5. Book III. Of the Presence of Christ, Part 1

of my book is changed with-

out ground or reason.

The end of the first book

: The

Confutation of the Third Book

[wiNcHESTER.

IN the beginning of the third book, the author hath thought good to note certain differences, which I will also particularly consider. It followeth in him thus.

They teach that Christ is in the bread and wine: but we say, according to the truth, that he is in them that worthily eat and drink the bread and wine.”

Note here, reader, even in the entry of the comparison of these differences, how untruly the true faith of the church is reported, which doth not teach that Christ is in the bread and wine (which was the doctrine of Luther); but the true faith is, that Christ’s most precious body and blood is, by the might of his word and determination of his will, which he declareth by his word, in his holy supper present under form of bread and wine. The substance of which matures of bread and wine is converted into his most precious body and blood, as it is truly “believed and taught in the catholic church, of which teaching this author cannot be ignorant. “So as the author of this book reporteth an untruth wittingly against his conscience, to say they teach (calling them papists) that Christ is in the bread and wine, but they agree in form of teaching with that the church of England teacheth at this day, in the distribution of the holy communion, in that it is there said, the body and blood of Christ to be under the form of bread and wine. And thus much serveth for declaration of the wrong and untrue report of the faith of the catholic church, made of this author in the setting forth of this difference on that, part, which it pleaseth him to name papists.

And now to speak of the other part of the difference on the author’s side, when he would tell what he and his say, he conveyeth a sense crafiily in words to serve for a difference, such as no catholic man would deny. For every catholic teacher granteth, that no man can receive aworthily Christ’s body! and blood in the sacrament, unless he hath by faith and charity Christ dwelling in him. For otherwise, such one as hath not Christ in him, receiveth Christ’s body in the sacrament wnworthily, to his condemnation. Christ cannot be received worthily, but into his own temple, which be ye, Saint Paul saith; and yet, he that hath not Christ’s Spirit 4n him, is not his. As for calling it bread and wine, a catholic man forbeareth not that ‘mame, signifying what those creatures were before the consecration in substance. Wherefore ἡ reth, how the author of this book, in the liew and place of a difference, which he pretendeth he would shew, bringeth in that under a “but”, which every catholic man must needs confess, t at Christ is in them who worthily eat and drink the sacrament of his body and blood, or the bread and wine, as this author speaketh. — But as? this author would have spoken plainly, and compared truly the difference of the ᾿ wo teachings, he should in the second part have said somewhat contrary to that the catholic church teacheth, which he doth mot; and therefore as he sheweth untruth in the first report, i he sheweth a sleight and shift in the declaration of the second part, to say that repugneth mot to the first matter, and that no catholic man will deny, considering the said two teachings be not of one matter, nor shoot not, (as one might say,) to one mark. For the first part is of the substance of the sacrament to be received, where it is truth, Christ to be present, God and man. The second part is of Christ’s spiritual presence in the man that receiveth, which indeed must be in him before he receive the sacrament, or he cannot receive the sacrament “worthily, as before3 is said, which two parts may stand well without any repugnaney; and $ both the differences thus taught make but one catholic doctrine. Let us see what the author CANTERBURY.

Now the crafts, wiles, and untruths of the first book being partly detected, after I have also answered to this book, I shall leave to the indifferent reader to judge hether it be of the same sort or no. But before I make further answer, I shall [^ Christ’s precious body, 1551.] [ But and this author, 1551.] [ Afore, 1551. ]

rehearse the words of mine own third book, which you attempt next, out of order, to impugn. My words be these:

Now this matter of transubstantiation being, as I trust, sufficiently resolved, — (which is the first part before rehearsed, wherein the papistical doctrine varieth from the catholic truth,) order requireth next to entreat of the second part, which is of the manner of the presence of the body and blood of our Saviour Christ in the sacrament thereof; wherein is no less contention than in the first part.

For a plain explication whereof, it is not unknown to all true faithful christian people, that our Saviour Christ, (being perfect God, and in all things equal and coeternal with his Father,) for our sakes became also a perfect man, taking flesh and blood of his blessed mother and virgin Mary, and, saving sin, being in all things like unto us, adjoining unto his divinity ἃ most perfect soul [and a most perfect body: his soul being endued with life, sense, will, reason, wisdom, memory, and all other things required to the perfect soul] of man: and his body being made of very flesh and bones, not only having all members of a perfect man’s body, in due order and proportion, but also being subject to hunger, thirst, labour, sweat, weariness, cold, heat, and all other like infirmities and passions of a man, and unto death also, and that the most vile and painful upon the cross; and after his death he rose again, with the selfsame visible and palpable body, and appeared therewith, and shewed the same unto his apostles, and especially to Thomas, making him to put his hands into his side, and to feel his wounds.. And with the selfsame body he forsook this world, and ascended into heaven, (the apostles seeing and beholding his body when it ascended,) and now sitinto teth at the right hand of his Father, and there shall remain until the last day, when he shall come to judge the quick and dead.; This is the true catholic faith, which the scripture teacheth, and the universal church of Christ hath ever believed from the beginning, until within these four or five hundred years last passed, that the bishop of Rome, with the assistance of his papists, hath set up a new faith and belief of their own devising, that the same body, really, corporally, naturally, and sensibly, is in this world still, and that in an hundred thousand places at one time, being inclosed in every pix, and bread consecrated.

And although we do affirm (according to God’s word), that Christ is in all persons that truly believe in him, in such sort, that with his flesh and blood he doth spiritually nourish and feed them, and giveth them everlasting life, and doth assure them thereof, as well by the promise of his word, as by the sacramental bread and wine in his holy supper, which he did institute for the same purpose; yet we do mot a little vary from the heinous ἐμὰ ΘΣΤΟΥΒ of the papists. For they teach, that Christ is in the bread and wine; con- but we say (according to the truth), that he is in them that worthily eat and drink the bread and wine.

Here it pleaseth you to pass over all the rest of my sayings, and to answer only to the difference between the papists and the true catholic faith. Where in the first ye find fault that I have untruly reported the papistical faith, (which you call the faith of the church,) which teacheth not, say you, that Christ is in the bread and wine, but under the forms of bread and,wine. But to answer you’, I say, that the

[[^ In the original edition this is the heading of [3 Nourish them, and, 1551.] 1;]

[the third book: € The third book teacheth the [^ Wherein first ye find, 1551. ] ἡ ῃ]

[manner how Christ is present in his supper.” ] [^ He calleth, 1551.] E 5 [? This passage appears only in the editiou, [5 Saith he, 1551.] P]

[1581, being entirely omitted in that of 1580.] [7 To answer him, 1551. ] » uh]

. papists do teach, that Christ is in the visible signs, and whether they list to call them bread and wine, or the forms of bread and wine, all is one to me; for the truth is, that he is neither corporally in the bread and wine, nor in or under the forms and figures of them, but is corporally in heaven, and spiritually in his lively members, which be his temples where he inhabiteth. And what untrue report is this, when I speak of bread and wine to the papists, to speak of them in the same sense that the papists mean, taking bread and wine for the forms and accidents of bread and wine? And yourself also do teach, to understand by the bread and wine, not their substances, but accidents. And what have I offended then, in speaking to you after vour own manner of speech, which yourself doth approve and allow by and by after, saying these words? “As for calling it bread and wine, a catholic man forbeareth not that name.” If a catholic man forbeareth not that name, and catholic mien be true men, then true men forbear not that name. And why then charge you me with an untruth, for using that name, which you use yourself, and affirm catholic men to use; but that you be given altogether to find faults rather in other, than to amend your own, and to reprehend that in me, which you allow in yourself and other, and pur- - posely will not understand my meaning, because ye would seek occasion to carp and. eontroul? For else what man is so simple that readeth my book, but he may know well, - that I mean not to charge you for affirming of Christ to be in the very bread and - wine? For I know that you say, there is neither bread nor wine, (although you say untruly therein;) but yet forasmuch as the accidents of bread and wine you call bread and wine, and say that in them is Christ, therefore I report of you, that you say Christ is in the bread and wine, meaning, as you take bread and wine, the accidents thereof.

Yet D. Smith was a more indifferent reader of my book than you in this place, who understood my words as I meant and as the papists use, and therefore would not purposely calummiate and reprehend that was well spoken. But there is no man so dull as he that will not understand. For men know that your wit is of as good capacity as D. Smith’s is, if your will agreed to the same.

But as for any untrue report made by me herein willingly against my conscience — (as you untruly report of me), by that time” I have joined with you throughout your “book, you shall right well perceive, I trust, that I have said nothing wittingly, but -fhat my conscience shall be able to defend at the great day, in the sight of the -everliving God, and that I am able before any learned and indifferent judges to — justify by holy scriptures, and the ancient doctors of Christ’s church, as I will appeal - the consciences of all godly men, that be any thing indifferent, and ready to yield to - the truth, when they read and consider my book.

And as concerning the form of doctrine used in this church of England in the -holy communion, that the body and blood of Christ be under the forms of bread and wine, when you shall shew the place where this form of words is expressed, then shall ὶ you purge yourself of that, which in the meantime I take to be a plain untruth.

Now for the second part of the difference, you grant that our doctrine is true, that Christ is in them that worthily eat and drink the hread and wine; and if it — differ not from yours, then let it pass as a thing agreed upon by both parties. And yet if I would captiously gather of your words, I could as well prove. by this second part, that very bread and wine be eaten? and drunken after consecration, as you could prove by the first, that Christ is in the very bread and wine. And if a catholic man call that bread and wine”, (as you say in the second part of the difference,) what “meant you then in the first part of this difference, to charge me with so heinous a “crime (with a note to the reader), as though I had sinned against the Holy Ghost, because I said, “that the papists do teach that Christ is in the bread and wine?” Do not you affirm here yourself the same that I report? that the papists (which you call the catholics), do not forbear to call the sacrament, (wherein they put the real and [ὃ By that time that I have, 1551.] [? Ed. 1551, omits the words “” eaten and ”. ]

Called bread and wine, 1551.]

