying, This is my body. And of the wine he said, Take this,