3
and. substance, unto the which he gave immortality, but changed not nature. After this form, (saith he, meaning his man’s nature, we may not think that he is every where. For we must beware, that we do not so stablish his divinity, that we take away the verity of his body?” These be St Augustines plain words. And by and by after he addeth these words: The Ed. A35 1557.] Lord Jesus as God is every where, and as man is in heaven? And finally he concludeth this matter in these few words: Doubt not but our Lord Jesus Christ is every where as God, and as a dweller he is in man that is the temple of God, and he is in a certain place in heaven, because of the measure of a very body.”
[[! Secundum hanc divinitatis sue naturam non est, illa angelica voce testante, quemadmodum ire]
[peregrinatur, sed peregrinatur secundum dispensa- visus est in colum, id est, in eadem carnis forma]
[tionem corporis quod suscepit. —Hizec autem dice- atque substantia, cui profecto immortalitatem dedit,]
[tes non solvimus suscepti corporis hominem, cum naturam non abstulit. Secundum hanc formam non]
[sit scriptum apud Johannem, Omnis spiritus qui est putandus ubique diffusus. Cavendum est enim,]
[solvit Jesum, non est ex Deo:”’ sed unicuique sub- ne ita divinitatem astruamus hominis, ut veritatem]
[stanti; proprietatem servamus.—Origen. in Matt. corporis auferamus.—August. de Prasentia Dei, ad..]
[cap. xxv. Tract. 33. Ed. Bened. Tom. III. p. 883.] Dardanum, (Epist. lvii.) Lib. 1. cap.iii. Pars viir. [? Noli itaque dubitare ibi nunc esse hominem Basil. ap. Amerbach. 1506. ]]
[Christum Jesum, unde venturus est, memoriterque [? Una enim persona Deus et homo est, et]
[recole et fideliter tene Christianam confessionem, quo- utrumque est unus Christus Jesus, ubique per id]
[niam resurrexit a mortuis, ascendit in celum, sedet quod Deus est, in colo autem per id quod homo.]
[ad dexteram Patris, nec aliunde quam inde venturus —Ibid. cap. iv.]]
[est ad vivos mortuosque judicandos. Etsi venturus ’ [ Et ubique totum presentem esse (i. e. Chris-]
And again St Augustine writeth upon gospel of ohn: Our Saviou ol cc Jesus Christ,” saith St Augustine, “is above, but yet his truth is here. His body wherein he arose is in one place, but his truth is spread every where.”
And in another place of the same book St Augustine expounding these words of Christ, You shall ever have poor men with you, but me you shall not ever have,” saith, that Christ spake these words of the presence of his body. For,” saith he, “as concerning his divine majesty, as concerning his providence, as concerning his infallible and invisible grace, these words be fulfilled which he spake, I am with you unto the world’s end.’ But as concerning the flesh which he took in his carnation’, as concerning that which was born of the virgin, as concerning that which was apprehended by the Jews, and crucified upon a tree, and taken down from the cross, lapped in linen clothes and buried, and rose again, and appeared after his resurrection; as concerning that flesh, he said, You shall not ever have me with you. Wherefore seeing that as concerning his flesh he was conversant with his disciples forty days, and they accompanying, seeing, and not following him?, he went up into heaven, both he is not here (for he sitteth at the right hand of his Father) and yet he is here, for he departed not hence as concerning the presence of his divine majesty. As concerning the presence of his majesty, we have Christ ever with us; but as concerning the presence of his flesh, he said truly to his disciples, Ye shall not ever have me with you.” For as concerning the presence of his flesh, the church had Christ but a few days; yet now it holdeth him fast by faith, though it see him not with eyes.” All these be St Augustine’s words. Also in another book, entitled to St Augustine, is written thus: “We must believe and confess that the Son of God (as concerning his divinity) is invisible, without a body, immortal, and incireumseriptible: but as concerning his humanity, we ought to believe and confess that he is visible, hath a body, and is contained in a certain place, and hath truly all the members of a man.”
