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,
[[! To be eaten, ordained to nourish, 1551.] [ In the understanding, 1551. ] dl]]
[3 He so spake these words in his supper, 1551.] [ Is it able, 1551.]]
divide it among you, and drink it: this is my blood.” I have alleged Irene’, saying that “Christ confessed bread to be his body, and the cup to be his blood.” I have eited Tertullian, who saith in many places that Christ called bread his body.” I have brought in for the same purpose Cyprian, who saith that Christ called such bread as is made of many corns joined together, his body: and such wine he named his blood, as is pressed out of many grapes.” I have written the words of Epiphanius, which be these, that Christ speaking of a loaf which is round in fashion, and can neither see, hear, nor feel, said of it, This is my body.” And St Jerome, writing ad Hedibiam, saith that “Christ called the bread which he brake his body.” And St Augustine saith, that “Jesus called meat his body, and drink his blood.” ^ And Cyril saith more plainly, that “Christ called the pieces of bread his body.” And last of all I brought forth Theodorete, whose saying is this, that when Christ gave the holy mysteries, he called bread his body, and the cup mixed with wine and water he called his blood.” All these authors I alleged, to prove that Christ called bread his body, and wine his blood.
Which because they speak the thing so plainly as nothing can be more, and Smith seeth that he can devise nothing to answer these authors, like a wily fox, he stealeth away by them softly, as he had a flea in his ear, saying nothing to all. these authors, but that they prove not my purpose. If this be a sufficient answer, let the reader be judge; for in such sort I could make a short answer to Smith’s whole book in this one sentence, that nothing that he saith proveth his purpose. And as for proofs of his saying, Smith hath utterly none but only this fond reason: that if Christ had called bread his body, then should bread have been crucified for us, because Christ added these words: “This is my body, which shall be given to death for you.” If such wise reason shall take place, a man may not take a loaf in his hand made of wheat that came out of Dantzic, and say this is wheat that grew in Dantzic, but it must follow, that the loaf grew in Dantzic. And if the wife shall say, This is butter of my own cow, Smith shall prove by this speech that her maid milked butter. But to this fantastical or rather frantic reason, I have Spoken more in mine answer to Smith’s preface.
Howbeit, you have taken a wiser way than this, granting that Christ called bread his body, and wine his blood: but adding thereto, that Christ’s calling was making. Yet here may they that be wise learn by the way, how evil-favouredly you and Smith agree? among yourselves. 4 And forasmuch as Smith hath not made answer unto the authors by me alleged — in this part, I may justly require that for lack of answer in time and place where he ought to have answered, he may be condemned as one that standeth mute. And — being condemned in this his chief demur, he hath after nothing to answer at all: for this foundation being overthrown, all the rest falleth down withal.
Wherefore now will I return to answer you in this matter, which is the last of — the evident and manifest untruths, whereof you appeach me.
I perceive here how untoward you be to learn the truth, being brought up all 3 your life in papistical errors. If you could forget your law, which hath been your chief profession and study from your youth, and specially the canon law which —— purposely corrupteth the truth of God’s word, you should be much more apt to — understand and receive the secrets of holy scripture. But before those scales fall - from your Saulish eyes, you neither can nor will perceive the true doctrine of this - holy sacrament of Christ’s body and blood. But yet I shall do as much as lieth - in me, to teach and instruct you, as occasion shall serve; so that the fault shall be either in your evil bringing up altogether in popery, or in your dulness, or froward- - mess, if you attain not true? understanding of this matter. [^ These references are given and verified in the the second book against transubstantiation.” ] is inserted in the body of this book (Book rrr. [7 do agree, 1551.] reprint of the Defence of the Sacrament,” which [ could 1, 1551.] cap. 8.), and will be found in the Confutation of [? the true understanding, 1551.] [CRANMER. 3
Where you speak of the miraculous working of Christ, to make bread his body, you must first learn that the bread is not made really Christ’s body, nor the wine his blood, but sacramentally. And the miraculous working is not in the bread, but in them that duly eat the bread, and drink that drink. For the marvellous work — of God is in the feeding; and it is christian people that be fed, and not the bread.
And so the true confession and belief of the universal church, from the beginning, —— — ds not such as you many times affirmed, but never can prove: for the catholic church acknowledgeth no such division between Christs holy flesh and his Spirit, that life is renewed in us by his holy Spirit, and increased by his holy flesh; but the true — faith confesseth that both be done by his holy Spirit and flesh jointly together, as well the renovation, as the increase of our life. Wherefore you diminish here the - effect of baptism, wherein is not given only Christ’s Spirit, but whole Christ. And herein 1 will join an issue with you. And you shall find, that although you think I lack law wherewith to follow my plea, yet I doubt not but I shall have help οὗ God’s word enough, to make all men perceive that you be but a simple divine, so — that for lack of your proofs, I doubt not but the sentence shall be given upon my side by all learned and indifferent judges, that understand the matter which is in controversy between us. i
And where you say that we must repress our thoughts and imaginations, and by reason of Christs omnipotency judge his intent by his will it is a most certain truth that God’s absolute and determinate will is the chief governor of all things, - and the rule whereby all things must be ordered, and thereto obey. But where (I pray you) have you any such will of Christ, that he is really, carnally, corporally, and naturally, under the forms of bread and wine? There is no such will of Christ set —— forth in the scripture, as you pretend by a false understanding of these words, “This is my body.” Why take you then so boldly upon you to say, that this is Christs will and intent, when you have no warrant in scripture to bear you?
lt is not a sufficient proof in scripture, to say, God doth it, because he can do - it. For he can do many things which he neither doth, nor will do. He could have sent more than twelve legions of angels to deliver Christ from the wicked - Jews, and yet he would not do it. He could have created the world and all things therein in one moment of time, and yet his pleasure was to do it in six days. = In all matters of our christian faith, written in holy scripture, for our instruction and doctrine, how far soever they seem discrepant from reason, we must repress our - imaginations, and consider God’s pleasure and will, and yield thereto, believing him to — be omnipotent; and that by his omnipotent power, such things are verily so as holy - scripture teacheth. Like as we believe that Christ was born of the blessed virgin Mary, without company of man: that our Saviour Christ the third day rose again from death: that he in his humanity ascended into heaven: that our bodies at the day of judgment shall rise again; and many other such like things, which we all that be true christian men, do believe firmly, because we find these things written in scripture. And therefore we (knowing God’s omnipotency) do believe that he hath brought some of the said things to pass already, and those things that are yet to come, he = will by the same omnipotency without doubt likewise bring to pass. 5 Now if you can prove that your transubstantiation, your fleshly presence of Christ’s —— body and blood, your carnal eating and drinking of the same, your propitiatory Hy sacrifice of the mass, are taught us as plainly in the scripture, as the said articles n of our faith be, then I will believe that it is so in deed. Otherwise, neither I nor any man that is in his right wits, will believe your said articles, because God is: L omnipotent, and can make it so. For you might so, under pretence of God’s ommi- - d potency, make as many articles of our faith as you list, if such arguments might take place, that God by his omnipotent power can convert the substance of bread and - wine into the substance of his flesh and blood: ergo he doth so indeed. f And although Christ be not corporally in the bread and wine, yet Christ used not: so many words, in the mystery of his holy supper, without effectual signification. For he is effectually present, and effectually worketh not in the bread and wine, but in the Γ
godly receivers of them, to whom he giveth his own flesh spiritually to feed upon, and his own blood to quench their great inward thirst.