54 THE THIRD BOOK. corporal presence,) bread and wine? Let the reader now judge, whether you be caught in your own snare or no. But such is the success of them that study to wrangle in words, without any respect of opening the truth.

But letting that matter pass, yet we vary from you in this difference. For we say not, as you do, that the body of Christ is corporally, naturally, and carnally, either in the bread and wine, or forms of bread and wine, or in them that eat and drink thereof. But we say, that he is corporally in heaven only, and spiritually in them that worthily eat and drink the bread and wine. But you make an article of the faith, which the old church never believed nor heard of.

And where you note in this second part of the difference a sleight and craft, as you note an untruth in the first; even as much craft is in the one as untruth in the other, being neither sleight nor untruth in either of both. But this sleight, say you, I use, putting that for a difference, wherein is no difference at all, but every catholic man must needs confess. Yet once again, there is no man so deaf as he that will not hear, nor so blind as he that will not see, nor so dull as he that will not understand. But if you had indifferent ears, indifferent eyes, and indifferent judgment, you might well gather of my words a plain and manifest difference, although it be not in such terms as contenteth your mind. But because you shall see that I mean no sleight nor craft, but go plainly to work, I shall set out the difference truly as I meant, and in such your own terms as I trust shall content! you, if it be possible. Let this therefore be the difference.

They say that Christ is corporally under, or in the forms of bread and wine: we. say, that Christ is not there, neither corporally, nor spiritually; but in them that worthily eat and drink the bread and wine, he is spiritually, and corporally in heaven?

Here, I trust, I have satisfied, as well the untrue report wittingly made, as you say, in the first part of the difference against my conscience, as the craft and sleight used in the second part. But what be you eased now by this? We say as the scripture teacheth, that Christ is corporally ascended into heaven, and nevertheless he is so? in them that worthily eat the bread and drink the wine, given and distributed at his holy supper, that he feedeth and nourisheth them with his flesh and blood unto eternal life. But we say not (as you do, clearly without ground of scripture), that he is corporally under the forms of bread and wine, where his presence should be without any profit or commodity, either to us, or to the bread and wine. 1 And here in this difference, it seemeth that you have either clearly forgotten, or negligently overshot yourself, uttering that thing unawares which is contrary to your whole book. For the first part (which is of the being of Christ in the sacramental bread and wine,) is of the substance of the sacrament to be received, say you, where. it is true, Christ to be present God and man. The second part, say you, which is of the being of Christ in them that worthily eat and drink the bread and wine, is of Christ’s spiritual presence. Of your which words? I see nothing to be gathered, but that as concerning his substantial presence, Christ is received into the sacramental. bread and wine; and as for them that worthily receive the sacrament, he is in them none otherwise than after a spiritual presence: for else why should ye say, that the - second part is of Christ’s spiritual presence, if it be as well of his corporal, as of his - spiritual presence? Wherefore, by your own words, this difference should be under-. standed of two different beings of Christ, that in the sacrament he is by his substance,. and in the worthy receivers spiritually, and not by his substance; for else the differences: repugn not, as you object against me. Wherefore either you write one thing and mean another, or else, as you write of other, God so blindeth the adversaries of the truth, that in one place or other they confess the truth unawares. E Now follow my words in the second comparison. E. [! I trust to content you, 1551.] [+ Ed. 1551, omits the words “that he ”, and EU [ He is spiritually, but not corporally, 155]1.] ^ adds, “in whom he is not in vain but, ”.] M [ Ed. 1551, entirely omits the words, corpo- [5 Of which your words, 1551.] T

[rally ascended into heaven, and nevertheless he [9 Ed. 1551, omits “of his.”] V]

They say, that when any man eateth the bread, and drinketh the cup, hrist goeth into his mouth or stomach with the bread and wine, and no further. But we say, that Christ is in the whole man, both in body and soul of him that worthily eateth the bread, and drinketh the cup, and not in his mouth or stomach only. WINCHESTER.

In this comparison, the author termeth the true catholic teaching at his pleasure, to bring it in contempt: which doing in rude speech would be called otherwise than I will term it. Truth it is, as St Augustine saith, we receive in the sacrament the body of Christ with our mouth; and such speech other use, as a book set forth in the archbishop of Canterbury’s name, called a Catechism, willeth children to be taught that they receive with their bodily mouth the body and blood of Christ: which I allege, because it shall appear it is a teaching set forth among us of late, as hath been also, and is by the book of common prayer, being the most true catholic doctrine of the substance of the sacrament, in that it is there so catholicly spoken of: which book this author doth after specially allow, howsoever all the sum of his teaching doth improve it in that point. So much is he contrary to himself in this work, and here in this place, not caring what he saith, reporteth such a teaching in the first part of this difference, ——. 48 I have not heard of before. There was never man of learning that I have read termed the matter so, that Christ goeth into the stomach of the man that received’, and no further. For that is written contra Stercoranistas, is nothing to this teaching; mor the speech of any gloss, if there be any such, were herein to be regarded. The catholic doctrine is, that by the holy communion in the sacrament we be joined to Christ really, because we receive in the holy supper the most precious substance of his glorious body, which is a flesh giving life. And that is not digested into our flesh, but worketh in us and attempereth by heavenly nurture our body and soul, being partakers of his passion, to be conformable to his will, and by such spiritual food to be made more spiritual. In the receiving of which food in the most blessed sacrament, our body and soul, in them that duly communicate, work together in due order, without other discussion of the mystery than God hath appointed; that is to say, the soul to believe as it is taught, and the body to do as God hath ordered, knowing that glorious flesh by our eating cannot be consumed or suffer, but to be most profitable unto such as do accustome worthily to receive the same. But to say that the church teacheth how we receive Christ at our mouth, end he goeth into our stomach and mo further, is a report which by the just judgment of God is suffered to come out of the mouth of them that fight against the truth in this most high mystery. i Now where this author in the second part, by an adversative with a “but” to make the comparison, telleth what he and his say, he telleth in effect that which every catholic man must needs «md doth confess. For such as receive Christ’s most precious body and blood in the sacrament o worthily, they have Christ dwelling in them, who comforteth both body amd soul; which the a church hath ever taught most plainly. So as this comparison of difference in his two parties 4s made of one open untruth, and a truth disgwised, as though it were now first opened by this author and his; which manner of handling declareth what sleight and shift is used dn the matter. d CANTERBURY.

In the first part of this comparison I go not about to term the true catholic faith,.— for the first part in all the comparisons is the papistical faith, which I have termed mone otherwise than I learned of their own terming; and therefore if my terming please you not (as indeed it ought to please no man), yet lay the blame in them that were — the authors and inventors of that terming, and not in me, that against them do use — their own terms, terming the matter as they do themselves, because they should not ha find fault with me, as you do, that I term their teaching at my pleasure. t And as for receiving of the body of Christ with our mouths, truth it is, that St - Augustine Ambrose, Chrysostom, and other use such speeches, that we receive the body of Christ with our mouths, see him with our eyes, feel him with our hands, break him and tear him with our teeth, eat him and digest him, (which speech I have

[E! [7 Receiveth, 1551.]]

also used in my catechism;) but yet these speeches must be understand figuratively, (as I have declared in my fourth book, the eighth chapter, and shall more fully declare hereafter,) for we do not these things to the very body of Christ, but to the bread whereby his body is represented. of And yet the book of common prayer neither useth any such speech nor giveth any such doctrine, nor I in no point improve that godly book, nor vary from it. But yet glad am I to hear that the said book liketh you so well as no man can mislike it, that hath any godliness in him joined with knowledge. pa- But now to come to the very matter of this article: it is marvel that you never: read, that Christ goeth into the mouth or stomach of that man that receiveth, and 10 further, being a lawyer, and seeing that it is written in the gloss of the law, De consecrat. dist. 9. Tribus gradibus, in these words: “It is certain that as soon as the forms be torn with the teeth, so soon the body of Christ is gone up into heaven’.” And in the chapter, Non iste’, is another gloss to the same purpose. And if you had read Thomas de Aquino and Bonaventure, great clerks and holy saints of the pope’s.. OWN making, and other school-authors, then should you have known what the papists do say in this matter. For some say, that the body of Christ remaineth so long as the form and fashion of bread remaineth, although it be in a dog, mouse, or in the jakes. And some say, it is not in the mouse nor jakes, but remaineth only in the person that eateth it, until it be digested in the stomach, and the form of bread be gone. Some say, it remaineth no longer than the sacrament is in the eating, and may be felt, seen, and tasted in the mouth.

And this, besides Hugo, saith pope Innocentius himself, who was the best learned

15. and the chief doer in this matter of all the other popes. Read you never none of these authors, and yet take upon you the full knowledge of this matter? Will you take upon you to defend the papists, and know not what they say? Or do you know it, and now be ashamed of it, and for shame will deny it?

And seeing that you teach, that we receive the body of Christ with our mouths,” I pray you, tell whether it go any further than the mouth or no? and how far it goeth?— that I may know your judgment herein: and so shall you be charged no further than with your own saying, and the reader shall perceive what excellent knowledge you have in this matter.

And where you say, “that to teach that we receive Christ at our mouth, and he goeth into our stomach, and no further, cometh out of the mouth of them that fight against the truth in this most high mystery:” here, like unto Caiphas, you prophesy the truth unawares. For this doctrine cometh out of the mouth of none, but of the papists, which fight against the holy catholic truth of the ancient fathers, saying, that Christ tarrieth no longer than the proper forms of bread and wine remain, which cannot remain after perfect digestion in the stomach.

And I say not that the church teacheth so, as you feign me to say, but that the papists say so. Wherefore I should? wish you to report my words as I say, and not as you imagine me to say,lest you hear again (as you have heard heretofore), of your wonderful learning and practice in the devil’s sophistry.

Now as concerning the second part of this comparison, here you grant that my saying therein is true, and that every catholic man must needs, and doth confess the same. By which your saying, you must also condemn almost all the school-authors and lawyers, that have written of this matter, with Innocent the third also, as men not catholic, because they teach that Christ goeth no further, nor tarrieth no longer, than the forms of bread and wine go, and remain in their proper kind.

