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.
Winchester
This comparison of difference is clerkly conveyed, as it were of a riddle, wherein nay and pin yea, when they be opened, agree and consent. The fathers did eat Christ’s body and drink his ap. blood in the! truth of promise, which was effectual to them of redemption to be wrought, not in WO truth of presence (as we do) for confirmation of redemption already wrought. They had a certain promise, and we a certain present payment: they did eat Christ spiritually, believing in him that was to come, but they did not eat Christ’s body present in the sacrament, sacramentally and spiritually, as we do. Their sacraments were figures of the things, but ours contain the very things. And therefore albeit in a sense to the learned men it may be verified, that the fathers did eat the body of Christ, and drink his blood; yet there is no such form of words in scripture, and it is more agreeable to the simplicity of scripture, to say the fathers before Christ’s nativity did not eat the body and blood of Christ, which body and blood Christ himself truly took of the body of the virgin Mary. For although St Paul, in the tenth to the Corinthians, be so understanded of some, as the fathers should eat the same spiritual meat, and drink the same spiritual drink that we do, to which understanding all do not agree, yet following that understanding, we may not 80 press the words, as there should be no difference at all; and this one? difference St Augustine noteth, how their sacraments contained the promise of that, which im our sacrament is given. “hs he saith: And this is evident of itself, how to us in the holy supper Christ saith, This is my body that shall be betrayed for you; take, eat: which was never said to the fathers, although their faith in substance agreed with ours, having all one Christ and Mediator, which they looked for to come, and we acknowledge to be already come.” Come) and “to come,’ as St Augustine saith, differeth. But Christ is one, by whom all was created?, and man’s fall repaired, from whom is all feeding, corporal and spiritual, and in whom all is restored in heaven and in earth. In this faith of Christ, the fathers were fed with heavenly spiritual food, which was the same with ours in respect of the restitution by Christ, and redemption by them hoped, which is achieved by the mystery of the body and blood of Christ; by reason whereof I deny mot, but it may be said in a good sense, how they did eat the body and blood of Christ, before he was incarnate: but, as I said before, scripture speaketh not so, and it is no wholesome fashion of speech «i this time, which furthereth, in sound to the ears of the rude the pestilent heresy wherein Joan of; [’! In truth of promise, 1551.] [? This one special difference, 1551.] [? Create, 1551. ]
obstinately died, that is to say, that Christ took nothing of the virgin, but brought his body with him from above; being a thing worthy to be noted, how the old heresy, denying the true taking of the flesh of Christ in the virgin’s womb, at the same time to revive, when the true deliverance of Christ’s flesh in the holy supper, to be of us eaten, is also denied. For as it is a mere truth without figure, and yet an high mystery, God’s work in the incarnation of Christ, wherein our flesh was of Christ truly taken of the virgin’s substance: so is it a mere truth, without figure, in the substance of the celestial thing, and yet an high mystery and God’s work, in the giving of the same true flesh, truly to be in the supper eaten. When I exclude figure j in the sacrament, I mean not of the visible part, which is called a figure of the celestial invisible f part, which is truly there without figure, so as by that figure is not impaired the truth of that presence; which I add to avoid. cavillation. And to make an end of this comparison, this I say, that this article declareth wantonness, to make a difference in words, where none is in the sense rightly taken, with a novelty of speech not necessary to be uttered nowE CANTERBURY.
Note well here, reader, how the cuttle cometh in with his dark colours. ὲ Where I speak of the substance of the thing that is eaten, you turn it to the manner and circumstances thereof, to blind the simple reader, and that you may make thereof a riddle of yea and nay, as you be wont to make black white, and white black; or one thing yea and nay, black and white at your pleasure. A ’ But to put away your dark colours, and to make the matter plain, this I say, that the fathers and prophets did eat Christ’s body and drink his blood in promise of redemption to be wrought, and we eat and drink the same flesh and blood in confirmation of our faith in the redemption already wrought.
But as the fathers did eat and drink, so did also the apostles at Christ’s supper, in promise of redemption to be wrought, not in confirmation of redemption already wrought. So that if wrought and to be wrought make the diversity of presence and not presence, then the apostles did not eat and drink the flesh and blood of Christ really present, because the redemption was not then already wrought, but ζ promised the next day to be wrought.
And although before the crucifying of his flesh and effusion of his blood our re- demption was not actually wrought by Christ, yet was he spiritually and sacramentally present, and spiritually and sacramentally eaten and drunken, not only of the apostles at his last supper before he suffered his passion, but also of the holy patriarchs and fathers before his incarnation, as well as he is now of us after his ascension.
And although in the manner of signifying there be great difference between their sacraments and ours, yet, as St Augustine saith, both we and they receive one thing in the diversity of sacraments’. And our sacraments contain presently the very things signified, no more than theirs did. For in their sacraments they were by “Christ presently regenerated and fed, as we be in ours; although their sacraments were figures of the death of Christ to come, and ours be figures of his death now past. And as it is all one Christ that was to be born and to die for us, and afterard was born indeed and died indeed, whose birtli and death be now past; so was the same Christ, and the same flesh and blood eaten and drunken of the faith ful fathers before he was born or dead, and of his apostles after he was born and T before he was dead, and of faithful christian people is now daily eaten and drunken after that both his nativity and death be past. And all is but one Christ, one T flesh, and one blood, as concerning the substance, yet that which to the fathers was £o come, is to us past. And nevertheless the eating and drinking is all one; for either the fathers did, nor we do eat carnally and corporally with our mouths, but both the fathers did, and we do eat spiritually by true and lively faith. The body 5^. [ Soed. 1551. In that of 1580 to is omitted. ] August. in Joannem, Tract. xxvi. Pars 1x. Edi:.[ Sacramenta illa fuerunt: in signis diversa Basil. ap. Amerbach. 1506. ].. Sunt, sed in re qua significatur paria sunt.”—
of Christ was and is all one to the fathers and to us, but corporally and locally he body was mot yet born unto them, and from us he is gone, and ascended up into heaven. ix. So that to neither he was nor is carnally, substantially, and corporally present, but to them he was, and to us he is spiritually present, and sacramentally also; and of both sacramentally, spiritually, and effectually eaten and drunken, to eternal salvation and everlasting life.
And this is plainly enough declared in the scripture to them that have willing minds to understand the truth. For it is written in the old testament, Ecclus. xxiv. in the person of Christ thus: “They that eat me, shall yet hunger, and they that drink me shall yet be thirsty.”
And if I would grant for your pleasure, that in their sacraments Christ was promised, and that in ours he is really given; doth it not then follow as well that Christ is given in the sacrament of baptism, as that he is given in the sacrament of con his flesh and blood? And St Augustine, contra Faustum, esteemeth them mad, that du think diversity between the things signified in the old. and new testament, because the signs be diverse’; and expressing the matter plainly, saith, that the flesh and blood of our sacrifice before Christs coming was promised by sacrifices of similitudes, in his passion was given indeed, and after his ascension is solemnly put in our memory by the sacrament.”
[[! Here again it is necessary to follow ed. 1551. et venit, diversa verba sunt, sed idem Christus.”]
[The 1580 ed. omits not. ] — August. de Utilitate Ponitentiz, Lib. 1. Pars x.]: [? Eundem, inquit, cibum spiritalem mandu- [? Quanto errore delirent, qui putant signis sa-]
[caverunt. Quid est eundem,’ nisi quia eum quem cramentisque mutatis, etiam res ipsas esse diver- i]
[etiam nos >—Quicunque in manna Christum intel- sas.” August. contra Faustum, Lib. x1x. cap. xvi.]
[lexerunt, eundem quem nos cibum spiritalem man- Pars iv.] 1]
[ducaverunt: id est, qui fide capiebatur, non qui [^ Hujus sacrificii caro et sanguis ante adven- 1]
[corpore hauriebatur.—Et eundem ergo cibum, eun- tum Christi per victimas similitudinum promit- ]]
[dem potum, sed intelligentibus et credentibus. Non tebatur: in passione Christi per ipsam veritatem]
[intelligentibus autem, illud solum manna, illa sola reddebatur: post ascensum Christi per sacramentum]
[aqua: credenti autem idem qui nunc. “Tunc enim memorie celebratur. “—Ibid. Lib. xx. cap. xxi.] 4]
[Christus venturus, modo Christus venit. Venturus]
And the thing which you say St Augustine” noteth to be given in the sacraments μ᾿. - of the new testament, and to be promised in the sacraments of the old, St Augustine expresseth the thing which he meant, that is to say, salvation and eternal life by Christ. And yet in this mortal life we have not eternal life in possession, but in promise, as the prophets had. But St Augustine saith, that we have the promise, because we have Christ already come, which by the prophets was promised before that he should come; and therefore St John the baptist was called more than a prophet, because he said: “Here is the Lamb of God already present, which the prophets taught us to look for until he came.”
The.effect therefore of St Augustines words plainly to be expressed, was this, that the prophets in the old testament promised a Saviour to come and redeem the world, which the sacraments of that time testified until his coming: but now he is already come, and hath by his death performed that was promised, which our sacraments testify unto us, as St Augustine declareth more plainly in his book, De Jide ad Petrum, the 19th chapter’. So that St Augustine speaketh of the giving of Christ to death, (which the sacraments of the old testament testified to come, and ours testify to be done,) and not of the giving of him in the sacraments.