And here I would wish you to mark very well one true sentence which you have uttered by the way, which is, that Christ declared that eating of him signified believing, and start not from it another time. And mark the same, I pray thee, gentle reader. For this one sentence assoileth almost all the arguments that be brought by this lawyer, jn his whole book against the truth.
And yet to the said true saying you have joined another untruth, and have yoked them both together in one sentence. For when Christ had taught of the eating of him, being the bread descended from heaven, there was no murmuring thereat, say you. Which your saying I cannot but wonder at, to see you so far deceived in a matter so plain and manifest. And if I had spoken such an evident and manifest untruth, I doubt not but it should have been spoken of to Rome gates. For the text saith there plainly, Murmurabant Judwi de illo, quod dixisset, Ego sum panis vivus, qui de celo descendi: “The Jews murmured at him because he said, ‘I am the bread of life that came from heaven.” But when you wrote this, it seemeth you looked a little too low, and should have looked higher. i ‘And here by this one place the reader may gather of your own words your intent. and meaning in this your book, if that be true which you said before, that ever where contention is, on what part the reader seeth in any one point an open manifest lie, there he may consider (whatsoever excuse be made of truth) yet the victory of truth not to be there intended.
Another untruth also followeth incontinently, that when Christ said, The bread which I will give you is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world;” in these words, say you, Christ maketh mention of two gifts. But what be those two gifts, I pray you? and by what words is the diversity of those two gifts expressed? If the giving, as Smith saith, be giving to death, then those two gifts declare that Christ died for us twice. And if one of Christ’s gifts have livery and seisin, why hath not the ether likewise? And when was then that livery and seisin given? And if eating of Christ be believing, as you said even now, then livery and seisin is given when we first believe, whether it be in baptism, or at any other time. 3 But what you mean by these words, that Christ gave in his supper his body as - really to be eaten of us, as he did to be crucified for us, I understand not, except you — would have Christ so really eaten of his apostles at his supper with their teeth, as he — was after crucified, whipped, and thrust to the heart with a spear. But was he not then so really and corporally crucified, that his body was rent and torn in pieces? And was not he so crucified then, that he never was crucified after? Was he not so slain then, that he never died any more? And if he were so eaten at his supper, then did his apostles tear his flesh at the supper, as the Jews did the day following? And then how could he now be eaten again? or how could he be crucified the day following, if the night before he were after that sort eaten all up? But “aptly,” say you, “and conL— veniently.” Marry, Sir, I thank you; but what is that “aptly and conveniently,” but spiritually and by faith, as you said before, not grossly with the teeth, as he was crucified? And so the manner was diverse, I grant, and the substance all one.; But when Christ said, The bread which I will give is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world,” if he had fulfilled this promise at his supper, as you say he ^ did, then what needed he after to die that we might live, if he fulfilled his promise of ife at his supper? Why said the prophets, that he should be wounded for our iniquities, — and that by his wounds we should be healed, if we had life, and were healed before he — was wounded? Why doth the catholic faith teach us to believe that we be redeemed his blood-shedding, if he gave us life (which is our redemption) the night before he shed his blood? And why saith St Paul that there is no remission without blood- ~ shedding? Yea, why did he say’, Absit mihi gloriari, nisi in cruce 2 God. forbid 3 — [ The edition of 1551 omits this paragraph [? no more, 1551.] altogether: it seems to have been an addition made [3 did St Paul say, 1551.]
[. by Cranmer in the revision of the work.]]
that I should rejoice, but in the cross only.” Why did he not rather say, Absit miki gloriari, nisi in coma Domini? “God forbid that I should rejoice, but in the Lord’s supper:” whereat, as you say, the promise of life was fulfilled. This is godly doctrine for such men to make, as being ignorant in God’s word, wander in fantasies of their — own devices, and putantes se esse sapientes, stulti facti sunt. But the true faithful believing man professeth, that Christ by his death overcame him that was the author of death, and hath reconciled us to his Father, making us his children, and heirs of his ^ kingdom; that as many as believe in him should not perish, but have life everlasting. — Thus saith the true christian man, putting his hope of life and eternal salvation neither in Christ’s supper, (although the same be to him a great confirmation of his faith) — nor in any thing else, but with St Paul saith, Miki absit gloriari, nisi in cruce Domini — — mostri Jesu Christi: God save me that I rejoice in nothing, but in the cross of our Lord Jesu Christ.”
And when this true believing man cometh to the Lord’s supper, and (according to — Christ’s commandment) receiveth the bread broken, in remembrance that Christs body was broken for him upon the cross, and drinketh the wine in remembrance of the effusion of Christ’s blood for his sins, and unfeignedly believeth the same, to him the words of our Saviour Christ be effectuous and operatory: “Take, eat; this is my body, which is given for thee: and drink of this, for this is my blood which is shed for thee, to the remission of thy sins.” And as St Paul saith, “the bread unto him is the communion of Christ’s body, and the wine the communion of his blood.” For the effect of his godly — eating (as you truly herein gather of St Paul’s words) is the communication of Christ’s body and blood, but to the faithful receiver, and not to the dumb creatures of bread and wine, under whose forms the catholic faith teacheth not the body and blood of Christ invisibly to be hidden. And as to the godly eater (who duly esteemeth Christ’s body, and hath it in such price and estimation as he ought to have) the effect is the communication of Christs body; so to the wicked eater, the effect is damnation and everlasting woe.
And now I am glad that here yourself have found out a warrant for the apparel of bread and wine, that they shall not go altogether naked, and be nude and bare tokens, but have promises of effectual signification, which now you have spied? out both in the words of Christ and St Paul. ambi- Now for the ambiguity of Christ’s speeches, it is not always true, that such speeches - of Christ as might have ambiguity, the evangelists either plainly or by circumstances - open them. For Christ speaking so many things in parables, similes, allegories, meta- ^. phors, and other tropes and figures, although sometime Christ himself, and sometime the evangelists open the meaning, yet for the most part the meaning is left to the E judgment of the hearers, without any declaration. As when Christ said: Gird your loins, and take light candles in your hands.” And when he said: “No man that. setteth his hand to the plough, and looketh behind him, is meet for the kingdom οὗ ^ Qd.” And when he said: Except the grain of wheat falling upon the ground, die, it remaineth sole.” And as St Matthew saith: “Christ spake not to the people with- — out parables, that the scriptures might be fulfilled, which prophesied of Christ, that — he should open his mouth in parables.” » And although some of his parables Christ opened to the people, some to his. apostles only, yet some he opened to neither of both, as can appear, but left them to be considered by the discretion of the hearers. And when Christ called Herod a fox, Judas a devil, himself a door, a way, a vine, a well; neither he nor the evangelists P expounded these words, nor gave warning to the hearers that he spake in figures: — for every man that had any manner of sense or reason, might well perceive that 4 these sentences could not be true in plain form of words, as they were spoken. For who is so ignorant, but he knoweth that a man is not a fox, a devil, a door, a way, a vine, a well? E my And so likewise when Christ brake the bread, and commanded his disciples to E
[[! Nisi cena dominica, 1551.] [ espied, 1551.] hi [? but saith with St Paul, 1551.] i]
eat it, and said, “This is my body;” and of the wine he said, Divide it among you, drink it, this is my blood:” no man that was there present was so fond, but he knew well that the bread was not Christ’s body, nor the wine his blood. And therefore they might well know that Christ called the bread his body, and the wine his blood for some figure, similitude, and property of the bread and wine unto his flesh and blood: for as bread and wine be foods to nourish our bodies, so is the flesh and blood of our Saviour Christ, (being annexed unto his deity,) the everlasting food of our souls.