[[! Certum est, quod species quam cito dentibus mentum, quandiu est corpus Christi. Sed quandiu]

[teruntur, tam cito in celum rapitur corpus Christi.” hoc sit, id est, usque ad quem locum procedat per]

[— Corpus Juris Canonici: Decreti tertia pars: “de gulam, nescio. Sed licet non sit sacramentum, cum]

[consecrat.” Dist. 11. ’ Tribus gradibus,” col. 1922. est in corpore, si tamen evomerit illud, cum venera-]

[Lugduni, 1618. ] tione est servandum, quia sacramentum fuit.”’—Ib, — [? “Hug. species tamen bene vadunt in corpus. Dist. 1r. Non iste panis,” col. 1942. Ib.]]

[Sed nunquid ibi est sacramentum? Non, quia desi- [? Would, 1551.] T]

[nit ibi esse corpus Christi: et tandiu est ibi sacra-!]

^ And yet now your doctrine, as far as I can gather of your obscure words, is this:. that Christ is received at the mouth, with the forms of bread and wine, and goeth - with them into the stomach. And although they go no further in their proper kinds, yet there Christ leaveth them, and goeth himself further into every part of the man’s - body, and into his soul also: which your saying seemeth to me to be very strange. - For I have many times heard, that a soul hath gone into a body, but I never heard that a body went into a soul. But I ween, of all the papists you shall be alone in this matter, and find never a fellow to say as you do.

And of these things which I have here spoken, I may conclude, that this comparison of difference is not made of an open untruth and a truth disguised, except you will confess the papistical doctrine to be an open untruth.

Now the words of my third comparison be these. οἷ They say, that Christ is received in the mouth, and entereth in with the bread and wine. We say that he is received in the heart, and entereth in by faith.

Here is a pretty sleight in this comparison, where both parts of the comparison may be “wnderstanded on both sides, and therefore here is by the author in this comparison no issue A joined. For the worthy receiving of Christ’s body and blood in the sacrament is both with mouth and heart; both im fact and faith. After which sort, St Peter in the last supper received Christ’s body, whereas in the same Judas received it with mouth and in fact only; whereof St Augustine speaketh in this wise: Non dicunt ista, nisi qui de mensa Domini vitam sumunt, sicut Petrus, non judicium, sicut Judas, et tamen ipsa utrique fuit una, sed non utrique valuit ad unum, quia ipsi non erant unum5. Which words be thus much to say: That they say not so, (as was before entreated), but such as receive life of our Lord’s table, as Peter did, not judgment, as Judas, and yet the table was all one to them both; but it was not to all one effect in them both, because they were not one.” Here St Augustine noteth the difference in the receiver, not in the sacrament received, which being received with the mouth only, and Christ entering in mystery only, doth mot sanctify ws, but is the stone of stumbling, and owr judgment and condemnation; but if he be received with mouth and body, with heart and faith, to such he bringeth life and nourishment. Wherefore in this comparison, the author hath made mo difference, bui with divers terms the catholic teaching is divided into two members, with a “but,” fashioned nevertheless in another phrase of speech than the church “hath used, which is so common in this author, that I will not hereafter note it any more for a fault. But let us go further. A CANTERBURY. 1 There is nothing in this comparison worthy to be answered; for if you can find. no difference therein, yet every indifferent reader can. For when I report the papists’ teaching, that they say Christ is received in the mouth, and entereth in with the bread and wine, and for an adversative thereto I say, that we, (which follow the seriptures and ancient writers), say that he is received in the heart, and entereth in by faith, every indifferent reader understandeth this adversative upon our side, that —we say Christ is not received in the mouth, but in the heart, specially seeing that —in my fourth book, the second and third chapters, I make purposely a process thereof, —to prove that Christ is not eaten with mouths and teeth. And yet to eschew all “such occasions of sleight as you impute unto me in this comparison, to make the comparison more full and plain, let this be the comparison.

“Phey say that Christ is received with the mouth, and entereth in with the bread “and wine: we say that he is not received with the mouth, but with heart, and entereth in by faith. And now, I trust, there is no sleight in this comparison, nor both.the parts may not be understand on both sides, as you say they might before.

And as for St Augustine, serveth nothing for your purpose, to prove that Christ’s body is eaten with the mouth. For he speaketh not one word in the place by you

[[ In the same supper, 1551.]. [^ August. Opera, Tom. VIII. p. 107. Ed. Paris. 1535.] [ Let us go further, 1551.]]

alleged, neither of our mouths, nor of Christ’s body. But it seemeth you have so fervent desire to be doing in this matter, that you be like to certain men, which have such a fond delight in shooting, that so they be doing, they pass not how far they shoot from the mark. For in this place of St Augustine against the Donatists, he shooteth not at this butt?^, whether Christ’s very natural body be received with our mouths, but whether the sacraments in general be received both of good and evil. And there he declareth, that it is all one water, whether Simon Peter, or Simon Magus be christened in it; all one table of the Lord, and one cup, whether Peter sup thereat, or Judas; all one oil, whether David or Saul were anointed therewith. Wherefore con- he concludeth thus: Memento ergo sacramentis Dei nihil obesse mores malorum hominum, ouo. illa vel omnino mon sint, vel minus sancta. sint, sed ipsis malis hominibus, ut hac habeant ad testimonium. damnationis, non ad adjutorium sanitatis”. Remember, therefore,” saith St Augustine, that the manners of evil men hinder not the sacraments of God, that either they utterly be not, or be less holy; but they hinder the evil men themselves, so that they have the sacraments to witness of their damnation, not to help of their salvation.” And all the process spoken there by St Augustine is spoken chiefly of baptism, against the Donatists, which said, that the baptism was naught, if either the minister or the receiver were naught. Against whom St Augustine concludeth, that the sacraments of themselves be holy, and be all one, whether the minister or receiver be good or bad. But this place of St Augustine proveth as well your purpose, that Christ’s body is received by the mouth, as it proveth that Pauls steeple is higher than the cross in Cheap. For he speaketh not one word of any of them all. And therefore in this place where you pretend to shoot at the butt, you shoot quite at rovers^, and clean from the mark.

And yet if Judas received Christ with the bread, as you say, and the devil entered with the bread, as St John saith, then was the devil and Christ in Judas both at once. And then how they agreed I marvel: for St Paul saith, that Christ and Belial cannot agree. O! what a wit had he need to have, that will wittingly maintain an open error, directly against Good and his word, and all holy ancient writers!

Now followeth the fourth comparison in my book.

They say, that Christ is really in the sacramental bread, being reserved a whole year, or so long as the form of bread remaineth: but after the receiving thereof he flieth up, say they, from the receiver unto heaven, as soon as the bread is chewed in the mouth, or changed in the stomach: but we say, that Christ remaineth in the man that worthily receiveth it, so long as the man remaineth a member of Christ.

Winchester

This comparison is like the other before, whereof the first part is garnished and embossed with untruth; and the second part is that the church hath ever taught most truly, and that all must believe: and therefore that piece hath mo untruth in the matter, but in the manner only, being spoken as though it differed from, the continual open teaching of the church, which is not $0. Wherefore in the manner of it in utterance signifieth an untruth, which in the matter itself is nevertheless most true. For undoubtedly Christ remaineth in the man that worthily receiveth the sacrament, so long as the man remaineth a member of Christ. In this first part there is a fault in the matter of the speech; for explication whereof I will examine it particularly. This author saith, “they say, that Christ is really in the sacramental bread, being reserved an whole year, &e.” The church giving faith to Christ’s word, when he said, This is my body,” &c., teacheth the body of Christ to be present in the sacrament under the form of bread; unto which words when we put the word “really,” it serveth only to express that truth in open is the words, which was before? to be wnderstanded in sense. For in Christ, who was the body of all ἥ the shadows and figures of the law, and who did exhibit and give in his sacraments of the

Eat iit

[! Fervent a desire, 1551.] - [ In the Cheap, 1551.] [? Butt: i.e. a mark.] [5 Of none of, 1551. ] Ἃ

[[ August. Opera, Tom. VII. p. 107. Ed. [6 Atrovers: i.e. at random. ] {i]

[Paris, 1535.] [7 Afore, 1551.] 4]