And forasmuch as St Augustine spake generally. of all the sacraments, therefore df you will by his words prove, that Christ is corporally in the sacrament of the holy communion, you may as well prove, that he is corporally in baptism; for St Augustine speaketh no more of the one than of the other. But where St Augustine speaketh generally of all the sacraments, you restrain the matter particularly to the sacrament of the Lord’s supper only, that the ignorant reader should think, that St Augustine spake of the corporal presence of Christ in the sacraments, and that only in the sacraments of bread and wine; whereas St Augustine himself speaketh only of our salvation by Christ, and of the sacraments in general.
And nevertheless, as the fathers had the same Christ and Mediator that we have, (as you here confess,) so did they spiritually eat his flesh and drink his blood as we do, and spiritually feed of him, and by faith he was present with them, as he is with us, although carnally and corporally he was yet to come unto them, and from us is gone up to his Father into heaven.
This, besides St Augustine, is plainly set out by Bertram above six hundred years past, whose judgment in this matter of the sacrament although you allow not (because it utterly condemneth your doctrine therein,) yet forasmuch as hitherto his teaching was never reproved by none, but by you alone, and that he is commended of other as an excellent learned man in holy scripture, and a notable famous man, as well in living as learning, and that among his excellent works this one is specially praised, which he wrote of the matter of the sacrament of the body and blood of our Lord, therefore I shall rehearse his teaching in this point, how the holy fathers and prophets, before the coming of Christ, did eat Christ’s flesh and drink his blood: so that, although Bertram’s saying be not esteemed with you, yet the indifferent reader may see what was written in this matter, before your doctrine was in-
[[ Sacramenta non eadem, quia alia sunt sa- Spiritu sancto, cum quibus illi est una divinitas,]
[cramenta dantia salutem, alia promittentia Salvato- sacrificium panis et vini in fide et caritate sancta]
[rem. Sacramenta novi testamenti dant salutem, ecclesia catholica per universum orbem terrz offerre]
[sacramenta veteris testamenti promiserunt Salvato- non cessat. In illis enim carnalibus victimis figu-]
[rem. Cum ergo jam teneas promissa, quid quaeris ratio fuit carnis Christi, quam pro peccatis nostris]
[promittentia? Salvatorem habens jam in hoc teneas ipse sine peccato fuerat oblaturus, et sanguinis]
[-. promissa, non quod jam acceperimus vitam zter- quem erat effusurus in remissionem peccatorum]
[nam, sed quia jam venerit Christus, qui per prophe- nostrorum. In isto autem sacrificio gratiarum actio]
[tas prenunciabatur.”— August. in Psal. Ixxiii. atque commemoratio est carnis Christi, quam pro]
[Tom. VIII. p. 327. Ed. Paris. 1635.] nobis obtulit, et sanguinis quem pro nobis idem {5 Firmissime tene, et nullatenus dubites, ip- Deus effudit.” August. de fide ad Petrum diaco-]
[sum unigenitum Deum, Verbum carnem factum, se num, Cap. xix. Pars x. Basil. ap. Amerbach. 1506.]
[pro nobis obtulisse sacrificium et hostiam Deo in In Ed. Paris. 1635. Tom. ITI. p. 391, 2. This trea-]
[odorem suavitatis: cui cum Patre et Spiritu sancto tise is censured by Erasmus as spurious; and the]
[& patriarchis, prophetis, et sacerdotibus tempore authoris said to be Fulgentius.—V id. Riveti Critica]
[veteris testamenti animalia sacrificabantur; et cui Sacra, p. 389. Genev. 1626. Coci censura Pa-]
[nunc, id est, tempore novi testamenti, cum Patre et trum,” pp. 341, 2, Helm, 1683.]]
vented. And although his authority be not received of you, yet his words may serve against Smith, who herein more learnedly, and with more judgment than you, approveth this author. This is Bertram’s doctrine’. St Paul saith, that all the old fathers did eat the same spiritual meat, and drink the same spiritual drink. But peradventure thou wilt ask, which the same? Even the very same that christian people do daily eat and drink in the church. For we may not understand divers things, when it is one and the self-same Christ, which in times past did feed with his flesh, and made to drink of his blood, the people that were baptized in the cloud and sea, in the wilderness, and which doth now in the church feed christian people with the bread of his body, and giveth them to drink the flood of his blood. “When he had not yet taken man’s nature upon him, when he had not yet tasted death for the salvation of the world, not redeemed us with his blood, nevertheless even then our forefathers, by spiritual meat and invisible drink, did eat his body in the wilderness and drink his blood, as the apostle beareth witness, saying: The same spiritual meat, the same spiritual drink, For he that now in the church, by his omnipotent power, doth spiritually convert bread and wine into the flesh of his body, and into the flood of his own blood, he did then invisibly so work, that manna which came from heaven was his body, and the water his blood.” Now by the things here by me alleged it evidently appeareth, that this is no novelty of speech to say, that the holy fathers and prophets did eat Christs flesh, and drink his blood. For both the scripture and old authors use so to speak, how much soever the speech mislike them that like no fashion but their own? ^ And what doth this further the pestilent heresy of Joan of Kent? Is this a good argument? The fathers did eat Christ’s flesh and drink his blood spiritually before he was born; ergo after he was not corporally born of his mother? Or because he was corporally born, is he not therefore daily eaten spiritually of his faithful people? Because he dwelt in the world corporally from his incarnation unto his ascension, did he not therefore spiritually dwell in his holy members before that time, and hath so done ever sithens, and will do to the world’s end? Or if he be eaten in a figure, can you induce thereof that he was not born without a figure? Do not such kind of arguments favour the error of Joan of Kent? Yea, do they not manifestly approve her pestiferous heresy, if they were to be allowed? What man that meaneth the truth, would bring in such manner of reasoning to deface the truth? And yet it is not to be denied, but that Christ is truly eaten, as he was truly born; but the one corporal and without figure, and the other spiritually and with a figure.
Now followeth my eleventh comparison. j They say, that the body of Christ is every day many times made,
as often as there be masses said, and that then and there he is made of bread and wine. We say, that Christ’s body was never but once made, and then not of the nature and substance of bread and wine, but of the substance of his blessed mother.
[[ Cum cibus vel potus ille futuri corporis Christi et jam nostri patres in deserto per escam spiritualem]
[sanguinisque mysterium quod celebrat ecclesia potumque invisibilem ejus corpus manducabant,]
[premonstraret, eandem tamen escam spiritualem et ejus sanguinem bibebant, velut testis existit]
[manducasse, et eundem potum spiritualem bibisse apostolus, clamans: eandem escam spiritualem]
[patres nostros sanctus Paulus asseverat. Quzris manducasse, eundem potum spiritualem bibisse pa-]
[fortasse, quam eandem? nimirum ipsam quam tres nostros. Ipse namque qui nunc in ecclesia]
[hodie populus credentium in ecclesia manducat et omnipotenti virtute panem et vinum in sui corporis]
[bibit. Non enim licet diversa intelligi, quoniam carnem et proprii cruoris undam spiritualiter con-]
[unus idemque Christus est, qui et populum in de- vertit, ipse tunc quoque manna de ccelo datum cor-]
[serto, in nube et in mari baptizatum sua carne pa- pus suum, et aquam de petra profusam proprium]
[vit, suo sanguine tunc potavit, et in ecclesia nunc sanguinem invisibiliter operatus est.” Bertram.]
[credentium populum sui corporis pane, sui sanguinis Lib. de Corp. et Sang. Dom. Cap. xxii. xxiii. xxv.]
[unda pascit ac potat. Mirum certe, quoniam incom- pp. 19. 14. Ed. Oxford, 1838.]]
[prehensibile et insstimabile: nondum hominem [? That like no fashion of speech but their own,]
[assumpserat, nondum pro salute mundi mortem 1551.]]
[degustaverat, nondum sanguine suo nos redemerat;]
~The body of Christ is by God’s ommipotency, who so worketh in his word, made present unto us at such time, as the church pray it may please him so to do, which prayer is ordered to be made in the book of common prayer mow set fortht. Wherein we require of God, the creatures of bread and wine to be sanctified, and to be to us the body amd blood of Christ, which they cannot be, unless God worketh it, and make them so to be: in which mystery it was never taught, as this author willingly misreporteth, that Christ’s most precious body is made of the matter of bread, but in that order exhibited and made present unto us, by conversion of the substance of bread into his precious body; not a new body made of a new matter of bread and wine, but a new presence of the body, that is never old, made present there, where the substance of bread and wine was before. So as this comparison of difference is mere wrangling, and so evident as it needeth no further answer but a mote. Lo, how they be not ashamed to trifle in so great a matter, and without cause by wrong terms to bring the truth in slander, if it were possible. May mot this be accounted as a part of Gods punishment, for men of knowledge to write to the people such matter seriously, as were not tolerable to be by a scoffer devised in a play, to supply when his fellow had forgotten his part? CANTERBURY.