And although the evangelists in that place do not fully express the words in this sense, yet adjoining the sixth chapter of John (speaking of the spiritual manducation of Christ) to the circumstances of the text in the three evangelists, reciting Christ’s last supper, the whole matter is fully gathered, as old authors of the church have declared. For do not the circumstances of the text, both before and after the eating and drinking, declare that there is very bread and wine? Is not that which is broken and eaten bread? and that which is divided, drunken? And the fruit of the vine, is it not very wine? And doth not the nature of sacraments require that the sensible. elements should remain in their proper nature, to signify an higher mystery and secret working of God inwardly, as the sensible elements be ministered outwardly? — And is not the visible and corporal feeding upon bread and wine a convenient and - apt figure and similitude to put us in remembrance, and to admonish us how we be fed invisibly and spiritually by the flesh and blood of Christ, God and man? And is not the sacrament taken away, when the element is taken away? Or can the accidents of the element be the sacrament of substantial feeding? Or did ever any old author say, that the accidents were the sacramental signs without the substances?
But for the conclusion of your matter, here I would wish that you would once truly understand me. For I do not say that Christ’s body and blood be given to us in signification, and not in deed. But I do as plainly speak as I can, that Christ’s body and blood be given to us in deed, yet not corporally and carnally, but spiritually and effectually, as you confess yourself within twelve lines after.
Winchester
The author uttereth a great many words, from the eighth to the seventeenth chapter of the: first. book, declaring spiritual hunger and thirst, and the relieving of the same by spiritual Seeding in Christ, and of Christ, as we constantly believe in him, to the confirmation of which belief, the author would have the sacraments of baptism, and of the body and blood of Christ, 1 to be adminicles as it were, and that we by them be preached unto, as in water, bread, and wine, and by them all our sins?, as it were, spoken unto, or properly touched; which matter dn the gross, although there be some words by the way mot tolerable, yet if those words set apart, the same were in the sum granted, to be good teaching and wholesome exhortation, it; - eontaineth so no more but good matter not well applied. For the catholic church that professeth the truth of the presence of Christ’s body in the sacrament, would therewith use that declaration of hunger of Christ, and that spiritual refreshing in Christ, with the effect of Christ’s passion «nd death, and the same to be the only mean of man’s regeneration and feeding also, with —— the differences of that feeding from bodily feeding, for continuing this earthly life. But this toucheth mot the principal point that should be entreated: whether Christ so ordered to eed such as be regenerate in him, to give to them in the sacrament the same his body, that he gave Dt be crucified for The good man is fed by faith, by merits of Christ passion,! being the mean of the gift of that faith, and other gifts also, and by the suffering of the - body of Christ, and shedding of his most precious blood on the altar of the cross: which work and passion of Christ is preached unto us by words and sacraments, and the same doctrine - weceived of us by faith, and the effect of it also. And thus far goeth the doctrine of this But the catholic teaching by the scriptures goeth further, confessing Christ to feed such as be regenerate in him, not only by his body and blood, but also with his body and blood, delivered in this sacrament by him in deed to us, which the faithful, by his institution and commandment,
adminicles; i.e. helps, supports.) [5 senses, 1551.
receive with their faith and with their mouth also, and with those special dainties be fed — specially at Christ’s table. And so God doth mot only preach in his sacraments, but also — worketh in them, and with them, and in sensible things giveth celestial gifts, after the doctrine of each sacrament, as in baptism the Spirit of Christ, and in the sacrament of the altar the — very body and blood of Christ, according to the plain sense of his words which he spake: This is my body,” &e. And this is the catholic faith, against which, how the author will fortify — that he would have called catholic, and confute that he improveth, I intend hereafter more — particularly to touch in discussion of that is said.
Canterbury
I mistrust not the indifferency of the reader so much, but he can well perceive E how simple and slender a rehearsal you have made here of my eight annotations, and how little matter you have here to say against them, and how little your sayings require any answer.
And because this may the more evidently appear to the reader, I shall rehearse — my words here again.
Although in this treaty of the sacrament of the body and blood of our Saviour Christ, I have already sufficiently declared the institution and meaning of the same, according to the very words of the gospel and of St Paul; yet it shall not be in vain somewhat more at large to declare the same, according to the mind, as well of holy scripture, as of old ancient authors, and that so sincerely and plainly, without doubts, ambiguities, or vain questions, that the very simple and unlearned people may easily understand the same, and be edified thereby.
And this by God’s grace is mine only intent and desire, that the flock of Christ dispersed in this realm (among whom I am appointed a special pastor) may no longer lack the commodity and fruit, which springeth of this heavenly knowledge. For the more clearly it is understood’, the more sweetness, fruit, 1 comfort, and edification it bringeth to the godly receivers thereof. And to - the clear understanding of this sacrament, divers things must be considered.: First, that as all men of themselves be sinners, and through sin be in God’s and wrath, banished far away from him, condemned to hell and everlasting dam- ^ nation, and none is clearly innocent, but Christ alone: so every soul inspired by God is desirous to be delivered from sin and hell, and to obtain at God’s - hands mercy, favour, righteousness, and everlasting salvation.: And this earnest and great desire is called in scripture, the hunger and — thirst of the soul:” with which kind of hunger David was taken, when he said: ^. As an hart longeth for springs of water, so doth my soul long for thee, O God.” “My soul thirsteth after God, who is the well of life. My soul thirsteth — - for thee, my flesh wisheth for thee.” And this hunger the silly poor sinful soul is driven unto by means of the - law, which sheweth unto her the horribleness of sin, the terror of God’s indignation, and the horror of death and everlasting damnation. Ε And when she seeth nothing but damnation for her offences by justice and accusation of the law, and this damnation is ever before her eyes, then in this great distress the soul being pressed with heaviness and sorrow, seeketh for some comfort, and desireth some remedy for her miserable and sorrowful estate. And this feeling of her damnable condition, and greedy desire of refreshing, is the spiritual hunger of the soul. And whosoever hath this godly hunger is blessed of God, and shall have
[[’ understand, 1551. ] [? hath thirsted, 1551.] E]
meat and drink enough, as Christ himself said: Blessed be they that hunger and thirst for righteousness, for they shall be filled full” And on the other side, they that see not their own sinful and damnable estate, but think themselves holy enough, and in good case and condition enough, as they have no spiritual hunger, so shall they not be fed of God with any spiritual food. For as Almighty God feedeth them that be hungry, so doth he send away empty all that be not hungry.
But this hunger and thirst is not easily perceived of the carnal man. For when he heareth the Holy Ghost speak of meat and drink, his mind is by and by in the kitchen and buttery, and he thinketh upon his dishes and pots, his mouth and his belly.