Of these words of St Augustine it is most clear, that the profession of the catholic faith is, that Christ (as concerning his bodily substance and nature of man) is in heaven, and not present here with us in earth. For the nature and property of a very body is to be in one place, and to occupy one place, and not to be everywhere, or in many places at one time. And though the
[tum Jesum) non dubites tanquam Deum, et in enim recessitprasentiamajestatis. Aliter. Secundum]
[eodem templo Dei esse tanquam inhabitantem presentiam majestatis semper habemus Christum:]
[Deum, et in loco aliquo cceli propter veri cor- secundum presentiam carnis recte dictum est disci-]
[poris modum.—Ibid. cap. xx.] pulis, Me autem non semper habebitis. Habuit [^ Sursum est Dominus, sed etiam hic est ve- enim illum ecclesia secundum przsentiam carnis]
[ritas Dominus. Corpusenim Domini,in quo resur- paucis diebus: modo fide tenet, oculis non videt.]
[rexit, uno loco esse potest: veritas ejus ubique dif- —Ibid. ‘Tract.l. Pars 1x.]]
[fusa est.—August. in Evangelium Joannis, Tract. [7 Incarnation, 1551.]]
[xxx. Pars 1x.] [ The, 1551.] [6 Loquebatur enim de presentia corporis sui. [? And following him, 1551. “Thisisevidently a]
[Nam secundum majestatem suam, secundum provi- misprint in that edition, which Cranmer appears to]
[dentiam, secundum ineffabilem etinvisibilem gratiam have corrected as it was printed in the 1580 edition,]
[d impletur quod ab eo dictum est, Ecce ego vobiscum since the words of Augustine are, videndo, non]
[sum omnibus diebus usque ad consummationem sz- sequendo.” See note 6.]]
[culi, Secundum carnem vero quam verbum assump- [!? Et idcirco eundem Dei filium secundum]
[sit, secundum id quod de virgine natus est, secun- substantiam divinitatis suz invisibilem et incor-]
[dum id quod a Judzis comprehensus est, quod ligno poreum et immortalem et incircumscriptum nos]
[confixus, quod de cruce depositus, quod linteis in- credereet confiteri oportet. Juxta humanitatem vero]
[volutus, quod in sepulchro conditus, quod in resur- visibilem, corporeum, localem, atque omnia membra]
[rectione manifestatus, non semper habebitis me humana veraciter habentem credere convenit et con-]
[vobiscum. Quare? Quoniam conversatus est se- fiteri.—August. de Essentia Divinitatis, Pars x.]
[cundum corporis presentiam quadraginta diebus Ibid. This treatise is censured as spurious. Vid.]
[cum.discipulis suis, et eis deducentibus videndo, James’ Corruptions of Scripture, Councils, and]
[non sequendo, ascendit in colum, et non est hic. Fathers.” p. 53. Lond. 1843. Riveti Crit. Sacr.]
[Ibi enim sedet ad dexteram Patris: et hic est. Non! p. 395. Geneva. 1626.]]
And in another plaee of the same book St Cyrilsaith thus: Christian people must believe, that although Christ be absent from us as concerning his body, yet by his power he governeth us and all things, and is present with all them that love him. Therefore he said: Truly, truly I say unto you, wheresoever there be two or three gathered together in my name, there am I in the midst of them. For like as when he was conversant here in earth as a man, yet then he filled heaven, and did not leave the company of angels; even so being now in heaven with his flesh, yet he filleth the earth, and is in them that love him. And it is to be marked, that although Christ should go away only as concerning his flesh, (for he is ever present in the power of his divinity,) yet for a little time he said he would be with his disciples.” These be the words of St Cyril.
St Ambrose also saith, that “we must not seek Christ upon earth, nor in
34. earth, but in heaven, where he sitteth at the right hand of his Father.” in And likewise St Gregory writeth thus: Christ,” saith he, “is not here
by the presence of his flesh, and yet he is absent no where by the
presence of his majesty”.
” ” J.
What subtlety, thinkest thou, good reader, can the papists now imagine to — defend their pernicious error, that Christ his human nature? is bodily here in earth, in the consecrated bread and wine; seeing that all the old church of Christ believed the contrary, and all the old authors wrote the contrary?