Christ is present whensoever the church prayeth unto him, and is gathered together in his name. And the bread and wine be made unto us the body and blood of Christ, (as it is in the book of common prayer,) but not by changing the substance of bread and wine into the substance of Christ’s natural body and blood, but that in the godly using of them they be unto the receivers Christ’s body and blood: as of some the scripture saith, that their riches is their redemption, and to some it is their damnation; and as God’s word to some is life, to some it is death and a snare, as the prophet saith. And Christ himself to some is a stone to stumble at, to some is a raising. from death, not by conversion of substances, but by good or evil use: that thing which to the godly is salvation, to the ungodly is damnation. So is the water in baptism, and the bread and wine in the Lord’s supper, to the worthy receivers Christ himself and eternal life, and to the unworthy receivers everlasting death and damnation, not by conversion of one substance into another, but by godly or ungodly use thereof. And therefore, in the book of the holy communion, we do not pray absolutely that the bread and wine may be made the body and blood of Christ, but that unto us in that holy mystery they may be so; that is to say, that we may so worthily receive the same, that we may be partakers of Christs body and blood, and that therewith in spirit and in truth we may be spiritually nourished. And a like prayer of old time were all the people wont to make at the communion of all such offerings as at that time all the people used to offer, praying that their offerings might be unto them the body and blood of Christ.
And where you say, “it was never taught as I say, that Christ’s body is made - ef the matter of bread,” you knowingly and willingly misreport me. For I say not of the matter of bread, but of bread; which when you deny that the papists so say, it seemeth you be now ashamed of the doctrine, which the papists have taught this four or five hundred years. For is it not plainly written of all the papists, oth lawyers and school-authors, that the body of Christ in the sacrament is made ef bread, and his blood of wine? And they say not that his body is made present ef bread and wine, but is made of bread and wine. Be not their books in print ready to be shewed? Do they not say, that the substance of the bread neither remaineth still nor is turned into nothing, but into the body of Christ? And do not [ Prayeth, 1551.] creatures of bread and wine, that they may be unto [ Winchester here refers to these words in the us the body and blood of thy most dearly beloved consecration: With thy holy Spirit and word Edward VI. the passage was changed, as it now first Service Book of Edward VI., in the prayer of Son Jesus Christ.” In the second Service Book of
[vouchsafe to bless and sanctify these thy gifts and stands.]]
yourself also say here in this place, that the substance of bread is converted into Christ’s precious body? And what is that else but the body of Christ to be made of bread, and to be made of a new matter’? For if the bread do not vanish away into nothing, but be turned into Christ’s body, then is Christ’s body made of it; and then it must needs follow that Christ’s body is made of new?, and of another substance than it was made of in his mothers womb: for there it was made of her flesh and blood, and here it is made of bread and wine. And the papists say not (as you now would shift off the matter) that Christ’s body is made present of bread, but they say plainly without addition, that it is made of bread. Can you deny that this is the plain doctrine of the papists, Kz pane fit Corpus Christi, Of bread is made the body of Christ,” and that the substance of bread is turned into the substance thereof? And what reason, sentence, or English, could be in this saying, “Christ’s body is made present of bread?” Marry, to be present in bread might be some sentence, but that speech will you in nowise admit.
And this your saying here, if the reader mark it well, turneth over quite and clean all the whole papistical doctrine in this matter of the sacrament, as well touching 4 nsubstantiation, as also the carnal presence. For their doctrine with one whole consent and agreement is this: That the substance of bread remaineth not, but is turned into the substance of Christs body, and so the body of Christ is made of it. But this is false, say you, and not tolerable to be by a scoffer devised in a place?, to supply when his fellow had forgotten his part.” And so the whole doctrine of the papists, which they have taught these four or five hundred years, do you condemn with condign reproaches, as a teaching intolerable, not to be devised by a scoffer in a play. Why do you then take upon you to defend the papistical doctrine, if it be so intolerable? Why do you not forsake those scoffers and players, which have juggled with the world so long, and embrace the most certain truth, that Christ’s body is not made of bread? And seeing that you embrace it here in this one place, why stand you not constantly therein, but go from it again in all the rest of your book, defending the papistical doctrine, clean contrary to yours in this point, in that they teach that Christ’s body is made of bread?
And you vary so much from yourself herein, that although you deny the papists sayings in words, that Christs body is made of bread, yet in effect you grant and maintain the same, which you say is intolerable, and not to be devised by a scoffer in a play. For you say, that Christ calleth bread his body, and that his calling is making: and then if he make bread his body, it must needs follow that he maketh his body of the bread. Moreover, you say, that Christ’s body is made present by by conversion, or turning of the substance of bread into the substance of his precious body; whereof must follow, that his body is made of bread. For whensoever one substance is turned into another’, then the second is made of the first: as, because ^ earth was turned into the body of Adam, we say that Adam was made of earth; and that Eve was made of Adam’s rib, and the wine in Galilee made of water, because the water was turned into wine, and the rib of Adam’s side into the body of Eve. 1f the water had been put out of the pots, and wine put in for the water, we might have said that the wine had been made present there, where the water was before. But then we might not have said that the wine had been made of the water, because the water was emptied out, and not turned into wine. But when Christ turned the water into the wine, then by reason of that turning we say that the wine was made of the water. So likewise if the bread be turned into the substance of Christ’s body, we must not only say that the body of Christ is present where the bread was before, but also that it is made of the bread, because that the substance of the bread is converted and turned into the substance of his body. Which thing the papists saw must needs follow, and therefore they plainly confessed that the body of Christ
And to be made anew of a new matter, See Winchester in the preceding page.
[1551.] [^ Saying, 1551.]: [? Is made new, 1551.] [5 Must also follow, 1551.]; [ Play, 1551. Evidently the correct reading. [6 Into another substance, 1551.] i]
was made of bread; which doctrine, as you truly say in this place, is intolerable, and not to be devised by a scoffer in a play, when his fellow had forgotten his part. And yet you so far forget yourself in this book, that throughout the same, whatsoever you say here, you defend the same intolerable doctrine, not to be devised by a scoffer.
And where Smith accounteth here my fourth lie, that I say, that the papists say, that Christ’s body is made of bread and wine; here Smith and you agree both together in one lie. For it is truth and no lie, that the papists so say and teach; as Smith in other parts of his book saith, that Christs body is made of bread, and that priests do make Christ’s body.
“My twelfth comparison is this.
They say, that the mass is a sacrifice satisfactory for sin, by the devotion of the priest that offereth, and not by the thing that is offered. But we say, that their saying is a most heinous, yea, and detestable error against the glory of Christ: for the satisfaction for our sins is not the devotion nor offering of the priest, but the only host and satisfaction for all the sins of the world is the death of Christ, and the oblation of his body upon the cross, that is to say, the oblation that Christ himself offered once upon the cross, and never but once, nor never any but he’. And therefore that oblation which the priests make daily in their papistical masses, cannot be a satisfaction for other men’s sins by the priest’s devotion: but it is a mere illusion, and subtle craft of the devil, whereby antichrist hath many years blinded and deceived the world.
Winchester
This comparison is out of the matter of the presence of Christ’s most precious body in the sacrament, which presence this author, in the first part of his comparison, seemeth by implication to grant, when he findeth fault that the priest’s devotion should be a sacrifice satisfactory, and mot the thing that is offered; which manner of doctrine I never read, and I think myself it ought to be improved!0, if any such there be to make the devotion of the priest a satisfaction. For undoubtedly Christ is our satisfaction wholly and fully, who hath paid our whole debt to God the Father, for the appeasing of his just wrath against us, and hath cancelled the bill obligatory, as St Paul saith, that was against us. For further opening whereof, if it be “asked how he satisfied; we answer as we be taught by the scriptures: By the accomplishment of the will of his Father, in his innocent, willing, and obedient suffering} the miseries of this world without sin, and the violent persecution of the world, even to the death of the cross, and shedding of his most precious blood. Wherein was perfected the willing sacrifice that he made of himself to God the Father for us, of whom it was written in the beginning of the book, that he should be the body amd perfect accomplishment of all sacrifices, as of whom all “other sacrifices before were shadows and figures. 1 And here is to be considered, how the obedient will in Christ’s sacrifice is specially to be “mote, who suffered because he would: which St Paul setteth forth in declaration of Christ’s wmility. And although that willing obedience was ended and perfected on the cross, to the which it continued from the beginning, by reason whereof the oblation is in St Paul’s speech attributed thereunto: yet as in the sacrifice of Abraham, when he offered Isaac, the earnest will of offering was accounted for the offering indeed, whereupon it is said in scripture that Abraham offered Isaac, and the declaration of the will of Abraham is called the offering; 80 the declaration of Christ’s will in his last supper was am offering of him to God the Father, assuring there his apostles of his will and determination, and by them all the world, that his body should be betrayed for them and us, and his precious blood shed for remission of sin, which his word he confirmed then with the gift of his precious body to be eaten, and his precious blood to be drunken. In which mystery he declared his body and blood to be [7 Now my twelfth comparison, 1551.] [191 think it myself it ought to be improved, Orig. ed.] [1 In his innocent suffering, his willing and [ A most heinous lie, and detestable error, 1551, and Orig. ed. Winchester.]