mew law the things promised in his sacraments of the old law, we must understand his words in the institution of his sacraments without figure, in the substance of the celestial thing of them: and therefore when he ordered his most precious body and blood to be eaten and drunken of us, under the forms of bread and wine; we profess and believe, that truly he gave us his anost precious body in the sacrament for a celestial food, to comfort and strengthen us in this miserable life. And for certainty of the truth of his work therein, we profess he giveth us his body really, that is to say, in deed his body, the thing itself, which is the heavenly part of the Really, sacrament, called Eucharistia; having the visible form of bread and wine, and containing ”^ ^ invisibly the very body and blood of owr Saviour Christ, which was not wont to be reserved otherwise, but to be ready for such as in danger of death call for it, and the same, so long as it may be used, is still the same sacrament, which only time altereth not. Whereof Cyril wrote 67. to this sense many hundred years past, and Hesychius also, and what ought to be done when ἐμ by negligence of the minister it were reserved overlong. Marry, where it liketh the author of episcopum. these differences, to say the church teacheth, Christ to flee up from the receiver unto heaven, in Levit 80 soon as the bread is chewed in the mouth, or changed in the stomach, this manner of speech ” implieth as though Christ left the seat of his majesty in heaven, to be present in the sacrament, which is most untrue. The church acknowledgeth, believeth, and teacheth truly, that Christ ὐ sitteth on the right hand of his Father in glory, from whence he shall come to judge the world; Sacrament, and also teacheth Christ’s very body and blood, and Christ himself God and man, to be present te pamut - dn the sacrament, not by shifting of place, but by the determination of his will, declared in ^ seriptures, and believed of the catholic church; which articles be to reason impossible, but possible to God ommipotent: so as being taught of his will, we should humbly submit all our senses and reason to the faith of his will and work declared in his scriptures. In the belief of which mysteries is great benefit and consolation, and in the unreverent search and curious discussion of them, presumptuous boldness and wicked temerity. I know by faith Christ to be present, but the particularity how he is present, more than I am assured he is truly present, and therefore in substance present, I cannot tell; but present he is, and truly is, and verily is, and so in deed, that is to say, really is, and unfeignedly is, and therefore in substance is, and, as we term it, substantially is present. For all these adverbs, really, substantially, eIruly. with the rest, be contained in the one word “is,” spoken out of his mouth, that speaketh as substantihe meaneth, truly and certainly, as Christ did, saying: This is my body that shall be nis betrayed for yow;” who then carried himself in his hands after a certain manner, as St Augustine saith, which never man besides him could do, who in that his last supper gave himself fugestin, o be eaten without consuming. The ways and means whereof no man can tell, but humble - spirits, as they be taught, must constantly believe it, without thinking or talking of flying, of stying of Christ again unto heaven, where Christ is in the glory of his Father continually, and is nevertheless, because he will so be, present in the sacrament, whole God and man, and dwelleth corporally in him that receiveth him worthily. j Wherefore, reader, when thow shalt again well consider this comparison, thou shalt find Wt true, how the first part is disguised with untrue report of the common teaching of the church, Dina howsoever some gloss or some private teacher might speak of it; and the second part, such taken T as hath been ever so taught. One thing I think good to admonish the reader, that whatsoever τὰν twee. I affirm, or precisely deny, I mean within the compass of my knowledge; which I speak al mot because I am in any suspicion or doubt of that I affirm, or deny, but to avoid the elim temerity of denying as ” never,” or affirming as “ever,” which be extremities. = And I mean Saco — «so of public doctrine by consent received, so taught, and believed, and mot that any one pe — man might blindly write, as uttering his fancy, as this author doth Jor his pleasure. There fey De followeth in the author thus. him suspect ” Bo. Νὴ CANTERBURY. 1 Because this comparison, as you say, is like the other, therefore it is fully an- Howlong - swered before in the other comparisons. And here yet again it is to be noted, that eth with. in all these four comparisons you approve and allow for truth the second part of the rpg ~ comparison which we say. And where you say that Christ undoubtedly remaineth το in the man that worthily receiveth the sacrament, so long as that man remaineth a member of Christ: how agreeth this with the common saying of all the papists, that Christ is contained under the forms of bread and wine, and remaineth there no longer

[j [ Stying: i.e. soaring, ascending.]]

than the forms of bread and wine remain? Wherefore in this point all the whole rout of the papists will condemn for untruth that which you so constantly affirm to be undoubtedly true.

And when the papists teach, that the body of Christ is really in the sacrament under the form of bread, they speak ποὺ this, giving faith to Christ his words, as you say they do, for Christ never spake any such words; and as for this saying of Christ, “This is my body,” it is a figurative speech, called metonymia, when one thing is called by the name of another which it signifieth, and it hath no such sense as you pretend; for there is a great diversity between these two sayings, This is my body,” and “the body of Christ is really in the sacrament under the form of bread.” But the papists have set Christ’s words upon the tenters’, and stretched them out so far, that they make his words to signify as pleaseth them, not as he meant.

And this is a marvellous doctrine of you, to say that Christ was the body of the all the shadows and figures of the law, and did exhibit and give in his sacraments…: saera- of the new law the things promised in the sacraments of the old law. For he is the body of all the figures, as well of the new law as of the old; and did exhibit and give his promises in the sacraments of the old law, as he doth now in the sacraments of the new law. And we must understand the words spoken in the institution of the sacraments in both the laws, figuratively, as concerning the sacraments, and without figure, as concerning the things by them promised, signified, and exhibited: as in circumcision was given the same thing to them that is given to us in baptism, and the same by manna that we have at the Lord’s table. Only this difference was between them and us, that our redemption by Christ’s death and passion was then only promised, and now it is performed and past. And as their sacraments were figures of his death to come, so be our? figures of the same now past and gone. And yet it was all but one Christ to them and us?; who gave life, comfort, and strength to them by his death to come, and giveth the same to us by his death passed.

And he was in their sacraments spiritually and effectually present, and for so much truly and really present, that is to say, in deed, before he was born, no less than he is now in our sacraments present after his death and ascension into heaven. But as for carnal presence, he was to them not yet come: and to us he is come, and gone again unto his Father, from whom he came. on. And as for the reservation of the sacrament, neither Cyril nor Hesychius speak any word what ought to be done with the sacrament, when by negligence of the minister it were reserved over long. But Hesychius sheweth plainly, that nothing ought to be reserved, but to be burned whatsoever remained.

And as for the “flying of Christ up into heaven, so soon as the bread is chewed in the mouth, or changed in the stomach,” I say not that the church teacheth so, but that papists say so; which forasmuch as you say that it liketh me to report this most untruly, read what the gloss saith upon the chapter, Z’ribus gradibus, de Consecrat. gra- dist. 2, and there you shall find these words: Certum est, quod species quam. cito dentibus teruntur, tam cito in calum rapitur corpus Christi. And if this gloss be false and erroneous, why was it published and set out by the authority of the papists? Why hath it been written and printed in so many countries, and so many years without reproof, or any fault found therein by any man?

But here may wise men learn to beware of your doctrine. For you reprove those papists which have written of this matter four or five hundred years past, and do invent a new device of your own. And therefore wise men, when they see you teach one doctrine, and the papists that were before your time teach another, they will believe none of you all.

And where you say, that in the belief of this mystery is great benefit and consolation: what benefit, I bescech you, is it to us, if Christ be really and corporally in the forms of bread and wine a month or two, or a year or two? And if we receive him really and corporally with the bread and wine into our mouths or stomachs, [’ Upon the tenters; i.e. upon the stretch. ] [? And to us, 1551.]

[ Ours, 1581.] [ Vide supra, p. 56.]

[Ih]

and no further, and there he tarrieth not in that sort, but departeth away from us by and by again, what great benefit or comfort, I pray you, is such a corporal presence unto us? And yet this is the teaching of all the papists, although you seem to vary from them in this last point, of Christ’s sudden departure. But when the matter shall be throughly answered, I ween you will agree with the rest of the papists, that as concerning his carnal presence, Christ departeth from us, at the least when the forms of bread and wine be altered in the stomach. And then, I pray you, declare what comfort and benefit we have by this carnal presence, which by and by is absent, and tarrieth not with us? Such comfort have weak and sick consciences at the papists’ hands, to tell them that Christ was with them, and now he is gone^ from them. Nevertheless, in the belief of this mystery, (if it be understanded according to God’s word,) is great benefit and consolation; but to believe your addition unto God’s word, is neither benefit nor wisdom.

And I pray you, shew in what place the scripture saith, “that under the forms of bread and wine is the body of Christ, really, corporally, and naturally;” or else acknowledge them to be your own addition, beside God’s word, and your stout assertion herein to be but presumptuous boldness and wicked temerity, affirming so arrogantly that thing, for the which you have no” authority of God’s word.

And where you seem to be offended with the discussion of this matter, what hurt, I pray you, can gold catch in the fire, or truth with discussing? Lies only fear discussing. The devil hateth the light, because he hath been a liar from the beginning, and is loth that his lies should come to light and trial. And all hypocrites and papists be of a like sort afraid, that their doctrine should come to discussing, whereby it may evidently appear that they be endued with the spirit of error and lying. If the papists had not feared that their doctrines should have been espied, and their opinions have come to discussing, the scriptures of God had been in the vulgar and English tongue many years ago. But, God be praised! at the length your doctrine is come to discussing, so that you cannot so craftily walk in a cloud, but the light of God’s word will always shew where you be. Our Saviour Christ, in the fifth of John, willeth us to search. the scriptures, and to try out the truth by them. And shall not we then with humble reverence search the truth in Christ’s sacraments? 3 And if we cannot tell how Christ is present, why do you then say, “that he is substantially present, corporally present, naturally and carnally present?” δ And how sure be you, that Christ is in substance present, because he is truly present? Are you assured that this your doctrine agreeth with God’s word? Doth not God’s word teach a true presence of Christ in spirit, where he is not present in his corporal substance? As when he saith: “Where two or three be gathered together in my name, there am I in the midst of them.” And also when he saith: “I shall be with you till the end of the world.” Was it not a true presence that Christ in these places promised? And yet can you not of this true presence gather such a corporal presence of the substance of Christ’s manhood, as you unlearnedly, eontrary to the scriptures, go about to prove in the sacrament. For when Christ said, “This is my body,” it was bread, which is called’^ his body in a figurative speech, as all old authors” teach, and as I have proved in my third book, the eighth and eleventh chapters. And the manner how Christ carried himself in his own hands, St Augustine declareth it to be figuratively.

And because you can find no repugnance between the two parts of this comparison, to make them more plain, I shall fill them up with more words, as I did the other comparisons before. This, therefore, shall be the comparison.

They say, that Christ is really and corporally in the sacramental bread being reserved, so long as the form of bread remaineth, although it be an whole year and more: but after the receiving thereof, he flieth up from the receiver into heaven, as soon as the bread is chewed in the mouth or digested in the stomach. But we say, [ And now is gone, 1551.] [9 Until, 1551.]

[ Besides, 1551.] [ Which he called, 1551.]

[[ None, 1551.]. [’ As all the old authors, 1551.] [ And if you cannot, 1551.]]

that after what manner Christ is received of us, in the same wise he remaineth in us, so long as we remain the members of Christ.

And where in the end you admonish the reader, that whatsoever you affirm or precisely deny, you mean within the compass of your knowledge, and of public doctrine, and of doctrine by consent received: what do you here else, but devise certain sleights, and prepare for yourself privy holes to start out at, whensoever you should be taken with a manifest lie? So that you should not be compelled to abide by any word that you say. For by these crafty sleights and shifts, of the compass of your knowledge, and of publie doctrine, and of doctrine by common consent received, you mean to say ever what you list. And though never so manifest a lie or untruth be laid to your charge, yet shall no man never be able to prove it so manifestly against you, but you shall have one of these three shifts to flee out at for your defence.