But the scripture in sundry places useth special words, whereby to draw our gross minds from the phantasying of our teeth and belly, and from this carnal and fleshly imagination. For the apostles and diseiples of Christ, when they were yet carnal, knew not what was meant by this kind of hunger and meat; and therefore when they desired him to eat, (to withdraw their minds from carnal meat) he said unto them: “I have other meat to eat which you know not.” And why knew they it not? Forsooth, because their minds were gross as yet, and had not received the fulness of the Spirit. And therefore our Saviour Christ, minding to draw them from this grossness, told them of another kind of meat than they phantasied, (as it were) rebuking them, for that they perceived not that there was any other kind of eating and drinking, besides that eating and drinking which is with the mouth and throat.?
Likewise when he said to the woman of Samaria, Whosoever shall drink ef that water that I shall give him, shall never be thirsty again;” they that heard him speak those words, might well perceive that he went about to make them well acquainted with another kind of drinking, than is the drinking with the mouth and throat. For there is no such kind of drink, that with once drinking can quench the thirst of a man’s body for ever. Wherefore, in saying he shall never be thirsty again, he did draw their minds from drinking with the mouth unto another kind of drinking, whereof they knew not, and unto another kind of thirsting, wherewith as yet they were not acquainted. And i also, when our Saviour Christ said, He that cometh to me shall not hunger, and he that believeth on me shall never be thirsty;” he gave them a plain watchword, that there was another kind of meat and drink than that wherewith he fed them at the other side of the water, and another kind of hungering and thirsting than was the hungering and thirsting of the body. By these words therefore he drove the people to understand another kind of eating and drinking, of hungering and thirsting, than that which belongeth only for the preservation of temporal life.
Now then as the thing that comforteth the body is called meat and drink, f a like sort the scripture calleth the same thing that comforteth the soul — meat and drink. 3 Wherefore as here before in the first note is declared the hunger and 3 drought of the soul, so is it now secondly to be noted, what is the meat, drink, — and food of the soul. ~The meat, drink, food, and refreshing of the soul is our Saviour Christ, as he said himself: “Come unto me all you that travail and be laden, and I will refresh you.” And, “If any man be dry,” saith he, “let him come to me and drink. He that believeth in me, floods of water of life shall flow out
[[? and the throat, 1551.] — [ Also when, 1551.]]
οὗ his belly.” And, “1 am the bread of life,” saith Christ; “he that cometh to — — me, shall not be hungry: and he that believeth in me, shall never be dry.” —— For as meat and drink do comfort the hungry body, so doth the death οὗ Christ’s body and the shedding of his blood comfort the soul when she is — after her sort hungry. What thing is it that comforteth and nourisheth the — body? Forsooth, meat and drink. By what names then shall we call the —— body and blood of our Saviour Christ (which do comfort and nourish the hungry — — soul) but by the names of meat and drink? And this similitude caused our — — Saviour to say: “My flesh is very meat, and my blood is very drink.” For there is no kind of meat that is comfortable to the soul, but only the death —. of Christ’s blessed body; nor no kind of drink that ean quench her thirst, — but only the blood-shedding of our Saviour Christ, which was shed for her. offences. For as there is a carnal generation, and a carnal feeding and nourish- —. ment; so is there also a spiritual generation, and a spiritual feeding. j And as every man by carnal generation of father and mother, is carnally — begotten and born unto this mortal life: so is every good Christian spiritually — born by Christ unto eternal life. 1 And as every man is carnally fed and nourished in his body by meat and drink, even so is every good christian man spiritually fed and nourished in his — soul by the flesh and blood of our Saviour Christ. E [And as the body liveth by meat and drink, and thereby increaseth and — groweth from a young babe unto a perfect man, (which thing experience teacheth us;) so the soul liveth by Christ himself, by pure faith eating his flesh and drinking his blood’.] 1 And this Christ himself teacheth us in this sixth? of John, saying: “Verily, 1 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 ἢ 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, shgll = live by me.” [: And this St Paul confessed himself, saying: “That I have life, I have — - it by faith in the Son of God. And now it is not I that live, but Christ — liveth in me.” ἣν The third thing to be noted is this, that although our Saviour Christ: resembleth his flesh and blood to meat and drink, yet he far passeth and i excelleth all corporal meats and drinks. For although corporal meats and food. drinks do nourish and continue our life here in this world, yet they begin not T our life. For the beginning of our life we have of our fathers and mothers: E and the meat, after we be begotten, doth feed and nourish us, and so preserveth Wt us for a time. But our Saviour Christ is both the first beginner of our spiritual % life, (who first begetteth us unto God his Father,) and also afterward he is our lively food and nourishment. 1j Moreover meat and drink do feed and nourish only our bodies, but Christ is the true and perfect nourishment both of body and soul. And besides that, ἢ bodily food preserveth the life but for a time, but Christ is such a spiritual and perfect food, that he preserveth both body and soul for ever; as he said j
[[! This passage is omitted in both the 1551 and [? in the sixth of John, 1551.] p]
[1580 editions, as well as in ed. Embd. 1557. It [? confessed of himself, 1551.] E]
[is here inserted from the original edition of the [ doth, 1551.] n]
[Defence.”’] ἢ]
unto Martha: “Iam a resurrection and life. — He that believeth in me, although he die, yet shall he live. And he that hveth and believeth in me, shall not die for ever.”
Fourthly it is to be noted, that the true knowledge of these things is the true knowledge of Christ, and to teach these things is to teach Christ. And the believing and feeling of these things is the believing and feeling of Christ in our hearts. And the more clearly we see, understand, and believe these things, the more clearly we see and understand Christ, and have more fully our faith and comfort in him.
And although our carnal generation and our carnal nourishment be known to all men by daily experience, and by our common senses; yet this our spiritual generation and our spiritual nutrition be so obseure and hid unto us, that we cannot attain to the true and perfect knowledge and feeling of them, but only by faith, which must be grounded upon God’s most holy word and sacraments.
And for this consideration our Saviour Christ hath not only set forth these things most plainly in his holy word, that we may hear them with our ears, but he hath also ordained one visible sacrament of spiritual regeneration in water, and another visible sacrament of spiritual nourishment in bread and wine, to the intent, that as much as is possible for man, we may see Christ with our eyes, smell him at our nose, taste him with our mouths, grope him with our hands, and perceive him with all our senses. For as the word of God preached putteth Christ into our ears, so likewise these elements of water, bread, and wine, joined to God’s word, do after a sacramental manner put Christ into our eyes, mouths, hands, and all our senses.