[ Nor never none but he, 1551, and Orig. ed.] obedient suffering, 1551, and Orig. ed. Mere)
Trapp
the very sacrifice of the world, by him offered to God the Father, by the same will that he said his body should be betrayed for us; and thereby ascertained us that to be in him willing, that the Jews on the cross seemed to execute by violence amd force against his will. And therefore as Christ offered himself on the cross, in the execution of the work of his will; so he offered himself in his supper, in declaration of his will, whereby we might be the more assured of the effect of his death, which he suffered willingly and determinately for the redemption of the world, with a most perfect oblation and satisfaction for the sins of the world, exhibited and offered by him to God the Father, for the reconciliation of man’s nature to God’s favour and grace. ing. And this I write, because this author speaketh so precisely how Christ offered himself never but once. Whereby if he mean by once offering the whole action of our redemption, which was consummate and perfected upon the cross, all must confess the substance of that work of redemption by the oblation of Christ on the cross? to have been absolutely finished, and so once offered for all. But there is mo scripture whereupon we might conclude, that Christ did in this mortal life, but in one particular moment of time, offer himself to his Father. For St Paul describeth it to the Philippians, under the word of humiliation, to have continued the whole time of Christ’s conversation here, even to the death, the death of the cross. And that this obedience to God in humility is called offering, appeareth by St Paul, when he ^ exhorted? us to offer our bodies, which meaneth a continual obedience in the observation of God’s will, and he calleth oblationem gentium, to bring them to the faith. And Abraham’s willing obedience, ready at God’s commandment to offer Isaac, is called the offering of Isaac, and is in very deed a true offering. And every man offereth himself to God when he sieldeth to God’s calling, and presenteth himself ready to do God’s will and commandment, who then may be said to offer his service, that is to say, to place his service in sight, and before him, before whom it should be done.
And because our Saviour Christ, by the decree of the whole Trinity, took man’s nature upon him, to suffer death for our redemption; which death, im his last supper, he declared plainly he would suffer: we read in St Cyprian how Christ offered himself in his supper, fulfüling the figure of Melchisedech, who by the offering of bread and wine signified that high mystery of Christ’s supper, in which Christ, under the form of bread and wine, gave his very body and blood to be eaten and drunken, and in the giving thereof declared the determination of his glorious passion, and the fruit and effect thereof. Which doing was a sweet and pleasant oblation to God the Father, containing a most perfect obedience to God’s will and pleasure. And in the mystery of this supper was written, made, and sealed, a most perfect testimony Jor am effectual memory of Christ’s offering of himself to his Father, and of his death and passion, with the fruit thereof. And therefore Christ ordained this supper to be observed amd continued for a memory of his coming: so as we that saw not with our bodily eyes Christ’s death and passion, may, in the celebration of the supper, be most surely ascertained of the truth out of Christ’s own mouth, who still speaketh in the person of the minister of the church, This is my body that is betrayed for you: this is my blood that is shed for you in remission of sin i” amd therewith maketh his very body amd his precious blood truly present”, to be taken of us, eaten, and drunken. Whereby we be assured, that Christ is the same to us that he was to them, and useth us as familiarly as he did them; offereth himself to his Father for us as well as for them; declareth his will in the fruit of his death to pertain as well to us as to them. Of which death we be assured by his own mouth, that he suffered the same to the effect he spake of; and by8 the continual feeding in this high mystery of the same very body that suffered, amd feeding of it without consumption, being continually exhibited unto wus a living body and. a lively blood, not only our soul is specially and spiritually comforted, and our body thereby reduced to more conformable obedience to the soul, but also we, by the participation of this most precious body and blood, be ascertained of the resurrection and regeneration of our bodies amd flesh, to be by God’s power made incorruptible and immortal, to live, and have fruition in God, with our souls? for ever. m Wherefore having this mystery of Christ’s supper, so many truths in it, the church hath
Ascertained us to be in him, Orig. ed. Win- [9 A memory to his coming, 1551.
[chester.] [7 His very body truly present, and his pre- -]
[3 Of Christ’s body on the cross, 1551.] cious blood truly present, 1551.]]
[[? Exhorteth, Orig. ed. Winch.] [8 By supplied from Orig. ed. Winch. It is]
[[ To faith. Ibid.] wanting in both editions of Cranmer.] 2]
[5 And each man, 1551.] [? With our soul, 1551.] i]
celebrate them all, and knowledged them all of one certainty in truth, not as figures, but really and in deed; that is to say, bodies shall be in the general resurrection regenerate in deed, so we believe we feed here of Christ’s body in deed. And as it is true that Christ’s body in deed is betrayed for us, so it is true that he giveth us to eat his very body in deed. And as it is true that Christ was in earth, and did celebrate this supper: so it is true that he commanded it to be celebrated by us till he come. And as it is true that Christ was very God omnipotent, and very man: so it is true that he could do that he affirmed by his word himself to do. And as he is most sincere truth: so may we be truly assured that he would, and did, s he said. And as it is true that he is most just it is true that he assisteth the doing of his commandment in the celebration of the holy supper. And therefore, as he is author of this most holy sacrament of his precious body and blood: so is he the maker of it, and is the invisible priest, who, as Emissene saith, by his secret power, with his word, changeth the visible creatures into the substance of his body and blood. Wherein man, the visible priest and minister, by order of the church, is only a dispenser of the mystery, doing and saying as the Holy Ghost hath taught the church to do and say?. Finally, as we be taught by faith all these to be true: so when wanton reason ( faith being asleep) goeth about by curiosity to impair any one of these truths, the chain is broken, the links sparkle abroad, and all is brought in danger to be scattered and scambled at. Truths have been, abused, but yet they be true, as they were before; for mo man can make that is true false: and abuse is man’s fault, not the thing’s13. Scripture in speech giveth to man as God’s minister the mame of that action which God specially worketh in that mystery. So it pleaseth God to honour the ministry of man in his church, by whom it also pleaseth him to work effectually. And Christ said, They that believe in me, shall do the works that I do, and greater.” When all this honour is given to man, as spiritually to regenerate, when the minister saith “I baptize thee,” and to remit sin to such as fall after, to be also a minister in consecration of Christ’s most precious body, with the ministration of other sacraments, benediction, and prayer: if man should then wax proud, and glory as of himself, and extol his own devotion in these ministries; such men should bewray their own naughty hypocrisy, and yet thereby impair mot the very dignity of the ministry, me the very true fruit and effect thereof. And therefore when the church by the minister, and with the ministers, prayeth that the creatures of bread and wine, set on the altar (as the book of common prayer in this realm hath ordered), may be unto us the body and blood of our Saviour Christ; we require then the celebration of the same supper, which Christ made to his apostles, for to be the continual memory of his death, with all fruit and effect, such as the same had in the first institution.
Wherefore when the minister pronounceth Christ’s words, as spoken of his mouth, it is to be - believed, that Christ doth mow, as he did then. And it is to be noted, that although in the sacrament of baptism the minister saith, I baptize thee,” yet in the celebration of his supper16 the words be spoken in Christ’s person, as saying himself, This is my body that is broken Jor you,” which is to us not only a memory, but an effectual memory, with the very presence of Christ’s body and blood, our very sacrifice: who doing now, as he did then, offereth himself — to his Father as he did then, mot to renew that offering, as though it were imperfect, but j continually to refresh ws, that daily fall and decay. And as St John saith, Christ is our advocate and entreateth for us,” or pleadeth for us, not to supply any want on God’s behalf, j but to relieve our wants in edification, wherein the ministry of the church travaileth to bring - man to perfection in Christ, which Christ himself doth assist, and absolutely perform in his - ehurch, his mystical body. Now when we have Christ’s body thus present in the celebration of the holy supper, and by Christ’s mouth present unto us, saying, This is my body which is betrayed for you,” then have we Christ’s body recommended unto us as our sacrifice, and a sacrifice propitiatory for all the sins of the world, being the only sacrifice of Christ’s church, the pure and clean sacrifice whereof the prophet Malachi spake, and whereof the fathers in Christ’s church have since the beginning continually written; the very true presence whereof, most constantly believed, hath increased from time to time such ceremonies as have been used in the celebration of that supper, in which by Christ’s own mouth we be ascertained of his most glorious death and passion, and the self same body that suffered, delivered unto us in mystery, to be eaten of us, and therefore so to be worshipped and acknowledged of ws as [’ But really in deed, 1551.] [’ Benedictions, Orig. ed. Winch.]
ΠῚ As our body, 1551.] [15 Orig. ed. Winch. omits the words, and with
[[ἡ To be done and said, 1551.] the minister.’ ] ’ [ Man’s fault, and not the things, 1551.] [5 Of this supper, Orig. ed. Winch.]]
our very only sacrifice, in whom, by whom, and for whom, our other private gifts and sacrifices be acceptable, and no otherwise.