Now followeth in my book the fifth comparison. A They say, that in the sacrament the corporal members of Christ be not distant in place one from another, but that wheresoever the head is, - there be the feet; and wheresoever the arms be, there be the legs: so that in every part of the bread and wine is altogether whole head, whole feet, whole flesh, whole blood, whole heart, whole lungs, whole breast, whole back, and altogether whole, confused and mixed without distinction or diversity. O what a foolish and an abominable invention is this, to make of the most pure and perfect body of Christ such a confuse and monstrous body! And yet can the papists imagine nothing so foolish, but all christian — people must receive the same as an oracle of God, and as a most certain article of their faith, without whispering to the contrary.

WINCHESTER. P This is a marvellous rhetoric, and such as the author hath overseen himself in the utterance of it, and confesseth himself prettily abused, to the latter end of his years to have believed that he now calleth so foolish. But to the purpose. In the book of common prayer, now at this time set forth in this realm, It is ordered to teach the people, that in each part of the bread consecrate, broken, is the whole body of our Saviour Christ, which is agreeable to the catholic doctrine.” Upon occasion hereof, it liketh this author to multiply language by enwmeration of parts; and because reason without faith directeth the bodily eye to so little a visible quantity in the host, this author beareth in hand the catholic church to say and teach all that fond reason deviseth; whereas the church in the doctrine of this mystery, denieth all that reason without faith deviseth: and therefore when we acknowledge by faith Christ’s body present, although we say it is present truly, really, substantially, yet we say, our senses be mot privy to that presence, orl the manner of it, but by instruction of faith; and therefore we say Christ’s body to be mot locally present, not by manner of quantity, but invisible?, and in no sensible manner, but marvellously in a sacrament and mystery truly, and in such a spiritual manner as we cannot define and determine, and yet by faith we know his body present, the parts of which be in themselves distinct one from another, in their own substance, but mot by circumscription of several places to be comprehended of owr capacity; which parts we can by no demonstration? place, nor by imagination displace, diminish, alter, or confound, as this author for his pleasure veporteth, who writeth monstrously in so high a mystery, and impueum dently beareth in hand the catholic church to teach that he listeth to bear in hand, may by “wanton reason be deduced of the teaching; whereas all true christian men believe simply Christ’s words, and trouble not their heads with such consequences as seem to strive with reason. This is in the author mo whispering, but plainly railing, wherein if he had remembered himself well, he would mot have spoken of all christian men in the receipt of that he. intendeth to disprove. And if he would say he spake it by an irony or scorn, yet it im- ——- plieth that all had received that he thus mocketh, which, after the sort he writeth, was never

[’ Nor, 1551.] [ The original copy of Winchester’s book

[? Invisibly, 1531.] reads, of their teaching.”]

[[> We cannot by demonstration, 1551.] à]

• devised by papist or other to be so taught, otherwise than as this author might read it, as idle argument, to shew absurdity in reason. For in God’s works, as the sacraments be, - we must think all seemliness in deed without deformity, even as we believe all. God’s judgments just and true, although reason conclude in them evident iniquity. Mans reason, when it seemeth most gallant, is full of spots and folly. God’s works be all seemliness, without confusion, monster, or any such absurdity, as this author supposeth. Although I cannot in the sacrament with the eye of my reason locally distinct Christ’s head from his foot, his - legs from his arm. And where in the book of common prayer it is truly said, in each part - of the bread consecrate broken to be Christ’s whole body, if one of curiosity would question with me, and I of folly would answer him, first, where is Christ’s head? I should say, here, pointing with my finger, he would think it first, a little head. Then he would ask, where is his foot? and I should say there, and point in the same place again, for there is none other left. If he replied, that I pointed before the same for the head, might not the third, a catholic man, that stood by, trow you, wisely call us both mad, to go about to discuss that we must grant we see not; amd when by faith we know only the being present of Christ’s most precious body, then by blind reason to discuss the manner of being in the situation of such parts as we do not see? Now if there came among us a fourth man as - « mediator, and would do as king Alevander did, when he could mot open the knot of - Gordius, he did cut it with his sword, if this man should say, I will relieve this matter. You believe Christ’s body is present indeed, really and substantially, Leave out “really and - substantially,” and say his body is present in signification, and then it may be easily conceived, by reason, that Christ’s body, being never so great, may be as well signified by a little piece of bread, as by a great piece of bread: even as a man may write a great man’s name, as well in sinall letters short, as in great letters at length. And to commend further his device unto us, would percase5 tell how many absurdities, as he thinketh, and inconveniences might be avoided by it. This fourth man I speak of, making himself a mediator, but in deed unmeet therefore, because he hath no participation with faith; yet if our religion and faith were man’s invention, as that of Numa Pompilius was, he should not utter this his conceit all idly. For he speaketh of a jolly easy way, without any mystery or marvel at all. But our faith is of hearing, as hath been preached continually from the beginning, grounded wpon the most sure truth of the word of God, and therefore cannot be attempered as man would devise it, to exclude travail im carnal reason. For then the Sabellians were to be hearkened unto, who by their heresy took away all the hard and difficile questions in the mystery of the Trinity. The Arians also relieved much man’s reason in consideration of Christ’s death, denying - him. to be of the same substance with his Father, which was a pestilent heresy. Now in the — sacrament to say, Christ’s body is present only by signification, as it relieveth in some men’s judgments the absurdities in reason, which ought not to be relieved, so it condemneth all the - (rue public faith, testified in the church from the beginning hitherto, and sheweth the learned holy wen to have wondered in their writings at that which hath no wonder at all, to ordain - one thing to be the signification of another, which is practised daily among men. But from the beginning the mystery of the sacrament hath been with wonder marvelled at, how: Christ made bread his body, and wine his blood, and under the figure of those visible creatures gave invisibly his precious body and blood presently there. And as he gave, saith St Bernard’, his life for us, so he gave his flesh to us, in that mystery to redeem us, in this to feed us. Which doings of Christ we must understand to have been perfected, not in an imagination of ὦ figure and signification, but really in very deed, truly and unfeignedly; not because we be- — lieve it so, but because he wrought it so; whose works we must believe to be most perfectly — rue, according to the truth of the letter, where no absurdity in scripture driveth us from it, howsoever it seem repugnant to our reason, be we never so wise and witty; which man’s reason now-a-days inflamed with fury of language, is the only adversary against the most blessed sacrament, as it may appear by these comparisons of differences throughly8 considered. Dp CANTERBURY.

Did not you believe, I pray you, many years together, that the bishop of Rome was Christs vicar, and the head of his church?

[^ Percase: i.e. perchance, perhaps.] ipse pascua est, ipse redemptio.” Bernardus, su-. [ Difficile: i.e. difficult] per Cant. Serm. xxxi. col. 664. Lutet. Paris. 1640.]

Animam pro illis, carnem illis. Illam in [? Thoroughly, 1531.

[pretium, istam in cibum, Res mira: ipse pastor,]

at If you did not, you wittingly and willingly defended a false error in the open parliament. But sithens that time, you have called that belief, as it is indeed, very foolish. And if you confessed your ignorance in that matter, be no more abashed to confess it in this, if you have respect more unto God’s truth, than to your own estimation. It is lawful and commendable for a man to learn from time to time, and to go from his ignorance, that he may receive and embrace the truth. And as for me, I am not, I grant, of that nature that the papists for the most part be, who study to devise all shameful shifts, rather than they will forsake any error wherewith they were infected in youth. I am glad to acknowledge my former ignorance (as St Paul, St Cyprian, St Augustine, and many other holy men did, who now be with Christ) to bring other to the knowledge of the truth, of whose ignorance I have much ruth and pity. I am content to give place to God’s word, that the victory may be Christ’s. What a member had the church of God lost, if Paul would have been as froward as some papists be, that will stick to their error tooth and nail, though the scripture and ancient writers be never so plain and flat ^ against them! Although St Paul erred, yet because his error was not wilful, but of ignorance, so that he gave place to the truth when it was opened unto him, he became of a most cruel persecutor a most fervent setter forth of the truth, and apostle of Christ.

And would God I were as sure that you be changed indeed in those matters οὗ religion, wherein with the alteration of this realm you pretend a change, as 1 am glad even from the bottom of my heart, that it hath pleased Almighty God, in this latter end of my years, to give me knowledge of my former error, and a will to embrace the truth, setting apart all manner of worldly respects, which be special hinderances, that hold back many from the free profession of Christ and his word. And as for the book of common prayer, although it say, that in each part of the bread broken is received the whole body of Christ, yet it saith not so of the parts unbroken, nor yet of the parts or whole reserved, as the papists teach. But as in baptism we receive the Holy Ghost, and put Christ upon us, as well if we be christened in one dish full of water taken out of the font, as if we were christened in the whole font or river; so we be as truly fed, refreshed, and comforted by Christ, receiving a piece of bread at the Lord’s holy table, as if we did eat an whole loaf. For as in every part of the water in baptism is whole Christ and the Holy Spirit, sacramentally, so be they in every part of the bread broken, but not corporally and naturally, as the papists teach.

And I bear not the catholic church in hand, as you report of me, that it saith and teacheth that whole Christ is in every part of the bread consecrated, but I say that the papists so teach. And because you deny it, read the chief pillars of the papists,—Duns, and Thomas de Aquino, which the papists call St Thomas; who say, that Christ is whole under every part of the forms of bread and wine, not only when the host is broken, but when it is whole also. “And there is no distance,” ’ saith he, “of parts one from another, as of one eye from another, or of the eye from

3. the ear, or the head from the feet.” These be Thomas’s words: Christus totus est dob qualibet parte specierum, panis et eini, mon solum. cum frangitur hostia, sed etiam cum, integra manet. Nec est distantia partium. ab invicem, ut oculi ab oculo, aut oculi ab aure, aut capitis a pedibus, sicut est in aliis corporibus organicis. Talis enim distantia est im ipso corpore Christi vero, sed non prout est in hoc sacramento. And not only the papists do thus write and teach, but the pope himself, Innocentius the

[[ Ruth: i. e. sorrow.] quia conversio substantie panis directe terminatur 1 [? Coxcrvusio.—Cum corpus Christi sit in hoc ad substantiam corporis Christi, secundum cujus T]

[sacramento eo modo quo substantia est sub dimen- modum proprie et directe est in hoc sacramento]

[sionibus, manifestum est, totum Christum sub qua- corpus Christi, talis distantia partium est quidem?]