And for this cause Christ ordained baptism in water, that as surely as we see, feel, and touch water with our bodies, and be washed with water, so assuredly ought we to believe, when we be baptized, that Christ is verily present with us, and that by him we be newly born again spiritually, and washed from - our sins, and grafted in the stock of Christ’s own body, and be apparelled, clothed, and harnessed with him, in such wise, that as the devil hath no power against Christ, so hath he none against us, so long as we remain grafted in “that stock, and be clothed with that apparel, and harnessed with that armour. -So that the washing in water of baptism is, as it were, shewing of Christ before our eyes, and a sensible touching, feeling, and groping of him, to the confirmation -of the inward faith, which we have in him. ἢ And in like manner Christ ordained the sacrament of his body and blood in bread and wine, to preach unto us, that as our bodies be fed, nourished, and preserved with meat and drink, so as touching our spiritual life towards God (we be fed, nourished, and preserved by the body and blood of our Saviour - Christ; and also that he is such a preservation unto us, that neither the devils of hell, nor eternal death, nor sin, can be able to prevail against us, so long as by true and constant faith we be fed and nourished with that meat and drink. And for this cause Christ ordained this sacrament in bread and wine (which we eat and drink, and be chief nutriments of our body), to the intent that as surely as we see the bread and wine with our eyes, smell them with our noses, touch them with our hands, and taste them with our mouths, so assuredly ought we to believe that Christ is a spiritual? life and sustenance of our souls, like as the said bread and wine is the food and sustenance of our bodies. And no less ought we to doubt, that our souls be fed and live by Christ, than
[[ I am resurrection, 1551.] [δ is our spiritual life, 1551.]]
that our bodies be fed and live by meat and drink. Thus our Saviour Christ, knowing us to be in this world, as it were, but babes and weaklings in faith, 3 hath ordained sensible signs and tokens whereby to allure and to draw us to - more strength and more constant faith in him. So that the eating and drinking - of this sacramental bread and wine is, as it were, shewing of Christ before our - eyes, a smelling of him with our noses, feeling? and groping of him with our hands, and an eating, chewing, digesting, and feeding upon him to our spiritual strength and perfection. Em
Fifthly, it is to be noted, that although there be many kinds of meats and drinks which feed the body, yet our Saviour Christ (as many ancient - authors write) ordained this sacrament of our spiritual feeding in bread and wine, rather than in other meats and drinks, because that bread and wine do most lively represent unto us the spiritual union and knot of all faithful people, - as well unto Christ, as also among themselves. For like as bread is made Of a great number of grains of corn, ground, baken, and so joined together, that thereof is made one loaf; and an infinite number of grapes be pressed together in one vessel, and thereof is made wine; likewise is the whole multi- tude of true christian people spiritually joined, first to Christ, and then among themselves together in one faith, one baptism, one Holy Spirit, one knot and bond of love. ” Sixthly, it is to be noted, that as the bread and wine which we do eat be turned into our flesh and blood, and be made our very flesh and very - o blood, and so be? joined and mixed with our flesh and blood, that they be - made one whole body together; even so be all faithful Christians spiritually - turned into the body of Christ, and so be? joined unto Christ, and also to- ᾿ gether among themselves, that they do make but one mystical body of Christ, as St Paul saith: We be one bread and one body, as many as be partakers of one bread and one cup.” And as one loaf is given among many men, so that every one is partaker of the same loaf; and likewise one cup of wine is distributed unto many persons, whereof every one is partaker; even so our Saviour Christ (whose flesh and blood be represented by the mystical bread. and wine in the Lord’s supper) doth give himself unto all his true members, spiritually to feed them, nourish them, and to give them continual life by him. And as the branches of a tree, or member of a body, if they be 1 dead, or cut off, they neither live, nor receive any nourishment or sustenance of the body or tree; so likewise ungodly and wicked people, which be cut of. from Christ’s mystical body, or be dead members of the same, do not spi- Ὁ ritually feed upon Christ’s body and blood, nor have any life, strength, or sustentation thereby. ἥ Seventhly, it is to be noted, that whereas nothing in this life is more ac- E: ceptable before God, or more pleasant unto man, than christian people to live t together quietly in love and peace, unity and concord, this sacrament doth - most aptly and effectuously move us thereunto. For when we be made all - partakers of this one table, what ought we to think, but that we be all members of one spiritual body, whereof Christ is the head; that we be joined. together in one Christ, as a great number of grains of corn be joined together in one loaf? Surely, they have very hard and stony hearts, which with these things be not moved: and more cruel and unreasonable be they than brute beasts, that cannot be persuaded to be good to their christian bre- y thren and neighbours, for whom Christ suffered death, when in this sacra- j
[[! a shewing, 1551.] [? a feeling, 1551.] [? be so, 1591.] í]
ment they be put in remembrance that the Son of God bestowed his life for his enemies. For we see by daily experience, that eating and drinking to- gether maketh friends, and continueth friendship: much more then ought the - table of Christ to move us so to do. Wild beasts and birds be made gentle by giving them meat and drink: why then should not christian men wax meek and gentle with this heavenly meat of Christ? Hereunto we be stirred and moved, as well by the bread and wine in this holy supper, as by the words of holy scripture recited in the same. Wherefore, whose heart soever this holy sacrament, communion, and supper of Christ will not kindle with love unto his neighbours, and cause him to put out of his heart all envy, hatred, and malice, and to grave in the same all amity, friendship, and concord, he deceiveth himself, if he think that he hath the Spirit of Christ dwelling within him. But all these foresaid godly admonitions, exhortations, and comforts, do the papists (as much as lieth in them) take away from all christian people by - their transubstantiation. 1 For if we receive no bread nor wine in the holy communion, then all these lessons and comforts be gone, which we should learn and receive by eating of the bread, and drinking of the wine: and that fantastical imagination giveth an occasion utterly to subvert our whole faith in Christ. For seeing that this sacrament was ordained in bread and wine (which be foods for the body) to signify and declare unto us our spiritual food by Christ; then if our eorporal feeding upon the bread and wine be but fantastical, (so that there is no bread nor wine! there indeed to feed upon, although they appear there to be,) then it doth us to understand, that our spiritual feeding in Christ is also fantastical, and that indeed we feed not of him: which sophistry is so devilish and wieked, and so much injurious to Christ, that it could not come from any other person, but only from the devil himself, and from his ~ special minister antichrist.
The eighth thing that is to be noted is, that this spiritual meat of Christ’s “body and blood is not received in the mouth, and digested in the stomach, j (as eorporal meats and drinks commonly be,) but it is received with a pure —heart and a sincere faith. And the true eating and drinking of the said I body and blood of Christ is, with a constant and lively faith to believe, that — Christ gave his body, and shed his blood upon the cross for us, and that he doth so join and incorporate himself to us, that he is our head, and we r his members, and flesh of his flesh, and bone of his bones, having him dwelling ἴῃ us and we in him. And herein standeth the whole effect and strength of 1 A his sacrament. And this faith God worketh inwardly in our hearts by his —holy Spirit, and confirmeth the same outwardly to our ears by hearing of his “word, and to our other senses by eating and drinking of the sacramental bread “and wine in his holy supper.
What thing then can be more comfortable to us, than to eat this meat, “and drink this drink? whereby Christ certifieth us, that we be spiritually, —and truly, fed and nourished by him, and that we dwell in him, and he in τὰν Can this be shewed unto us more plainly, than when he saith himself, “He that eateth me shall live by me?” -. Wherefore, whosoever doth not contemn the everlasting life, how can he but highly esteem this sacrament? How can he but embrace it as a sure pledge of his salvation? And when he seeth godly people devoutly receive
[bread and wine, 1551.] i i]
the same, how can he but be desirous oftentimes to receive it with them? Surely no man that well understandeth, and diligently weigheth these things, can be without a great desire to come to this holy supper.