And therefore, as Christ declareth in the supper himself an offering, and sacrifice for our 8in, offering himself to his Father as owr mediator, and so therewith wrecommendeth to his Father the church, his body, for which he suffereth: so the church at the same supper in their ^ offering of lauds and thanks, with such other gifts as they have received from God, join present themselves with their head Christ, presenting and offering him, as one by whom, for whom, ond in whom, all that by God’s grace man cam do well, is available amd acceptable, our and without whom nothing by us done can be pleasant in the sight of God. Whereupon this persuasion hath been duly conceived, which is also in the book of common prayer in the celebration of the holy supper retained, that it is very profitable at that time, when the memory of Christ’s death is solemmized, to remember with prayer all estates of the church, and to recommend them to God, which St Paul to Timothy seemeth to require. At which time, as Christ signifieth unto us by the certainty of his death, and giveth us to be eaten, as it were in pledge, the same his precious body that suffered: so we, for declaration of our confidence in the death and sacrifice, do kindly. remember with thanks his special gifts, and charitably remember the vest of the members of Christ’s church with prayer, and, as we are able, should with our bodily goods remember at that time specially to relieve such as have need by poverty.
And again, as Christ putteth us in remembrance of his great benefit, so we should throughly remember him for our part, with the true confession of this mystery, wherein is recapitulate a memorial of all gifts and mysteries that God in Christ hath wrought for wus. In the consideration and estimation whereof, as there hath been a fault in the security of such as, 80 their names were remembered in this holy time of memory, they cared not how much they Jorgat themselves: so there may be a fault in such as, neglecting it, care not whether they be remembered there at all, and therefore would have it nothing but a plain eating and drinking. How much the remembrance in prayer may avail, no man can prescribe; but that it availeth, every christian man must confess. Man may nothing arrogate to his devotion. But St James — said truly, Multum valet oratio justi assidua. 7ὲ is to be abhorred to have hypocrites that counterfeit devotion, but true devotion is to be wished of God and prayed for, which is God’s gift, not to obscure his glory, but to set it forth; mot that we should then trust in men’s merits and prayers, but laud and glorify God in them; qui talem potestatem dedit hominibus, one to be judged able to relieve amother with his prayer, referring all to proceed Jrom God, by the mediation of our Saviour and Redeemer, Jesus Christ.
I have tarried long in this matter, to declare that, for the effect of all celestial or worldly gifts to be obtained of God in the celebration of Christ’s holy supper, when we call it the communion, is now prayed for to be present, and is present, and with God’s. favour shall be obtained, if we devoutly, reverently, charitably, and quietly use and frequent the same, without other innovations than the order of the book prescribeth. Now to the last difference.
Canterbury
How is “this comparison out of the matter of the presence of Christ’s most precious body in the sacrament,” when the papists say that the mass is ποὺ a sacrifice propitiatory, but because the presence of Christ’s most precious body being presently there? And yet if this comparison be out of the matter (as you say it is), why do you then wrestle and wrangle with it so much? And do I “seem to grant the presence of Christ’s body in the first part of my comparison,” when I do nothing there but rehearse what the papists do say? But because all this process (which you bring. in here out of tune and time) belongeth to the last book, I will pass it over unto the proper place, only by the way touching shortly some notable words. E the — Although you “never read that the oblation of the priest is satisfactory by devotion of the priest,” yet nevertheless the papists do so teach, and you may find it in their St Thomas, both in his Sum, and upon the fourth of the sentences; whose words? have been read in the universities almost these three hundred years, and never until this day reproved by any of the papists in this point. He saith: Quod sacrificium [’ And none otherwise, 1551.] habet vim satisfactivam, &c. Thomas Aquinas, [? Works, 1551.] Pars 111. Quest. Ixxix. Art. 5. p. 202, Antverp.
[[? Hoc sacramentum simul est sacrificium οἱ 1624.];]
[sacramentum.— In quantum vero est sacrificium]
sacerdotis habet. vim satisfactivam, sed 4n satisfactione magis. attenditur. affectus. offerentis, quam quantitas oblationis.. Ideo satisfactoria est illis pro quibus offertur, vel etiam offerentibus, secundum. quantitatem, suc devotionis, et non pro tota pena.
But here the reader may see in you, that the adversaries of the truth sometime be enforced to say the truth, although sometime they do it unawares; as Caiaphas prophesied the truth, and as you do here confess, that. Christ is our satisfaction wholly and fully..
And yet the reader may note your inconstancy. For afterward, in the last book, you give Christ such a nip, that of that whole satisfaction. you pinch half away from him, and ascribe it to the sacrifice of the priest, as I shall more fully declare in my answer to the last book. For you say there, “that the sacrifice of Christ giveth us life, and that the sacrifice of the priest continueth our life.”
And here, good reader, thou art to be warned, that this writer in this place goeth about craftily to draw thee from the very work of our full redemption, wrought by our Saviour Christ upon the cross, unto a sacrifice (as they say) made by him the night before at his last supper. And forasmuch as every priest (as the papists say) maketh the same sacrifice in his mass, therefore, consequently, it followeth by this writer, that we must seek our redemption at the priests sacrifice. And so Christ’s blessed passion (which he most obediently and willingly suffered for our salvation upon the cross,) was not the only and sufficient sacrifice for remission of our sins.
“The only will, I grant, both in good things and evil, is accepted or rejected before God, and sometime hath the name of the fact’, as the will of Abraham to offer his son is called the oblation of his son; and Christ called him an adulterer in his heart, that desireth another man’s wife, although there be no fact committed in deed.
And yet Abraham’s will alone was not called the oblation of his son, but his will declared by many facts and circumstances: for he carried his son three days’ journey to the place where God had appointed him to slay and offer his son Isaac, whom he most entirely loved. He cut wood to make the fire for that purpose, he laid the wood upon his son’s back, and made him carry the same wood wherewith he should be brent’. And Abraham himself (commanding his servants to tarry at the foot of the hill) carried the fire and sword, wherewith he intended (as God had commanded) to kill his own son,” whom he so deeply loved. And by the way as they went, his son said unto his father: Father, see, here is fire and wood, but where is the sacrifice that must be killed?” How these words of the son pierced the fathers heart, every loving father may judge by the affection which he beareth to his own children. For what man would not have been abashed and stayed at these words? thinking thus within himself: Alas! sweet son, thou dost ask me where the sacrifice is, thyself art the same sacrifice that must be slain, and thou (poor innoeent) carriest thine own death upon thy back, and the wood wherewith thyself must be brent. Thou art he whom I must slay, which art most innocent, and never offended.”. Such thoughts, you may be sure, pierced through Abraham’s heart, no less than the very death of his son should have done: as David lamentably bewailed his son lying in the pangs of death, but after he was dead he took his death quietly and comfortably enough. But nothing could alter Abraham’s heart, or move him to disobey God; but forth on he goeth with his son to the place which God had appointed, - and there he made an altar, and laid the wood upon it, and bound his son, and laid him upon the heap of the wood in the altar, and took the sword in his hand, and lifted up his arm to strike and kill his son, and would have done so in deed if the angel of God had not letted him, commanding him. in the stead of his son to take a ram that was fast by the horns in the briars. This obedience of Abraham unto God’s. commandment in offering of his son, declared by so many acts and circumstances, is called in the scripture the offering of his son, and not the will only. ες [1 Be accepted, 1551.] [7 To kill his son, 1551.]
P Have the names of the fact, 1551.] [? Letted, i. e. hindered, prevented. ]
[ Brent, i. e, burnt.]
Nor the scripture calleth not the declaration of Christ’s will in his last supper to suffer death by the name of a sacrifice satisfactory for sin, nor saith not that he was there offered in deed. For the will of a thing is not in deed the thing. And if the declaration of his will to die had been an oblation and sacrifice propitiatory for sin, then had Christ been offered not only in his supper, but as often as he declared his will to die. As when he said, long before his supper many times, that he should be betrayed, scourged, spit upon, and crucified, and that the third day he should rise again: and when he bade them destroy the temple of his body, and he would build it up again within three days: and when he said that he would give his flesh for the life of the world, and his life for his sheep.
And if these were sacrifices propitiatory or satisfactory for remission of sin, what needed he then after to die, if he had made the propitiatory sacrifice for sin already? For either the other was mot vailable thereto, or else his death was in vain, as St Paul reasoneth of the priests of the old law, and of Christ. And it is not read in any scripture, that Christs will, declared at his supper, was effectuous and sufficient for our redemption, but that his most willing death and passion was the oblation sufficient to endure for ever and ever, world without end.