[libet parte specierum panis aut vini contineri, sive in ipso corpore Christi vero: sed non secundum —]

[frangatur hostia, sive integra remaneat.—Et ideo hanc distantiam comparatur ad hoc sacramentum,]

[manifestum est, quod totus Christus est sub qua- sed secundum modum suz substantie, Thos.]

[libet parte specierum panis, etiam hostia integra Aquinas, Tertia pars. Quest. lxxvi. Art.iii. p. —]

[manente, et non solum cum frangitur.—Et ideo 190. Ed, Antwerp. 1624.] ἢ]

pu T ᾿ ΕΠ.” OF THE PRESENCE OF CHRIST. 65 third. And so bear I in hand, or report of the papists nothing but that which they say indeed. ἜΝ

And yet you say, the church saith ποὺ so; which I affirm also: and then it must needs follow, that the doctrine of the papists is not the doctrine of the church. Which papists, not by reason without faith, but against as well reason as faith, would direct our minds to seek in every little crumb of bread, whole Christ, and to find him in so many places there, as be small crumbs in the bread. And where you traverse the matter of the judgment of our senses herein, it is quite and clean from the matter, and but a crafty shift, to convey the matter to another thing that is not in question; like unto crafty malefactors, which perceiving themselves to be sore pursued with a hound, make a new train to draw the hound to another fresh suit. For I speak not of the judgment of our senses in this matter, whether they perceive any distinction of parts and members or no; but whether indeed there be any such distinction in the sacrament or no, which the papists do deny. And therefore I say not untruly of them, that in the sacrament they say, There is no distance of parts, one from another.”

And if the parts in their substance be distinct one from another, as you say, and be not so distinct in the sacrament, as Thomas saith, then must it follow that the parts in their own substance be not in the sacrament. And if this distinction of parts be in the true body of Christ, and not in the sacrament, as Thomas saith, then fol- -loweth it again, that the true body of Christ is not in the sacrament.

And forasmuch as I speak not one word of the comprehension of our senses, to what purpose do you bring this in, if it be not to draw us to a new matter, to avoid that which is in controversy? You do herein as if James should buy of John a parcel of land, and by his attorney take state and possession therein; and after, John should traverse the matter, and say that there was never no state delivered, and thereupon join their issue; and when James should bring forth his witnesses for the state and possession, then should John run to a new matter, and say that James saw the^ possession delivered: what were this allegation of John to the purpose of the thing that was in issue, whether the possession were delivered indeed or no? Were this any other thing than to avoid the issue craftily by bringing in ἃ new matter’? And yet this shift is a common practice of you in this book, and this is another point of the devil’s sophistry, wherein it is pity that ever such a wit as you have should be occupied. T Again you say, that impudently I bear the catholic church in hand, to teach — that I list to bear in hand may by wanton reason be deduced of their teaching, - whereas all true christian men believe simply Christ’s words, and trouble not their — heads with such consequences. “This is in the author no whispering, but plain — mailing,” say you. This is your barking eloquence, wherewith your book is well M furnished: for as dogs bark at the moon without any cause, so do you in this place. Ἷ For I do no more but truly report what the papists themselves do write, and ποῦ otherwise; not bearing the catholic church in hand that it so teacheth, but charging the papists that they so teach; not bearing the papists in hand what I list, or what ~ by wanton reason may be deduced of their teaching, but reporting only what their “own words and sayings be.

And if they be no true christian men that trouble their heads with such matters, as you affirm they be not, then was Innocent the third, the chief author of your ~ doctrine both of transubstantiation and of the real presence, no true christian man, “as I believe well enough: then was your St Thomas no true christian man: then bi: abriel, Duns, Durand, and the great rabblement of the school-authors, which taught your doctrine of transubstantiation and of the real presence, were not true christian men. And in few words to comprehend the whole, then were almost none that taught that doctrine true christian men, but yourself alone. For almost all with one consent do teach, that whole Christ is really in every part of the host.

Saw not, 1551.] None otherwise, 1551.] of a new matter, 1551.] Then was almost, 1551.]

ΓΕΑ την 5

But your terms here of railing, mocking, and scorning, I would have taken patiently at your hand, if your tongue and pen had not overshot themselves in bragging so far, that the truth by you should be defaced. But now I shall be so bold as to send those terms thither, from whence they came. And for the matter itself, I am ready to join an issue with you, notwithstanding all your stout and boasting words. “But in God’s works,” say you, “as the sacraments be, we must think all seemliness indeed without deformity.” But what seemliness is this in a man’s body, that the head is where the feet be, and the arms where the legs be? which the papists do teach, and yourself seem to confess, when you say, that the parts of Christ’s body be distinct in themselves, one from another in their own substance, but not by circcumscription of several places. And yet you seem again to deny the same in your wise dialogue, or quadrilogue, between the «curious questioner, the foolish answerer, your wise catholic man standing by, and the mediator.

In which dialogue you bring in your wise catholic man to condemn of madness all such as say, that Christ’s head is there where his feet be; and so you condemn of madness not only all the scholastical doctors, which say that Christ is whole in every part of the consecrated bread, but also your own former saying, where you deny the distinction of the parts of Christ’s body in several places. Wherefore the mediator seemeth wiser than vou all, who, loosing this knot of Gordius, saith, that Christ’s body, (how big soever it be, may be as well signified by a little piece of bread as by a great:” and so, as concerning the reason of a sacrament, all is one, whether it be an whole bread, or a piece of it, as it skilleth not whether a man be christened in the whole font, or in a part of the water taken out thereof. For the respect and consideration of the sacrament is all one in the less and more’. 3 But this fourth man, say you, hath no participation with faith, condemning all the true public faith testified in the church from the beginning hitherto, which hath ever with wonder marvelled at the mystery of the sacrament, which is no wonder a£ all, if bread be but a signification of Christ’s body. This is a wonderful saying of. you, as of one that understood nothing utterly what a sacrament meaneth, and what is to be wondered at in the sacrament. For the wonder is, not how God worketh in the outward visible sacrament, but his marvellous work is in the worthy receivers of the sacraments. The wonderful work of God is not in the water, which only washeth ’ the body; but God by his omnipotent power worketh wonderfully in the receivers thereof, scouring, washing, and making them clean inwardly, and, as it were, new men and celestial creatures. This have all old authors wondered at; this wonder passeth the capacities of all men’s wits, how damnation is turned into salvation, and of the son of the devil condemned into hell is made the son of God and inheritor of heaven.. “This wonderful work of God all men may marvel and wonder at, but no creature. is able sufficiently to comprehend it. And as this is wondered at in the sacrament of baptism, how he that was subject unto death receiveth life by Christ and his holy Spirit: so is this wondered at in the sacrament of Christ’s holy table, how the same life is continued and endureth for ever by continual feeding upon Christ’s flesh and his blood. And these wonderful works of God towards us we be taught by God’s. holy word, and his sacraments of bread, wine, and water; and yet be not these wonderful works of God in the sacraments, but in us. E And although many authors use this manner of speech, that Christ maketh bread. his body, and wine his blood, and wonder thereat; yet those authors mean not of the bread and wine in themselves, but of the bread and wine eaten and drunken of faithful people. For when Christ called bread his body, and wine his blood, he spake πού those words to the bread and wine, but to the eaters and drinkers of them, saying, - Eat, this is my body; drink, this is my blood:” signifying to them that worthily do eat that bread and drink that cup, that they be inwardly and invisibly fed with Christ’s flesh and blood, as they outwardly and visibly receive the sacraments of them. —— To be short, here in this process you use plenty of words at your pleasure, to — make the reader believe that I should suppose confusion, monstrousness, absurdity,

[[’! The less and the more, 1551. ] E]

and unseemliness to be in God’s holy sacraments, where as I do no more but tell ~ what. monstrous absurdities and errors the papists do teach in the sacraments. But if the reader take good heed to your talk, he shall find that you, lacking good matter — to answer this comparison, do fall unto railing, and enforce your pen to invent such stuff as might bring me into hatred undeserved; which kind of rhetoric is called Canina facundia, and is used only of them that hunt for their own praise by the dispraise of their adversary, which is yet another trick of the devil’s sophistry.

And because you would bring me into more extreme hatred, you couple me with Sabellius and Arrius, whose doctrines, as you say, were facile and easy, as here you confess mine for to be. But if all such expositions as make the scriptures plain should by and by be slanderously compared to the doctrines of Arrius and Sabellius, then should all the expositions of the doctors be brought in danger, because that by their pains they have made hard questions facile and easy. And yet, whether the doctrine which I set forth be easy to understand or not, I cannot define, but it seemeth so hard that you cannot understand it; except you will put all the fault in your own wilfulness, that you can, and will not understand it.;

Now followeth the sixth comparison.

Furthermore, the papists say, that a dog or a cat eateth the body of Christ, if they by chance do eat the sacramental bread. We say, that no earthly creature ean eat the body of Christ, nor drink his blood, but only man.