All men desire to have God’s favour, and when they know the contrary, that they be in his indignation, and cast out of his favour, what thing can comfort them? How be their minds vexed! What trouble is in their consciences! All God’s creatures seem to be against them, and do make them afraid, as things being ministers of God’s wrath and indignation towards them, and rest or comfort can they find none, neither within them, nor without them, And in this case they do hate as well God, as the devil; God, as an unmerciful and extreme judge, and the devil as a most malicious and cruel tormentor. And in this sorrowful heaviness, holy scripture teacheth them, that our. heavenly Father can by no means be pleased with them again, but by the sacrifice and death of his only-begotten Son, whereby God hath made a perpetual amity and peace with us, doth pardon the sins of them that believe in him, maketh them his children, and giveth them to his first-begotten Son Christ, to be incorporate into him, to be saved by him, and to be made heirs of heaven with him. And in the receiving of the holy supper of our Lord, we be put in remembrance of this his death, and of the whole mystery of our redemption. In the which supper is made mention of his testament, and of the aforesaid communion of us with Christ, and of the remission of our sins by his sacrifice upon the cross.
Wherefore in this sacrament, (if it be rightly received with a true faith,) we be assured that our sins be forgiven, and the league of peace and the testament of God is confirmed between him and us, so that whosoever by a - true faith doth eat Christ’s flesh, and drink his blood, hath everlasting life by him. Which thing when we feel in our hearts at the receiving of the Lord’s supper, what thing can be more joyful, more pleasant, or more comfortable unto us? 1 All this to be true is most certain by the words of Christ himself, when. he did first institute his holy supper, the night before his death, as it appeareth. 85. well by the words of the evangelists, as of St Paul. “Do this,” saith Christ, “as often as you drink it, in remembrance of me.” And St Paul saith: As i often as you eat this bread, and drink this cup, you shall shew the Lord’s if death until he come.” And again Christ said: This cup is a new testament in mine own blood, which shall be shed for the remission of sins.” ἵ This doctrine here recited may suffice for all that be humble and godly, H and seek nothing that is superfluous, but that is necessary and profitable: and therefore, unto such persons may be made here an end of this book. But s unto them that be contentious papists and idolaters, nothing is enough. And N yet, because they shall not glory in their subtle inventions and deceivable doctrine (as though no man were able to answer them), I shall desire the readers of patience to suffer me a little while, to spend some time in vain,. to confute their most vain vanities. And yet the time shall not be altogether i spent in vain, for thereby shall more clearly appear the light from the dark-. ness, the truth from false sophistieal subtleties, and the certain word of God Fy from men’s dreams and fantastical inventions. N Although I need make no further answer, but the rehearsal of my words, yet J thus much will I answer, that where you say, that I speak some words by the way á not tolerable, if there had been any such they should not have failed to be expressed i i and named to their reproach, as other have been. Wherefore the reader may take a i
day with you before he believe you, when you reprove me for using some.intolerable words, and in conclusion name not one of them.
And as for your catholic confession, that Christ doth indeed feed such as be regenerated in him, not only by his body and blood, but also with his body and blood at his holy table, this I confess also: but that he feedeth Jews, Turks, and infidels, if they receive the sacrament, or that he corporally feedeth our mouths with his flesh and blood, this neither I confess, nor any scripture or ancient writer ever taught; but they teach that he is eaten spiritually in our hearts and by faith, not with mouth and teeth, except our hearts be in our mouths, and our faith in our teeth.
Thus you have laboured sore in this matter, and spun a fair thread, and brought this your first book to a goodly conclusion. For you conclude your book with blasphemous words against both the sacrament of baptism and the Lord’s supper, niggardly pinching God’s gifts, and diminishing his liberal promises made unto us in them. For where Christ hath promised in both the sacraments to be assistant with us whole both in body and Spirit (in the one to be our spiritual regeneration and apparel and in the other to be our spiritual meat and drink), you clip his liberal benefits in such sort, that in the one you make him to give but only his Spirit, and - in the other but only his body. And yet you call your book an explication and assertion of the true catholic faith.:
Here you make an end of your first book, leaving unanswered the rest of my book, And yet, forasmuch as Smith busieth himself in this place with the answer thereof, he may not pass unanswered again, where the matter requireth. The words of my book be these.
But these things cannot manifestly appear to the reader, except the principal points be first set out, wherein the papists vary from the truth of God’s word, which be chiefly four.
First, the papists say, that in the supper of the Lord, after the words of consecration, (as they call it,) there is none other substance remaining, but the substance of Christ’s flesh and blood, so that there remaineth neither bread to be eaten, nor wine to be drunken. And although there be the colour of bread and wine, the savour, the smell, the bigness, the fashion, and all other (as they call them) accidents, or qualities and quantities of bread and wine, yet, say they, there is no very bread nor wine, but they be turned into the flesh and blood of Christ. And this conversion they call transubstantiation,” “that is to say, turning of one substance into another substance.” ^ And although ΠῚ the accidents, both of the bread and wine, remain still, yet, say they, the “same accidents be in no manner of thing, but hang alone in the air, without -anything to stay them upon. For in the body and blood of Christ, say they, these accidents cannot be, nor yet in the air; for the body and blood of Christ, and the air, be neither of that bigness, fashion, smell, nor colour, that the “bread and wine be. Nor in the bread and wine, say they, these accidents cannot be; for the substance of bread and wine, as they affirm, be clean gone. 1 And so there remaineth whiteness, but nothing is white: there remaineth colours, “but nothing is coloured therewith: there remaineth roundness, but nothing is round: and there is bigness, and yet nothing is big: there is sweetness, with- “out any sweet thing; softness, without any soft thing; breaking, without any thing broken; division, without anything divided: and so other qualities and quantities, without anything to receive them. And this doctrine they teach as a necessary article of our faith.
But it is not the doctrine of Christ, but the subtle invention of antichrist, first decreed by Innocent the third, and after more at large set forth by school authors, whose study was ever to defend and set abroad to the world all
’ The first is of transubstantiation, 1551.
e. 6 THE FIRST BOOK such matters as the bishop of Rome had once decreed. And the devil by his minister antichrist, had so dazzled the eyes of a great multitude of christian people in these latter days, that they sought not for their faith at the clear Tight of God’s word, but at the Romish antichrist, believing whatsoever he 8g: L. 8 prescribed unto them, yea, though it were against all reason, all senses, and God’s most holy word also. For else he could not have been very antichrist indeed, except he had been so repugnant unto Christ, whose doctrine is clean contrary to this doctrine of antichrist. For Christ teacheth that we receive very bread and wine in the most blessed supper of the Lord, as sacraments to admonish us, that as we be fed with bread and wine bodily, so we be fed with the body and blood of our Saviour Christ spiritually: as in our baptism we receive very water, to signify unto us, that as water is an element to wash the body outwardly, so be our souls washed by the Holy Ghost inwardly.