But what sleights and shifts this writer doth use to wind the reader into his error, it is wonder to see, by devising to make two sacrifices of one will; the one by declaration, the other! by execution; a device such as was never imagined before of no man, and meet to come out of a fantastical head. But I say precisely, that Christ offered himself never but once, because the scripture so precisely and so many “n “times saith so; and having the same for my warrant, it maketh me the bolder to against you, that deny that thing which is so often times repeated in scripture. And where you say, that “there is no scripture whereupon we might conclude that Christ did in this mortal life, but in one particular moment of time, offer himself to the Father:” to what purpose you bring forth this moment of time I cannot tell, for I made no mention thereof, but of the day of his death; and the scripture saith plainly, that as it is ordained for every man to die but once, so Christ was offered — but once; and saith further, that sin is not forgiven but by effusion of blood, and therefore if Christ had been offered many times, he should have died many times. And of any other offering of Christs body for sin, the scripture speaketh not. ’ For ^ although St Paul to the Philippians speaketh of the humiliation of Christ by his incarnation, and so to worldly miseries and afflictions, even unto death upon the cross; yet he calleth not every humiliation of Christ a sacrifice and oblation for remission “οὗ sin, but only his oblation upon Good Friday, which as it was our perfect redemption, so was it our perfect reconciliation, propitiation, and satisfaction for sin. And to what purpose you make here a long process of our sacrifices of obedience unto God’s commandments, I cannot devise. For I declare in my last book, that all our whole obedience unto God’s will and commandments is à sacrifice acceptable to God, but not a sacrifice propitiatory: for that sacrifice Christ only made, and by that his sacrifice all our sacrifices be acceptable to God, and without that none is acceptable to him. And by those sacrifices all christian people offer themselves to God, but they offer not Christ again for sin; for that did never creature but Christ himself alone, nor he never but upon Good Friday. For although he did institute the night before a remembrance of his death, under the sacraments of bread and wine, yet he made not at that time the sacrifice of our redemption and satisfaction for our sins, but the next day following. And the declaration of Christ at his last supper, that he would suffer death, was not the cause wherefore Cyprian said that Christ offered himself in his supper. For I read not in any place of Cyprian, to my remembrance, any such words that Christ offered himself in his supper; but he saith, that Christ offered the same thing which Melchisedech offered. And if Cyprian say in any place [! And the other, 1551.] Deo patri obtulit, et obtulit hoc idem quod Mel- [? A sacrament of his death, 1551.] chisedech obtulerat, id est, panem et vinum, suum
[[ Nam quis magis sacerdos Dei summi, quam scilicet corpus et sanguinem.— Cyprian. ad Ca-]
[Dominus noster Jesus Christus? qui sacrificium cilium, Epist. Ixiii. p. 143. Paris. 1574.]]
that Christ offered himself in his supper, yet he said not that Christ did so for this cause, that in his supper he declared his death. And therefore here you make a deceitful fallax in sophistry, pretending to shew that thing to be a cause, which is mof the true cause indeed. For the cause why Cyprian, and other old authors, say -. that Christ made an oblation and offering of himself in his last supper, was not that he declared there that he would suffer death, (for that he had declared many times before;) but the cause was, that there he ordained a perpetual memory of his death, which he would all faithful christian people to observe from time to time, remembering his death, with thanks for his benefits, until his coming again. And therefore the memorial of the true sacrifice made upon the cross, as St Augustine saith, is called by the name of a sacrifice, as a thing that signifieth another thing is called by the name of the thing which it signifieth, although in very deed it be not the same,
And the long discourse that you make of Christ’s true presence, and of the true eating of him, and of his true assisting us in our doing of his commandment, all these be true. For Christ’s flesh and blood be in the sacrament truly present, but spiritually and sacramentally, not carnally and corporally. And as he is truly present, so is he truly eaten and drunken, and assisteth us. And he is the same to us that he was to them that saw him with their bodily eyes. But where you say, that he is as familiar with us as he was with them, here I may say the French term which they use for reverence sake, Save vostre grace. And he offered not himself then for them upon the cross, and now offereth himself for us daily in the mass; but upon the cross he offered himself both for us and for them. For that his one sacrifice of his body, then only offered, is now unto us by faith as available as it was then for them. “For with one sacrifice,” as St Paul saith, “he hath made perfect for ever them that be sanctified.”
And where you speak of the participation of Christ’s flesh and blood, if you mean of the sacramental participation only, that thereby we be ascertained of the regeneration? of our bodies, that they shall live, and have the fruition of God with our souls for ever, you be in an horrible error. And if you mean a spiritual participation of Christ’s body and blood, then all this your process is in vain, and serveth nothing for your purpose to prove that Christ’s flesh and blood be corporally in the sacrament, under the forms of bread and wine, and participated of them that be evil, as you teach; which be no whit thereby the more certain of their salvation, but of their damnation, as St Paul saith. i And although the holy supper of the Lord be not a vain or fantastical supper, wherein things should be promised, which be not performed, to them that worthily eome thereunto, but Christ’s flesh and blood be there truly eaten and drunken in deed; yet that mystical supper cannot be without mysteries and figures. And although we feed in deed of Christs body, and drink in deed his blood, yet not corporally, quanti- tatively, and palpably, as we shall be regenerated at the resurrection, and as he was - betrayed, walked here in earth, and was very man. And therefore, although the things by you rehearsed be all truly done, yet all be not done after one sort and fashion; but some corporally and visibly, some spiritually and invisibly. And therefore to all your comparisons or similitudes here by you rehearsed, if there be given to every one his true understanding, they may be so granted all to be true. But if you will link all these together in one sort and fashion, and make a chain thereof, you shall far pass the bonds of wanton reason, making a chain of gold and copper together, confounding and mixing together corporal and spiritual, heavenly and earthly things, and bring all to very madness and impiety, or plain and manifest heresy.
And because one single error pleaseth you not, shortly after you link a number A of errors almost together? in one sentence, as it were to make an whole chain of errors, ^^ saying not only that Christ’s body is verily present in the celebration of the holy supper, meaning of corporal presence, but that it is also our very sacrifice, and sacrifice propitiatory for all the sins of the world, and that it is the only sacrifice of the
See the passage which is quoted at length [5 Of our regeneration of our bodies, 1551.
[below, p. 124.] d [ Together almost, 1551.]]
church, and that it is the pure and clean sacrifice, whereof Malachi spake, and that Christ doth now in the celebration of this supper as he did when he gave the same to his apostles, and that he offereth himself now as he did then, and that the same offering is not now renewed again. This is your chain of errors, wherein is not one link of pure gold, but all be copper’, feigned, and counterfeit: for neither is Christ’s body verily and. corporally present in the celebration of his holy supper, but spiritually; nor his body is not the very sacrifice, but the thing whereof the sacrifice was made; and the very sacrifice was the crucifying of his body, and the effusion of his blood unto death. Wherefore of his body was not made a sacrifice propitiatory for all the sins of the world at his supper, but the next day after upon the cross. Therefore ^ saith the prophet, that we were made whole by his wounds: Livore ejus samati sumus.
Nor that sacrifice of Christ in the celebration of the supper is not the only sacrifice of the church, but all the works that christian people do to the glory of God be sacrifices of the church, smelling sweetly before God. And they be also the pure and clean sacrifice whereof the prophet Malachi did speak. For the prophet Malachi spake of no such sacrifices as only priests make, but of such sacrifice as all christian people make both day and night, at all times and in all places.
Nor Christ doth not now as he did at his last supper, which he had with his apostles; for then, as you say, he declared his will, that he would die for us: and if he do now as he did then, then doth he now declare that he will die for us again.
But as for offering himself now as he did then, this speech may have a true sense, being like to that which sometime was used at the admission of unlearned friars and monks unto their degrees in the universities: where the doctor that presented them deposed that they were meet for the said degrees, as well in learning as in virtue. And yet that deposition in one sense was true, when indeed they were meet neither in the one nor in the other. So likewise, in that sense Christ offereth himself now as well as he did in his supper; for indeed he offered himself a sacrifice propitiatory for remission of sin in neither of both, but only upon the cross, making there a sacrifice full and perfect for our redemption, and yet by that sufficient offering made only at ^ that time he is a daily intercessor for us to his Father for ever. Finally, it is not true that the offering in the celebration of the supper is not renewed again. For the same offering that is made in one supper is daily renewed and made again in every supper, and is called the daily sacrifice of the church.
Thus have I broken your chain, and scattered your links, which may be called the very chain of Beelzebub, able to draw into hell as many as come within the compass thereof. And how would you require that men should give you credit, who within so few lines knit together so many manifest lies? It is another untruth also which you say after, that Christ declared in the supper himself an offering and sacrifice for sin; for he declared in his supper, not that he was then a sacrifice, but that a sacrifice should be made of his body, which was done the next day after, by the voluntary effusion of his blood: and of any other sacrificing of Christ for sin the scripture speaketh not. For although the scripture saith that our Saviour Christ is a continual intercessor” for us unto his Father, yet no scripture calleth that intercession a sacrifice for sin, but only the effusion of his blood, which it seemeth you make him to do still, when you say that he suffereth; and so by your imagination he should now still be crucified, if he now suffer, as you say he doth. But it seemeth you pass not greatly what you say, so that you may multiply many gallant words to the admiration of the hearers, But forasmuch as you say that Christ offereth himself in the celebration of the supper, and also that the church offereth him, here I - would have you declare how the church offereth Christ, and how he offereth himself, and wherein those offerings stand, in words, deeds, or thoughts, that we may know what you mean by your daily offerings of Christ. Of offering ourselves unto God in all our acts and deeds, with lauds and thanksgiving, the scripture maketh
[[! One link true gold, but all copper be, 1551.] [? Is now a continual intercessor, 1551.]]
mention in many places: but that Christ himself in the holy communion, or that. the priests make any other oblation than all christian people do, because these be papistical inventions without scripture, I require nothing but reason of you, that you should so plainly set out these devised offerings, that men might plainly understand what they be, and wherein they rest. Now in this comparison, truth it is, as you say, that you have spent many words, but utterly in vain, not to declare, but to darken the matter. But if you would have followed the plain words of scripture, you needed not to have tarried so long, and yet should you have made the matter more clear a Now followeth my last comparison.
