But to come directly to the matter, if it be true that you say, that in the sacrament Christ’s body hath all the forms and quantities of a natural body, why say you then that his body is not there present after the manner of quantity? Declare what difference is between form and quantity, and the manner of quantity. And if Christ’s body 1 in the sacrament have the same quantity, that is to say, the same length, breadth, and thickness, and the same form, that is to say, the same due order and proportion; of the members and parts of his body, that he had when he was crucified, and hath now in heaven, (as he hath by your saying here in this place,) then I pray you declare further, how the length, breadth, and thickness of a man, should be contained in quantity within the compass of a piece of bread, no longer nor broader than one or two inches, nor much thicker than one leaf of paper: how an inch may be as long as an ell, and an ell as short as an inch: how length and roundness shall agree in one proportion; and a thick and thin thing be both of one thickness: which you must warrant to be brought to pass, if the form and quantity of Christs body be contained under the form and quantity of such bread and wine as we now use.
But as Smith in the last comparison did me good service against you, so shall you in this comparison do me good service against him. For among the five lies wherewith he charges me in these comparisons, he accounteth this for one, that I report of the papists, that Christ’s body in the sacrament hath his proper form and quantity, which you say is a truth. And therefore, if I make a lie herein, as Smith saith I do, yet I lie not alone, but have you to bear me company. And yet once again more may the reader here note, how the papists vary among themselves. A And it is untrue that you say, that good men believe upon the credit of Christ, that there is truly in the sacrament the very true body of Christ. For Christ called bread his body, and wine his blood, (which, as the old authors say, must needs be understanded figuratively;) but he never said that his true body is truly in the sacrament, as you here report of him.
And the manner of his presence you call so high a mystery, that the carnal man cannot reach it. And indeed, as you feign the matter, it is so high a mystery, that never man could reach it but yourself alone. For you make the manner of Christ being in the sacrament so spiritual, that you say his flesh, blood, and bones be there really and carnally; and yet you confess in your book, that you never read in any old author that so said. And this manner of handling of so pure a mystery is neither godly foolishness nor wordly, but rather a mere frenzy and madness.
And although the scripture speak of Christ’s body to be eaten of us, yet that is understanded of spiritual and not of corporal eating, and of spiritual not of corporal presence. The scripture saith, that Christ hath forsaken the world, and is ascended into heaven. Upon which words St Augustine, Vigilius, and other ancient authors do prove, that as concerning the nature of his manhood, Christ is gone hence, and is not here, as I declared in my third book, the 3rd, 4th, 5th, and 6th chapters.
And whereyou think that this matter of speech was never read, that Christ 5 present in the sacrament without form or quantity, I am sure that it was never read in any approved author, that Christ hath his proper form and quantity in the sacrament. And Duns saith, “that his quantity is in heaven, and not in the sacra- ment”
And when I say that Christ is in the sacrament sacramentally, and without form and quantity, who would think any man so captious, so ignorant, or so full
[E [’ Ed. 1551 reads “forsaken;“—Ed. 1380 reads ‘“forespoken,”—which is evidently a misprint.]]
of sophistry, to draw my words to the form of Christs divinity, which I speak. most plainly of the form and quantity of his body and humanity? as I have before declared. And although some other might be so far overseen, yet specially you ought not so to take my words; forasmuch as you said not past sixteen lines before, that my words seem to imply, that I meant of Christs human body.
And because it may appear how truly and faithfully you report my words, you add this word “all,” which is more than I speak, and marreth all the whole matter. And you gather thereof such absurdities as I mever spake, but as you sophistically do gather, to make a great matter of nothing.
And where of this word “there” you would conclude repugnance in my doctrine, that where in other places I have written that Christ is spiritually present in them, that receive the sacrament, and not in the sacraments of bread and wine, and now it should seem that I teach contrary, that Christ is spiritually present in the very bread and wine; if you pleased to understand my words rightly, there is no repugnance in my words at all For by this word “there,” I mean not in the sacraments of bread and wine, but in the ministration of the sacrament, as the old authors for the most part, when they speak of the presence of Christ in the sacrament, they mean in the ministration of the sacrament. Which my saying varieth from no doctrine that I have taught in any part of my book.
Now followeth the tenth comparison.
They say, that the fathers and prophets of the old testament did not eat the body, nor drink the blood of Christ. We say, that they did eat his body and drink his blood, although he was not yet born nor incarnated.