The second principal thing, wherein the papists vary from the truth of pre-.. Ἦν God’s word, is this: They say, that the very natural flesh and blood of — Christ, which suffered for us upon the cross, and sitteth at the right hand of the Father in heaven, is also really, substantially, corporally, and naturally, in or under the accidents of the sacramental bread and wine, which they call the forms of bread and wine. And yet here they vary not a little among themselves, for some say, that the very natural body of Christ is there, but not naturally, nor sensibly. And other say, that it is there naturally and sensibly, and of the same bigness and fashion that it is in heaven, and as the same was born of the blessed virgin Mary, and that it is there broken and torn in pieces with our teeth. And this appeareth partly by the school authors, and partly by the confession of Berengarius’, which Ego «. T… E Nicholas the second constrained him to make, which was this: That of the. Gio. sacraments of the Lord’s table the said Berengarius should promise to hold - that faith which the said pope Nicholas and his council held, which was, that not only the sacraments of bread and wine, but also the very flesh and blood - of our Lord Jesus Christ are sensibly handled of the priest in the altar, broken and torn with the teeth of the faithful people. But the true catholic faith, grounded upon God’s most infallible word, teacheth us, that our Saviour Christ (as concerning his man’s nature and bodily presence) is gone up unto heaven, - And. sitteth at the right hand of his Father, and there shall he tarry until the - ^ world’s end, at what time he shall come again to judge both the quick and the - dead, as he saith himself in many scriptures: “1 forsake the world,” saith - he, “and go to my Father.” And in another place he saith: “You shall ever have poor men among you, but me shall not you ever have.” And again he -
[[! Ego Berengarius indignus sancti Mauritii secrationem non solum sacramentum, sed etiam E]
[Andegavensis ecclesie Diaconus cognoscens veram, verum corpus et sanguinem Domini nostri Jesu]
[catholicam, et apostolicam fidem, anathematizo Christi esse, et sensualiter, non solum sacramento, Al]
[omnem haresim, precipue eam, de qua hactenus sed in veritate manibus sacerdotum tractari, frangi,]
[infamatus sum: quz astruere conatur panem et et fidelium dentibus atteri: jurans per sanctam et ——]
[vinum, quz in altari ponuntur, post consecrationem homousion Trinitatem, per hac sacrosancta Christi ——]
[solummodo sacramentum, et non verum corpus et evangelia. Eos vero, qui contra hanc fidem vene-]
[sanguinem Domini nostri Jesu Christi esse, nec rint, cum dogmatibus et sectatoribus suis zeterno ——]
[posse sensualiter, nisi in solo sacramento, manibus anathemate dignos esse pronuntio. Quod si ego —]
[sacerdotum tractari, vel frangi, aut fidelium denti- ipse aliquando contra hzc aliquid sentire aut prae-]
[bas atteri. Consentio autem sancte Romane et dicare presumpsero, subjaceam canonum severitati. —]
[apostolice Sedi: et ore et corde profiteor de sacra- Lecto et perlecto sponte subscripsi.—Corpus Juris 1 n]
[mentis Dominice mense eandem fidem me tenere, Canonici, Gratiani Decreti tertia pars. “De Con- —]
[quam. dominus et venerabilis Papa Nicolaus et secrat.” Dist. rr. c. xlii. cols. 1932, 3. Ed. Lugd. Be]
[hzc sancta Synodus auctoritate evangelica et apos- 1618.]
[tolica tenendam tradidit, mihique firmavit: scilicet [? you shall not, 1551.] H]
[panem et vinum, quz in altari ponuntur, post con- b 2]
saith: “Many hereafter shall come and say, look here is Christ, or look there he is, but believe them not.” And St Peter saith in the Acts, that “heaven must receive Christ until the time that all things shall be restored.” ^ And St Paul, writing to the Colossians, agreeth hereto, saying: “Seek for things that be above, where Christ is sitting at the right hand of the Father.” And St Paul, speaking of the very sacrament, saith: As often as you shall eat this bread, and drink this cup, shew forth the Lord’s death until he come.” “Till he come,” saith St Paul, signifying that he is not there corporally present. For what speech were this, or who useth of him that is already present to say, “until he come?” For, until he come?” signifieth that he is not yet present. This is the catholic faith, which we learn from our youth in our common ereed, and which Christ taught, the apostles followed, and the martyrs confirmed with their blood. And although Christ in his human nature, substantially, really, corporally, naturally, and sensibly, be present with his Father in heaven, yet sacramentally and spiritually he is here present’. For in water, bread, and wine, he is pre- “sent, as in signs and sacraments; but he is indeed spiritually in those faithful, christian people, which according to Christ’s ordinance be baptized, or receive “the holy communion, or unfeignedly believe in him. Thus have you heard the second principal article, wherein the papists vary from the truth of God’s word and from the catholic faith.
Now the third thing, wherein they vary, is this.
~The papists say, that evil and ungodly men receive in this sacrament the very body and blood of Christ, and eat and drink the selfsame thing that ~ the good and godly men do. But the truth of God’s word is contrary, that all those that be godly members of Christ, as they corporally eat the bread and drink the wine, so spiritually they eat and drink Christ’s very flesh and blood. And as for the wicked members of the devil, they eat the sacramental “bread, and drink the sacramental wine, but they do not spiritually eat Christ’s flesh, nor drink his blood, but they eat and drink their own damnation. d The fourth thing, wherein the popish priests dissent from the manifest E of God, is this. They say that they offer Christ every day for remission οὗ sin, and distribute by their masses the merits of Christ’s passion. But the prophets, apostles, and evangelists, do say that Christ himself in his own person made a sacrifice for our sins upon the cross, by whose wounds all our diseases were healed, and our sins pardoned; and so did never no priest, man, “nor creature, but he, nor he did the same never more than once. And the —benefit hereof is in no man’s power to give unto any other, but every man must receive it at Christ’s hands himself, by his own faith and belief, as the prophet saith.
Here Smith findeth himself much grieved at two false reports, wherewith he saith that I untruly charge the papists. One, when I write that some say, that the very natural body of Christ is in the sacrament naturally and sensibly; which thing Smith utterly denieth any of them to say, and that I falsely lay this unto their charge. And moreover it is? very false, saith he, that you lay unto our charges, that we say, that Christ’s body is in the sacrament as it was born of the virgin, and that it is broken and torn in pieces with our teeth. This also Smith saith^ is a false report of me. — But whether I have made any untrue report or no, let the books be judges. As [? until I come, 1551.] ally in the faithful christian people, 1551.]
[ He is here present in water, bread, and wine, [^ it is also very false, 1551.]
[as in signs and sacraments, but he is indeed spiritu- [ saith Smith, 1551.]]
touching the first, the bishop writeth thus in his book of the Devils Sophistry, the — fourteenth leaf: “Good men were never offended with breaking of the host, which - they daily saw, being also persuaded Christ’s body to be present in the sacrament - naturally and really.” And in the eighteenth leaf he saith these words: Christ,. God and man, is naturally present in the sacrament.” And in ten or twelve places of this, his last book, he saith, “that Christ is present in the sacrament naturally,’ eorporally, “sensibly,” and carnally, as shall appear evidently in the reading thereof.” - So that I make no false report herein, who report no otherwise than the papists have written and published openly in their books. And it is not to be passed over, but worthy to be noted, how manifest falsehood is used in the printing of this bishop’s book, in the one hundred and thirty-sixth leaf. For where the bishop wrote (as I have two copies to shew, one of his own hand, and another exhibited by him in open court before the king’s commissioners), that Christ’s - body in the sacrament is truly present, and therefore really present, corporally also, and naturally; the printed book now set abroad hath changed this word naturally,” and in the stead thereof hath put these words, “but yet supernaturally,” corrupting - and manifestly falsifying the bishop’s book.