They say, that Christ is corporally in many places at one time, affirming The
1. E teenth that his body is corporally and really present in as many places as there parison. be hosts consecrated. We say, that as the sun corporally is ever in heaven, 4nd no where else, and yet by his operation and virtue the sun is here in earth, by whose influence and virtue all things in the world be corporally regenerated, increased, and grow to their perfect state; so likewise our Saviour Christ bodily and corporally is in heaven, sitting at the right hand of his Father, although spiritually he hath promised to be present with us upon earth unto the world’s end. And whensoever two or three be gathered together in his name, he is there in the midst among them, by whose supernal grace j all godly men be first by him spiritually regenerated, and after increase and grow to their spiritual perfection in God, spiritually by faith eating his flesh, and drinking his blood, although the same corporally be in heaven, far distant from our sight.
Winchester
k The true teaching is, that Christ’s very body is present under the form of bread, in as 2 many hosts as be consecrate, in how many places soever the hosts be consecrate, and is there really and substantially, which words “really and substantially” be implied, when we say, truly present. The word “corporally” may have an ambiguity and doubleness in respect and relation: one is to the truth of the body present, and so it may be said, Christ is corporally present in sacrament; if the word corporally be referred to the manner of the presence, then we should say, Christ’s body were present after a corporal manner, which we say mot, but 4n a spiritual manner; and therefore mot locally mor by manner of quantity, but in such manner as God only knoweth, and yet doth us to understand by faith the truth of the very presence, exceeding our capacity to comprehend the manner “how.” This is the very true teaching to affirm the truth of the presence of Christ’s very body in the sacrament, even of the same body that suffered, in plain, simple, evident terms and words, such as cammot by cavillation be mistaken and construed, so near as possibly man’s infirmity permitteth and suffereth. Now let us consider in what sort the author and his company, which he calleth “we say,” do understand the sacrament, who go about to express the same by a similitude of the creature of the sun, which sun,” this author saith, “is ever corporally in heaven, and “o where else, and yet by operation and virtue is here in earth: so Christ is corporally in heaven, &c.” In this matter of similitudes, it is to be taken for a truth undoubted, that there ds mo creature by similitude, ne any language of man able to express God and his mystewies For and things that be seen or heard might throughly express God’s invisible mysteries, the nature whereof is that they cannot. throughly be expressed, they were no mysteries: 1 i and yet it is true, that of things visible, wherein God worketh wonderfully, there may be i great resemblances, some shadows, and as it were inductions, to make a man astonied in 1 consideration of things invisible, when he seeth things visible so wonderfully wrought, and to have so marvellous effects. And divers good catholic devout men have by divers natural 1 T things gone about to open unto us the mystery of the Trinity, partly by the sun, as the author” doth in the sacrament, partly by fire, partly by the soul of man, by the musician’s
[s NE You edd not indeed, 1551.] - [ &c., 1551.]]
[[ Supernal, i. e. heavenly.] [5 Some resemblances, 1551.]]
[i [ Present in the sacrament, but if the word, [7 As this author, 1551.]]
science, the art, the touch with the player’s fingers, and the sound of the chord, wherein wit hath all travailed the matter, yet remaineth dark, ne cannot be throughly set forth by any similitude. But to the purpose of this similitude of the sun, which sun, this author saith, “is only corporally in heaven, and no where else,” and in the earth the operation and virtue of the sun: so as by this author’s supposal, the substance of the sun should mot be in earth, but only bu operation and virtue: wherein if this author erreth, he doth the reader to wnderstand, that if he err in consideration of natural things, it is no marvel though he err in heavenly things. For, because I will mot of myself begin the contention with this author of the natural work of the sun, I will bring forth the saying of Martin Bucer, now vesident at Cambridge, who vehemently, and for so much truly, afirmeth the true real presence of Christ’s body in the sacrament: for he saith, Christ said mot, this is my spirit, this is my virtue, but, “this is my body:” wherefore, he saith, we must believe Christ’s body to be there, the same that did hang upon the cross, our Lord himself, which in some part to declare, he useth the similitude of the sun for his purpose, to prove Christ’s body present really and substantially in the sacrament, where this author wseth the same similitude to prove the body of Christ really absent. I will write in here as Bucer speaketh it in Latin, expounding the twenty-siwth chapter of St Matthew, and then I will put the same in English. Bucer’s words be these: m Ut sol vere uno in loco eceli visibilis circumsecriptus est, radiis tamen suis preesens. vere et substantialiter exhibetur ubilibet orbis: ita Dominus etiamsi cireumscribatur uno loco coeli arcani et divini, id est glorie Patris, verbo tamen suo et sacris symbolis vere et totus ipse Deus et homo prssens exhibetur in sacra ccena, eoque substantialiter; quam presentiam non minus certo agnoscit mens credens verbis his Domini et symbolis, quam oculi vident et habent solem prsesentem demonstratum et exhibitum sua corporali luce. Res ista arcana est, et novi Testamenti, res fidei: non sunt igitur huc admittendse cogitationes de preesentatione corporis, quse constat ratione hujus vite etiamnum patibilis et flux». Verbo Domini simpliciter inhserendum est, et debet fides sensuum defectui prebere supplementum. Which is thus much in English: “As the sun is truly placed determinately in one place of the visible heaven, and, yet is truly and substantially present by means of his beams elsewhere in the world abroad: so οὐ Lord, although he be comprehended in one place of the secret and divine heaven, that is to say, the glory of his Father, yet nevertheless by his word and holy tokens he is exhibit present truly whole God and man, and therefore in substance in his holy supper; which presence man’s mind, giving credit to his words and tokens, with mo less certainty acknowledgeth, than our eyes see, and have the sun present, exhibited, and shewed with his corporal light. This is a deep secret matter, and of the mew testament, and a matter of faith; and therefore herein thoughts be mot to be received of such a presentation of the body as consisteth in the manner of this life tramsitory, and subject to suffer. We must simply cleave to the word of Christ, and faith must relieve the default of our senses.”
Thus hath Bucer expressed his mind, whereunto, because the similitude of the sum doth not answer in all parts, he moteth wisely in the end, how this is a matter of faith, and therefore upon the foundation of faith we must speak of it, thereby to supply where our senses fail. For the presence of Christ, and whole Christ, God and man, is true, although we cannot think of the manner “how.” The chief cause why I bring in Bucer is this, to shew how, in his judgment, we have not only in earth the operation and wirtue of the sun, but also the substance of the sun, by mean of the sun-beams, which be of the same substance with the sun, and cannot be divided in substance from it; and therefore we have in earth the substantial presence of the sun, mot only the operation amd virtue. And howsoever the sun above in the distance appeareth unto ws of another sort, yet the beams that touch the earth be of the same substance with it, as clerks say, or at the least as Bucer saith, whom I never heard accompted papist; and yet for the real and substantial presence of Christ’s very body in the sacrament, writeth pithily and plainly, and here encountereth this author with his similitude of the sum directly; whereby may appear, how much soever Bucer is esteemed otherwise, he is mot with this author regarded in the truth of the sacrament, which is one of the high mysteries in our religion. And this may suffice for that point of the similitude, where this author would have Christ none otherwise present in the sacrament, than he promised to be in the assembly of such as be gathered together in his mame: it is a plain abolition of the mystery of the sacrament, in the words whereof Christ’s human body is exhibit and made
present with his very flesh to feed us, and to that singular and special effect? the other presence of Christ in the assembly made in his name is not spoken of; and it hath no appearance of learning in scriptures, to conclude under one consideration a specialty and a generality. And therefore it was well answered of him that said, “If I could tell reason, there were no Jfaith ^ if I could shew the like, it were not singular. Which both be notable in this 8α- erament, where condemning all reason, good men both constantly believe that Christ sitteth on the right hand of his Father, very God and man, and also without change of place doth nevertheless make himself by his power present, both God and man, under the form of bread and wine, at the prayer of the church and by the ministry of the same, to give life to such as with faith do according to his institution in his holy supper worthily receive him, and to the condemnation of such as do wnworthily presume to receive him there. For the worthy receiving of whom we must come endued with Christ, and clothed with him seemly in that garment, to receive his most precious body amd blood, Christ whole God and man, whereby he then dwelleth in us more abundantly, confirming in us the effects of his passion, and establishing our hope of resurrection, then to enjoy the regeneration of our body, with a full redemption of body and soul, to live with God in glory for ever.