Winchester

I have read that some? entreat these chances of dogs and cats, but I never heard any of that opinion, to say or write so, as a doctrine, that a dog or a cat eateth the body of Christ, and set it forth for a teaching, as this author most impudently supposeth; and I marvel much that such a word, and such a report, can come out of a christian man’s mouth, and therefore this is by the author a marvellous surmise, whereupon to take occaon to bring the adversative but” for the author’s part, being such a saying on that side as all christendom hath ever taught, that no creature can eat the body and drink the blood of Christ, but only man. But this abominable surmised untruth in the former part of his9 comparison, may be taken for a proof, whether such beastly asseverations proceed from the spirit truth or mos; and whether truth be there intended, where such blasphemy is surmised. [o let us see the vest. ’ CANTERBURY. —. Yet still in these comparisons you grant that part of the difference to be true which 1 affirm; but you say that I report untruly of the papists, impudently bearing them d 1 hand, to say such abominable and beastly asseverations as you never heard. Whereby appeareth your impudent arrogancy in denial of that thing which either you know the papists do say, or you are in doubt whether they say or say not, having not read i hat it is that they say. For why do they reject the Master of the Sentences in this point, that he said, “a mouse or brute beast receiveth? not the body of Christ, although they seem to receive it?” Wherein if you say, as the Master did, that the mouse receiveth not the body of Christ, look for no favour at the papists’ hands, inus but to be rejected as the Master was, unless they forbear you upon favour, and because Vide that in other matters you have been so good a captain for them, they will pardon izntum. you this one fault. And so is this first part of the difference no untrue surmise of fol, me, but a determination of the papists, condemning whosoever would say the contrary. And this is a common proposition among the school divines, that the body of Christ remaineth so long as the form of the bread is remaining, wheresoever it be, whereof [. Eat, 1551, and Orig. Ed.] [ Can eat the body and blood, 1551.] - [ Of that abominable opinion, Orig. Ed. Win- 1551.]

[ Some that, 1551.] [ Of this comparison, Orig. Ed. Winchester,

[chester, 1551.] [ Receive, 1551.]]

[i 5—2]

your St Thomas writeth thus: Quidam vero dixerunt, quod quam primum sacramentum. iii. sumitur a mure vel cane, desinit. ibi esse corpus Christi. Sed hoc derogat veritati hujus. aw Da ΓΝ..

LJ? LJ LI KA sacramenti. Substantia enim panis sumpta a peccatore tamdiu manet, dum per calorem naturalem, est in digestione: igitur. tamdiu manet. corpus Christi sub speciebus sacramentalibus. And Perin, in his book printed and set abroad in this matter for all men to read, saith: “That although the mouse, or any other beast, do eat the sacrament, yet nevertheless the same is the very and real body of Christ.” And he asketh, “what inconvenience it is against the verity of Christs real body in the sacrament, though the impassible body lie in the mouth or maw of the beast? Is it not therefore the body of Christ? Yes, undoubtedly,” saith he. So that now these abominable - opinions and beastly asseverations, (as you truly term them, meaning thereby to bite me, as appeareth,) be fit terms, and meet for the papists, whose asseverations they be. Now followeth the seventh comparison. A They say, that every man, good and evil, eateth the body of Christ. We say, that both do eat the sacramental bread, and drink the wine; but none do eat the very body of Christ, and drink his blood, but only they that be lively members of his body.

WINCHESTER. ) In this comparison the former part, speaking of such men as be by baptism received. into Christ’s church, is very true, confirmed by St Paul, and ever since affirmed in the. church; in the proof whereof here in this book I will not travel, but make it a demwr as it were I dn law, whereupon to try the truth of the whole matter. If that doctrine, called by this author the doctrine of the papists, and is indeed the catholic doctrine, be mot in this point true, let all be so judged for me. If it be true, as it is most true, let that be a mark whereby to judge the rest of this author’s untrue asseverations. For undoubtedly St Augustine saith: con- ἡ We may mot of men’s matters esteem the sacraments: they be made by him whose they be; but. St worthily used they bring reward, wmworthily handled they bring judgment. He that dispenseth the sacrament worthily, and he that useth it unworthily, be not one; but that thing is one, whether it be handled worthily or wnworthily, so as it is neither better me worse, but life or death of them that use it.” Thus saith St Augustine, and therefore be the receivers diet worthy or unworthy, good or evil, the substance of Christ’s sacrament is all ome, as being. God’s work, who worketh uniformly, and yet is not in all that receive of like effect, not of any sicra- alteration, or diminution in it, but for the diversity of him that receiveth. So as the report made here of the doctrine of the catholic church wnder the mame of papists is a very true report, and for want of grace reproved by the author as though it were no true doctrine. And the second part of the comparison on the author’s side, contained wnder “we say” by. them, that in hypocrisy pretend to be truth’s friends, containeth an untruth to the simple: reader, and yet hath a matter of wrangling to the learned reader, because of the word “very,” which, referred to the effect of eating the body of Christ, whereby to receive life, may be. so spoken, that mone receive the body of Christ with the very effect of life, but such as eat the sacrament spiritually, that is to say, with true faith worthily. And yet evil men, as.

[[! Cranmer here, as above, p. 64, quotes the sub- naturalem digeratur. Unde tamdiu corpus € isti]

[stance of Thomas Aquinas, rather than his exact sub speciebus sacramentalibus manet a peccatorib 3]

[words, which run thus: Quidam antiqui errave- sumptis.” Tertia pars, p. 204. Art. iii. q. 90.]

[runt, dicentes, quod corpus Christi nec etiam sacra- Antverp. 1624.] Ἢ]

[mentaliter a peccatoribus sumitur, sed quam cito [? Dr Peryn was master of the Black-friars in]

[labiis peccatoris contingitur, tam cito sub speciebus Smithfield. He submitted to voluntary exile during]

[sacramentalibus desinit esse corpus Christi. Sed the reign of Henry VIII.; and after twenty years]

[hoc est erroneum: derogat enim veritati hujus sa- returned home in the reign of Mary, and opposed]

[cramenti, ad quam—pertinet quod manentibus spe- the reformed religion. He preached and published]

[ciebus corpus Christi sub eis esse non desinat. four sermons on the Eucharist. Vid. Strype’s Eccl.]

[Species autem manent, quamdiu substantia panis Mem. Vol. 111. Part 2. p. 116. Ed. Oxford, 1822.]]

[maneret, sibi ibi adesset. Manifestum est autem [3 Receiver, 1551.] 1]

[quod substantia panis assumpta a peccatore, non ’[ For any alteration, 1551.] n.]

[statim esse desinit, sed manet quandiu per calorem OM]

• Judas, receive the same very body, touching the truth of the presence thereof, that St Peter did. For in the substance of the sacrament, which is God’s work, is no variety, who ordaineth all (as afore) uniformly; but in man is the variety, amongst whom he that receiveth worthily Christ’s body, receiveth life, and he that receiveth unworthily, receiveth condemnation. There followeth further.

Canterbury

I thank you for this demur, for I myself could have chosen no better for my purpose. And I am content that the trial of the whole matter be judged hereby, as you desire. You say, that “all that be baptized, good and evil, eat the body of Christ;” and I say, only the good, and not the evil.

Now must neither I nor you be judges in our own causes: therefore let Christ be judge between us both, whose judgment it is not reason that you refuse. Christ saith: “Whosoever 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.” Now I ask you this question, Whether evil men shall live for ever? Whether they live by Christ? Whether they dwell in Christ? and have Christ dwelling in them? If you say nay, (as you must needs if you will say the truth,) then have I proved my negative (wherein stood the demur), that ill men eat not Christ’s body nor drink his blood; for if they did, then by Christ’s own words they should live for ever, and dwell in Christ, and have Christ dwelling in them. And what proofs will you require more upon my part in this demur? For if Christ be with me, who can be able to stand against me?

But you allege for you St Paul, who speaketh for you nothing at all. For the messenger will not speak against him that sent him. I know that St Paul in the eleventh to the Corinthians, speaketh expressly of the unworthy eating of the bread, but in no place of the unworthy eating of the body of Christ. And if he do, shew the - place, or else the demur passeth against you, and the whole matter tried with me, by your own pact and covenant. And yet for further proof of this demur, I refer me to the lst, 2nd, 3rd, 4th, and 5th chapters of my fourth book.

And where you bring St Augustine to be witness, his witness in that place helpeth nothing your cause. For he speaketh there generally of the using of the sacraments well or ill, as the diversity of men be, rehearsing by name the sacrament of circumcision, of the paschal lamb, and of baptism. Wherefore if you will prove any real and corporal presence of Christ by that place, you may as well prove that he was cor- -porally present in circumcision, in eating of the paschal lamb, and in baptism, as in the Lord’s supper.

And here ye use such a subtilty to deceive the simple reader, that he hath good cause to suspect your proceedings, and to take good heed of you in all your writings, “who do nothing else but go about to deceive him. For you conclude the matter of the substance of the sacrament, that the reader might think that place to speak only of the sacrament of Christ’s body and blood, and to speak of the substance thereof, where St Augustine neither hath that word “substance,” nor speaketh not one word “specially of that sacrament; but all his process goeth chiefly of baptism, which is all one, τὺ St Augustine against the Donatists, which reproved baptism for the vice of the minister,) whether the minister be good or ill, and whether he minister it to good or to ill For the sacrament is all one, although the effect be diverse, to good and to evil. — And as for them whom ye say that in hypocrisy pretend to be truth’s friends, all that be learned and have any judgment, know that it is the papists, which no few years past, by hypocrisy and feigned religion, have uttered and sold their lies and fables instead of God’s eternal truth, and in the place of Christ have set up idols and antichrist. ^

And for the conclusion of this comparison, in this word “very” you make such a wrangling, (where none occasion is given,) as never was had before this time of any

learned man. For who heard ever before this time that an adjective was referre to a verb, and not to his proper substantive, of any man that had any learnin at all? m - And as for the matter of Judas is answered before. For he received not the bread that was the Lord, as St Augustine saith, but the bread of the Lord. Nor ὅθ no man can receive the body of Christ unworthily, although he may receive unworthily the sacrament thereof.