Who was the author of this untrue act, I cannot certainly define; but if conjectures may have place, I think the bishop himself would not command to alter the book in the printing, and then set it forth with this title, that it was the same book that was exhibited by his own hand, for his defence, to the king’s majesty’s commissioners at Lambeth.
And I think the printer, being a Frenchman, would not have enterprised so false a deed of his own head, for the which he should have no thanks at all, but be accused of the author as a falsifier of his book. i Now forasmuch as it is not like, that either the bishop or the printer would play any such pranks, it must then be some other, that was of counsel in the printing of the book; which being printed in France (whither you be now fled from your own native country), what person is more like to have done such a noble act than you? who being so full of craft and untruth in your own country, shew yourself to be no changeling, wheresoever you be come. And the rather it seemeth to me to be you than any other person, because that the book is altered in this word naturally,”. upon which word standeth the reproof of your saying. For he saith that Christ is - in the sacrament “naturally,” and you deny that any man so saith, but that Christ is there ‘“supernaturally.” Who is more like therefore to change in his book naturally” into supernaturally” than you, whom the matter toucheth, and no man else? But whether my conjectures be good in this matter I will not determine, but refer it to the judgment of the indifferent reader. 1.s Now as concerning the second untrue report, which I should make of the papists, - mn 1 have alleged the words of Berengarius recantation, appointed by pope Nicholas — the second, and written De consecrat. dist. 2, which be these, “that not only the sacra- - ments of bread and wine, but also the very flesh and blood of our Lord Jesu Christ, are sensibly handled of the priest in the altar, broken, and torn with the teeth of. the faithful people.” Thus the reader may see that I misreport not the papists, nor charge them with any other words than they do write; that is to say, “that the body of Christ is - naturally and sensibly in the sacrament, and broken and torn in pieces with our teeth.” — But,” saith Smith, the meaning of Berengarius in his recantation was otherwise, T4 that the forms of bread? and wine are broken and torn with our teeth, but Christ is received wholly, without breaking of his body, or tearing with our teeth.” Well, i whatsoever the meaning of Berengarius was, his words be as I report; so that I make ἢ [! none otherwise, 1551.] reader, however, is directed in the certain faults — truly present, and therefore really present, corpo- rally.” Cranmer’s version of these renderings,: [? In the 1551 edition of Winchester’s Expli- escaped in the printing,” appended to the beginning cation, p. 136, the passage is thus given: “It is of the book, to read naturally ” for supernatu-
[rally also, and but yet supernaturally, with relation is evident, is the only one which can make the]
[to the truth of the body present, and not to the sense clear and distinct.] +]
[manner of presence, which is spiritual.” The [? the forms only of bread, 1551.] ᾿]
no false report of the papists, nor untruly charge them with that they say not. But. chow should men know what the papists mean, when they say one thing, and mean another? For Berengarius said, that not only the sacraments be broken and torn with our teeth,” and you say he meant contrary, that only the sacraments be broken and torn with our teeth” Berengarius said, “that also the very flesh and blood of “Christ be broken and torn,” and you say he meant clean contrary, “that the flesh and blood of Christ be not broken and torn.” Well, then would I fain learn, how dt may be known what the papists mean, if they mean yea, when they say nay, and mean nay, when they say yea… And as for St John Chrysostom, and other old authors, by whom you would excuse this manner of speech, they help you herein nothing at all. For not one of them speak after this sort that Berengarius doth. For although they say sometimes that.we see Christ, touch him, and break him, (understanding that speech not of Christ himself, but of the sacraments which represent him,) yet they use no such form of Speech as was prescribed to Berengarius, that we see,.feel, and break, not only the sacraments, but also Christ himself.
And likewise of Loth, Abraham, Jacob, Joshua, Mary Magdalene, and the apostles, whom you bring forth in this matter, there is no such speech in the scripture as - Berengarius useth. So that all these things be brought out in vain, having no colour to serve for your purpose, saving that something you must say to make out your book.
And as for all the rest that you say in this process, concerning the presence of Christ visible and invisible, needeth no answer at all, because you prove nothing of all that you say in that matter, which may easily therefore be denied by as good authority as you affirm the same. And yet all the old writers that speak of the diversity of Christ’s substantial presence and absence, declare this diversity to be in the diversity of his two natures, (that in the nature of his humanity he is gone hence, and present in the nature of his divinity,) and not that in divers respects and qualities of one nature he is both present and absent; which I have proved in my third book, the fifth chapter.
And forasmuch as you have not brought one author for the proof of your saying, — but your own bare words, nor have answered to the authorities alleged by me in - the foresaid place of my third book, reason would that my proofs should stand and — have place, until such time as you have proved your sayings, or brought some - evident matter to improve mine. And this, I trust, shall suffice to any indifferent à reader, for the defence of my first book. 3 WINCHESTER. 3 Wherein I will keep this order. First, to consider the third book, that speaketh against the faith of the real presence of Christ’s most precious body and blood in the sacrament: then T against the fourth, amd so return to the second, speaking of transubstantiation, whereof to talk, the real presence not being discussed, were clearly superfluous. And finally, I will somewhat say of the fifth book also. & CANTERBURY. 3 But now to return to the conclusion of the bishop’s book. As it began with a — marvellous sleight and subtlety, so doth he conclude the same with a like notable —Subtlety, changing the order of my books, not answering them in such order as I - wrote them, nor as the nature of the things requireth. For seeing that, by all men’s confessions, there is bread and wine before the consecration; the first thing to be - discussed in this matter is, whether the same bread and wine remain still after the consecration, as sacraments of Christ’s most precious body and blood. And next, by order of nature and reason, is to be discussed, whether the body and blood of Christ, [ nothing herein, 1551.] [5 which may therefore easily, 1551.]
[^ i.e. Lot.]
[cmANMER 4
represented by those sacraments, be present also with the said sacraments: and what manner of presence Christ hath, both in the sacraments, and in them that receive the sacraments. But for what intent the bishop changed this order, it is easy to perceive. For — he saw the matter of transubstantiation so flat and plain against him, that it was ᾷ
47. hard for him to devise an answer in that matter, that should have any appearance — of truth, but all the world should evidently see him clearly overthrown at the first onset. Wherefore he thought, that although the matter of the real presence hath no truth in it at all, yet forasmuch as it seemed to him to have some more appearance —- of truth than the matter of transubstantiation hath, he thought best to begin with that first, trusting so to juggle in the matter, and to dazzle the eyes of them that — be simple and ignorant, and specially of such as were already persuaded in the matter, — that they should not well see nor perceive his legerdemain. And when he had won credit —— with them in that matter, by making them to wonder at his crafty juggling, then - thought he, it should be a fit and meet time for him to bring in the matter of transubstantiation. For when men be amazed, they do wonder rather than 1 judge: and when they be muffled and blindfolded, they cannot find the ] right way, though they seek it never so fast, nor yet follow it, if it 1 chance them to find it; but give up clearly their own judgment, 1 and follow whomsoever they take to be their guide. And so shall they lightly follow me in this matter of transubstan- ] tiation, (thought the bishop,) if I can first persuade. them and get their good wills in the real presence.: This sleight and subtlety thou mayest judge 1 certainly, good reader, to be the cause, 3 and none other, wherefore the order 1
of my book is changed with-
← 3. Book I. Of the Sacrament, Part 1 · Contents · 5. Book III. Of the Presence of Christ →