Canterbury
In this comparison I am glad that at the last we be come so near together; for you be almost right heartily welcome home, and I pray you let us shake hands together, For we be agreed, as me seemeth, that Christ’s body is present, and the same body that suffered: and we be agreed also of the manner of his presence. For you say that the body of Christ is not present but after a spiritual manner, and so say I also. And if there be any difference between us two, it is but a little and in this point only: that I say that Christ is but spiritually in the ministration of the sacrament, and you say that he is but after a spiritual manner in the sacrament. And yet you say that he is corporally in the sacrament, as who should say that there were a difference between spiritually, and a spiritual manner; and that it were not all one, to say that Christ is there only after a spiritual manner, and not only spiritually.
But if the substance of the sun be here corporally present with us upon earth, then I grant that Christ’s body is so likewise: so that he of us two that erreth in the one, let him be taken for a vain man, and to err also in the other. Therefore I am content that the reader judge indifferently between you and me, in the corporal presence of the sun; and he that is found to err, and to be a fool therein, let him be judged to err also in the corporal presence of Christ’s body.
But now, master Bucer, help this man at need: for he that hath ever hitherto eried out against you, now being at a pinch driven to his shifts, crieth for help upon - you: and although he was never your friend, yet extend your charity to help him in his necessity. But master Bucer saith not so much as you do: and yet if you - both said that the beams of the sun be of the same substance with the sun, who would believe either of you both? Is the light of the candle the substance of the candle? or the light of the fire the substance of the fire? Or is the beams of the sun any thing but the clear light of the sun? Now, as you said even now of me, Af you err so far from the true judgment of natural things, that all men may perceive your error, what marvel is it if you err in heavenly things?
And why should you be offended with this my saying, that Christ is spiritually present in the assembly of such as be gathered together in his name? And how can you conclude hereof, that this is a plain abolition of the mystery of the sacrament, - because that in the celebration of the sacrament I say that Christ is spiritually present? Have not you confessed yourself that Christ is in the sacrament but after & spiritual manner? And after that manner he is also among them that be assembled together in his name. And if they that say so do abolish the mystery of the sacrament, then do you abolish it yourself, by saying that Christ is but after a spiritual [ Special effect, which in the other, 1551.] [. Together omitted, 1551.]
manner in the sacrament, after which manner you say also that he is in them that be gathered together in his name, as well as I do, that say he is spiritually in both. But he that is disposed to pick quarrels, and to calumniate all things, what can be spoken so plainly, or meant so sincerely, but he will wrest it unto a wrong sense? I say that Christ is spiritually and by grace in his supper, as he is when. two or three be gathered together in his name, meaning that with both he is spiritually, and with neither corporally; and yet I say not that there is no difference. For this difference there is, that with the one he is sacramentally, and with the other not sacramentally, except they be gathered together in his name to receive the sacrament. Nevertheless the selfsame Christ is present in both, nourisheth and feedeth both, if the sacrament be rightly received. But that is only spiritually, as I say, and only after a spiritual manner, as you say.
And you say further, that before we receive the sacrament, we must come endued with Christ, and seemly clothed with him. But whosoever is endued and clothed with Christ hath Christ present with him after a spiritual manner, and hath received Christ whole both God and man, or else he could not have everlasting life. And therefore is Christ present as well in baptism as in the Lord’s supper. For in baptism be we endued with Christ, and seemly clothed with him, as well as in his holy supper we eat and drink him.
Winchester
Thus I have perused these differences, which, well considered, methink sufficient to take away «nd appease all such differences as might be moved against the sacrament, the faith whereof hath ever prevailed against such as have impugned it. And I have not read of any that hath written against it, but somewhat hath against his enterprise in his writings appeared, whereby to confirm it, or so evident wntruths afirmed, as whereby those that be as indifferent to the truth as Salomon was in the judgment of the living child, may discern the very true mother from the other, that is to say, who plainly intend the true child to continue alive, and who could be content to have it be destroyed by division. God of his infinite mercy have pity on us, and grant the true faith of this holy mystery uniformly to be conceived in our understandings, and in one form of words to be uttered and preached, which in the book of common prayer is well termed, not distant from the catholic faith in my judgment.
Canterbury
You have so perused these differences, that you have made more difference than ’ ever was before: for where before there were no more but two parts, the true catholic doctrine, and the papistical doctrine, now come you in with your new fantastical inventions, agreeing with neither part, but to make a song of three parts, you have devised a new voluntary descant, so far out of tune, that it agreeth neither with the tenor nor mean, but maketh such a shameful jar, that godly ears abhor to hear it. For you have taught such a doctrine as never was written before this time, and uttered therein so many untruths and so many strange sayings, that every indifferent reader may easily discern that the true christian faith in this matter is not to be sought at your hands. And yet in your own writings appeareth something to confirm the truth, quite against your own enterprise,” which maketh me have some hope, that after my answer heard, we shall in tbe principal matter no more strive for the child, seeing that yourself have confessed that Christ is but after a spiritual manner present with us. And there is good hope that God shall prosper this child to live many years, seeing that now 1 trust you will help to foster and nourish it up as well as I.
And yet if division may shew a step-mother, then be not you the true mother of the child, which in the sacrament make so many divisions. For you divide the substances of bread and wine from their proper accidences, the substances also of Christ’s flesh and blood from their accidences, and Christs very flesh sacramentally from his very blood, although you join them again per concomitantiam; and you divide the sacrament so that the priest receiveth both the sacrament of Christs body and of his blood, and the lay people (as you call them) receive no more but the sacrament of his body, as though the sacrament of his blood and of our redemption pertained only to the priests. And the cause of our eternal life and salvation you
divide in such sort between Christ and the priest, that you attribute the beginning thereof to the sacrifice of Christ upon the cross, and the continuance thereof you attribute to the sacrifice of the priest in the mass, as you do write plainly in your last book, Oh! wicked step-mothers, that so divide Christ, his sacraments, and his people!
After the differences followeth the third, fourth, fifth, and sixth chapters of my book, which you bind as it were altogether in one fardel l and cast them quite away, by the figure which you call “rejection,” not answering one word to any scripture or old writer, which I have there alleged for the defence of the truth. But because the reader may see the matter plainly before his eyes, I shall here rehearse my words again, and join thereto your answer. My words be these.
Now to return to the principal matter, lest it might be thought a new device of us, that Christ, as concerning his body and his human nature, is in heaven, and not in earth; therefore by God’s grace it shall be evidently proved, that this is no new devised matter, but that it was ever the old faith of the catholic church, until the papists invented a new faith, that Christ really, corporally, naturally, and sensibly is here still with us in earth, shut up in a box, or within the compass of bread and wine.
This needeth no better nor stronger proof than that which the old authors bring for the same, that is to say, the general profession of all christian people in the common creed, wherein, as concerning Christ’s humanity, they be taught to believe after this sort: That he was conceived by the Holy Ghost, born of the virgin Mary: that he suffered under Pontius Pilate: was crucified, dead and buried: that he descended into hell, and rose again the third day, that he ascended into heaven, and sitteth at the right hand of his almighty Father, and from thence shall come to judge the quick and dead.
This hath been ever the catholic faith of christian people, that Christ (as concerning his body and his manhood) is in heaven, and shall there continue until he come down at the last judgment.
And forasmuch as the creed maketh so express mention of the article of his ascension, and departing hence from us, if it had been another article of ur faith, that his body tarrieth also here with us in earth, surely in this place of the creed was so urgent an occasion given to make some mention hereof, that doubtless it would not have been passed over in our creed with silence. For if Christ (as eoneerning his humanity) be both here, and gone henee, and both these two be articles of our faith, when mention was made of the one in the creed, it was necessary to make mention of the other, lest by professing the one we should be dissuaded from believing the other, being so contrary the one to the other.
To this article of our creed accordeth holy scripture, and all the old ancient doctors of Christ’s church. For Christ himself said, “I leave the world, and go to my Father.” And also he said, “You shall ever have poor folks with you, but you shall not ever have me with you.” And he gave warning of this error beforehand, saying that the time would come when many deceivers should be in the world, and say, Here is Christ, and there is Christ, but believe them not,” said Christ. And St Mark writeth in the last chapter of his gospel, that the Lord Jesus was taken up into heaven, and sittethat the right hand of his Father. And St Paul exhorteth all men to seek for things that be above in heaven, where Christ,” saith he, sitteth at the right hand of God” his Father. Also he saith, that “we have such a bishop, that sitteth in heaven at the xight hand of the throne of God’s majesty;” and that he, “having offered E.; ᾿ [^ Fardel, i. e. a bundle. ]
In these words Origen hath plainly declared his mind, that Christ’s body is not both present here with us, and also gone hence and estranged from us. For that were to make two natures of one body, and to divide the body of Jesus, forasmuch as one nature cannot at one time be both with us, and absent from us. And therefore saith Origen, that the presence must be understanded of his divinity, and the absence of his humanity. ad And according hereunto St Augustine writeth thus in an Epistle 4d Darda-pum: Doubt not but Jesus Christ as concerning the nature of his manhood is now there, from whence he shall come. And remember well and believe the profession of a christian man, that he rose from death, ascended into heaven, sitteth at the right hand of his Father, and from that place, and none other, shall he come to judge the quick and the dead. And he shall come, as the lo- angels said, as he was seen go into heaven, that is to say, in the same form
← 5. Book III. Of the Presence of Christ · Contents · 7. Book III. Of the Presence of Christ →