And hitherto D. Smith hath found no fault at all in my comparisons, whereby the reader may see how nature passeth art, seeing here much more captiousness in a subtil sophistical wit, than in him that hath but learned the sophistical art. o Now followeth the eighth comparison. s They say, that good men eat the body of Christ and drink his blood, - only at that time when they receive the sacrament. We say, that they eat, drink, and feed of Christ continually, so long as they be members of his body. I

Winchester

What forehead, I pray you, is so hardened, that can utter this among them that know any thing of the learning of Christ’s church? In which it is a most common distinction, that there is three manner of eatings of Christ’s body amd blood: ome spiritual only, which is man- here affirmed in the second part of “we say,” wherein the author and his say as the church saith: another eating is both sacramentally and spiritually, which is when men worthily communicate in the supper: the third is sacramentally only, which i by men unworthy, who eat and drink in the holy supper to their condemnation only. And the learned men in Christ's church say, that the ignorance and want of observation of these three mammer of eatings causeth the error in the understanding of the scriptures and such fathers sayings, as have written of the sacrament. And when the church speaketh of these three mammer of. eatings, what an impudency is it to say, that the church teacheth good men only to eat the body of Christ and drink his blood, when they receive the sacrament, being the truth otherwise; and yet a diversity there is of eating spiritually only, and eating spiritually and sacramentally, because in the supper they wrecewe his very flesh amd! blood indeed, with the effects of all graces and gifts to such as recewe it spiritually and worthily; whereas out of the supper, when we eat only spiritually by faith, God that worketh without his sacraments, as seemeth. to him, doth relieve those that believe and trust in him, and suffereth them mot to be destitute of that is necessary for them, whereof we may mot presume contemming the sacrament, but ordinarily seek God, where he hath ordered himself to be sought, and there to assure. ourself of his covenants and promises, which be most certainly annexed to his sacraments, whereunto we ought to give most certain trust and confidence: wherefore to teach the spiritual sa- “manducation to be equal with the spiritual manducation and sacramental also, that i to. diminish the effect of the institution of the sacrament, which no christian man ought to do.

Canterbury

Who is so ignorant that hath read any thing at all, but he knoweth that distinction.of three eatings? But no man that is of learning and judgment, understandeth the three diverse eatings in such sort as you do, but after this manner: that some eat only the sacrament of Christ’s body, but not the very body itself; some eat his body and not the sacrament; and some eat the sacrament and body both together. The sacrament (that is to say, the bread) is corporally eaten and chewed with the teeth in the mouth: the very body is eaten and chewed with faith in the spirit. ^ Ungodly men, when they receive the sacrament, they chew in their mouths, like unto Judas, the sacramental bread, but they eat not the celestial bread, which is Christ. Faithful christian people, such as be Christ’s true disciples, continually from time to time record in their minds the beneficial death of our Saviour Christ, chewing it by faith in the cud of their spirit, and digesting it in their hearts, feeding and com-

[[! Very flesh and very blood, 1551.] SEC]

forting themselves with that heavenly meat, although they daily receive not the sacrament thereof; and so they eat Christ’s body spiritually, although not the sacrament thereof. But when such men for their more comfort and confirmation of eternal life, given unto them by Christ’s death, come unto the Lord’s holy table; then, as before they fed spiritually upon Christ, so now they feed corporally also upon the sacramental bread: by which sacramental feeding in Christ’s promises, their former - Spiritual feeding is increased, and they grow and wax continually more strong in — Christ, until at the last they shall come to the full measure and perfection in Christ. This is the teaching of the true catholic church, as it is taught by God’s word. And therefore St Paul, speaking of them that unworthily eat, saith, that they eat the bread, but not that they eat the body of Christ, but their own damnation. And where you set out with your accustomed rhetorical colours a great impudency in me, that would report of the papists that good men eat the body of Christ and drink his blood only when they receive the sacrament, seeing that I know that the papists make a distinction of three manner of eatings of Christ’s body, whereof one is without the sacrament: I am not ignorant indeed, that the papists grant a spiritual eating of Christ’s body without the sacrament; but I mean of such an eating of his body, as his presence is in the sacrament, and as you say he is there eaten, that is to say, corporally. “Therefore to express my mind more plainly to you, that list not understand, let this be the comparison.

“They say that after such a sort as Christ is in the sacrament, and there eaten, so good men eat his body and blood only when they receive the sacrament. [We say, that as they eat and drink Christ in the sacrament, so do they eat, drink, and feed upon him continually, so long as they be members of his body.

Now the papists say, that Christ is corporally present in the sacrament, and is so eaten only when men receive the sacrament. But we say, that the presence of Christ in his holy supper is a spiritual presence: and as he is spiritually present, so is he spiritually eaten of all faithful christian men, not only when they receive the sacrament, but continually so long as they be members spiritual of Christ’s mystical body. And yet this is “really” also, (as you have expounded the word,) that is to say, in deed and effectually. And as the Holy Ghost doth not only come to us in baptism, -and Christ doth there clothe us, but they do the same to us continually so long as we dwell in Christ; so likewise doth Christ feed us so long as we dwell in him and —he in us, and not only when we receive the sacrament. So that as touching Christ himself, the presence is all one, the clothing all one, and the feeding all one, although the one for the more comfort and consolation have the sacrament added to it, and the other be without the sacrament. ~The rest that is here spoken is contentious wrangling to no purpose.

But now cometh in Smith with his five eggs, saying that I have made here five lies in these comparisons. “The first lie is,” saith he, “that the papists do say, that —good men do eat and drink Christ’s body and blood only when they receive the Bcrument z which thing Smith saith the papists do not say, but that they then only do eat Christ’s body and drink his blood corporally, which sufficeth for my purpose. For I mean ποῦ other thing, but that the papists teach such a corporal eating of Christ’s - body as endureth not, but vanisheth away, and ceaseth at the furthest within few hours after the sacrament is‘ received. But forasmuch as Smith agreeth here with you, the answer made before to you will serve for him also. And yet Smith here “shall serve me in good stead against you, who have imputed unto me so many im- pudent lies, made against the papists in the comparisons before rehearsed: and Smith saith that this is the first lie, which is in the eighth comparison. And so shall Smith, (being mine adversary and your friend) be such a witness for me, as you cannot except against, to prove that those things which before you said were impudent lies, be no lies at all. For this “is the first lie,” saith Smith; and then my sayings before must be all true, and not impudent lies.

[3 The 1580 Ed. omits this sentence. ] [ Sacrament be received, 1551.]

[s. [3 None other, 1551. ]:]

Now to the ninth comparison. M They say, that the body of Christ that is in the sacrament, hath his own proper form and quantty. We say, that Christ is there sacramentally and spiritually, without form or quantity.

Winchester

In this comparison is both sleight and craft: in the first part of it, which is that they say,” there is mention of the body of Christ, which is proper of the humanity of Christ. In the second part, which is of “we say,” there is no mention of Christ’s body, but of Christ, who in his divine qoture is understanded present without a body. Now the sacrament is institute of Christ’s body and blood; and because the divine nature in Christ continueth the unity with the body of Christ, we must needs confess where the body of Christ is there is whole Christ, God and man. And when we speak of Christ’s body, we must understand a true body, which hath both form and quantity; and therefore such as confess the true catholic faith, they affirm of Christ’s body all truth of a natural body, which although it hath all those truths of form and quantity, yet they say, Christ’s body is not present after the manner of quantity, nor in a visible form, as it was conversant in this present life: but that there is truly in the sacrament the very true body of Christ, which good men believe upon the credit of Christ that said so, and knowledge therewith the manner of that presence to be an high mystery, and the manner so spiritual, as the carnal man cannot by discourse of reason reach it, but in his discourse shall (as this author doth) think it a vanity and foolishness: which foolishness nevertheless overcometh the wisdom of the world. And thus have I opened what they say on the catholic part.

Now for the other part, whereof this author is, and with his faith “we say,” the words seem to of imply, that Christ’s human body is not in the sacrament, in that it is said, “Christ to be there sacramentally and spiritually, without form or quantity,” which saying hath no scripture for it. nl For the scripture speaketh of Christ’s body which was betrayed for us, to be given us to be eaten. of Where also Christ’s divinity is present, as accompanying his hwmamnity, which hwmanity is ko specially spoken of, the presence of which hwmanity when it is denied, then is there mo text to prove the presence of Christ’s divinity specially, that is to say, otherwise tham it is by his OY ompipotency present every where. And to conclude this piece of comparison, this manner. of speech was never, I think, read, that Christ is present in the sacrament without form or quantity. And St Paul speaketh of a form in the Godhead, Qui quum in forma Dei esset, “Who when he was in the form of God.” So as if Christ be present in the sacrament without all Jorm, then is he there neither as God mor man; which is a stranger teaching than yet hath been heard or read of: but into such absurdities indeed do they fall, who entreat irreverently and untruly this high mystery. This is here worthy a special note, how by the manner of the speech in the latter part of this difference the teaching seemeth to be, that Christ is spiritually present s in the sacrament, because of the word there,” which thou, reader, mayest compare how it agreeth With the rest of this author’s doctrine. Let us go to the next. author.

CANTERBURY. Such is the nature of many, that they can find many knots in a plain rush, and doubts where no doubts ought to be found. So find you “sleight and craft,” where 1 meant all things simply and plainly. And to avoid such sleight and craft as you gather of my words, I shall express them plainly thus. — The papists say, that the body of Christ that is in the sacrament, hath his own proper form and quantity. We say, that the body of Christ hath not his proper form and quantity, neither in the sacrament, nor in them that receive the sacrament; but is in the sacrament sacramentally, and in the worthy receivers spiritually, without the proper form and quantity of his body. This was my meaning at the first, and no man that had looked of this place indifferently, would have taken the second part of this comparison to be understanded of Christ’s divine nature: for the bread and wine be sacraments of his body and blood, and not of his divinity, as “Theodoretus saith; and therefore his divine nature is not sacramentally in the sacrament, but his human nature only. And what manner of speech had this been, to say of Christ’s divine nature, that it is in the sacrament without quantity, which hath in it no manner

ef quantity wheresoever it be? And where I set forth these comparisons to shew ἱ wherein we vary from the papists, what variance had been in this comparison, if I had understanded the first part of Christ’s humanity, and the second of his divinity? 4 The reader by this one place, among many other, may easily discern, how captious 1 you be to reprehend whatsoever I say, and to pervert every thing into a wrong sense: so that in respect of you, Smith is a very indifferent taker of my words, although indeed he far passeth the bounds of honesty.

---

← 4. Book I. Of the Sacrament, Part 2 · Contents · 6. Book III. Of the Presence of Christ →