For they all affirmed and believed, that Christ, being but one person, hath nevertheless in him two natures or substances, that is to say, the nature of his Godhead, and the nature of his manhood. They say further-
[[! Οὕτω διακεισόμεθα φρονοῦντες ὀρθῶς, ὅτι κἂν εἰμι ἐν μεσῷ αὐτῶν. “Ὥσπερ yap ἀνθρώποις ἔτι]
[ἐκ τοῦ κόσμου γένηται διὰ τὴν σάρκα, παρέσται συνδιαιτώμενος, καὶ ἐπὶ γῆς ὑπάρχων μετὰ σαρκὸς,]
[πάλιν οὐδὲν ἧττον τοῖς ἐν αὐτῷ, καὶ ἐπιστατήσει ἐπλήρου μὲν οὐρανοὺς, συνῆν δὲ τότε τοῖς ἁγίοις]
[τοῖς ὅλοις ἡ θεία τε καὶ ἄῤῥητος αὐτοῦ φύσις.--- ἀγγέλοις, οὐκ ἀπελείπετό τε τῶν ἄνω χώρων” οὕτω]
[Cyril. Alex. in Evangelium Joannis. Lib. vr. καὶ νῦν ὑπάρχων ἐν οὐρανοῖς μετὰ τῆς ἰδίας cap-]
[Tom. IV. p. 600. Ed. Aubert. Paris. 1638.—But κὸς, πληροῖ μὲν τὴν γῆν, σύνεστι δὲ τοῖς ἑαυτοῦ]
[Cranmer’s quotation is evidently made from the γνωρίμοις. ἐπιτήρει δὲ ὅπως, καίτοι κατὰ μόνην]
[Latin edition, which reads as follows: Sed diligen- τὴν σαρκὰ χωρίζεσθαι προσδοκῶν, (σύνεστι γὰρ]
[ter hic animadvertendum, quod etsi corporis sui ἡμῖν τῇ δυνάμει τῆς Θεότητος did παντός,) ἔτι]
[presentiam hinc subduxerit, majestate tamen divi- μικρὸν χρόνον μεθ’ ἡμῶν ἔσεσθαι Ppnoi.~Ibid.]
[nitatis semper adest: sicut ipse a discipulis abiturus Lib. rx. cap. xxi. Tom. IV. p. 747.]]
[pollicetur:,Ecce ego vobiscum sum omnibus diebus [ Ergo non supra terram, nec in terra, nec se-]
[usque ad consummationem szculi.—‘Tom. I. col. cundum carnem te querere debemus, si volumus]
[323 Basil. 1566.] invenire. Nunc enim secundum carnem jam non 1 [2 In his majesty, 1551.] novimus Christum. Denique Stephanus non supra 4 [? Διακεῖσθαι δὲ δεῖν ἀναγκαῖον εἶναι φημὶ τοὺς terram quasivit, qui stantem te ad dexteram Dei]
[ot ye φρονοῦσιν ὀρθῶς, καὶ ἱδρυμένην ἔχουσι τὴν vidit. — Ambros. in Lucam, Lib. x. cap. xxiv. F]
[πίστιν, ws εἰ kal ἄπεστιν ἡμῶν τῇ σαρκὶ, τὴν πρὸς Tom. III. p. 109. Colon. Agrip. 1616.]]
[Θεὸν καὶ πατέρα στειλάμενος ἀποδημίαν, ἀλλ οὖν [> Non est hic, dicitur, per presentiam carnis,]
[τῇ θείᾳ δυνάμει περιέπει τὰ σύμπαντα, kal συμ- qui tamen nusquam deerat per presentiam majesta-]
[πάρεστι τοῖς ἀγαπῶσιν αὐτόν. Διὰ γάρ Tor τοῦτο tis.—Gregorii Pape Op. Homil. xxr. Tom. II.]
[καὶ ἔφασκεν” Αμὴν, ἀμὴν, λέγω ὑμῖν, ὅπου ἐὰν p.123. J. Antv. 1672.]]
[συναχθέντες ὦσι δύο ἢ τρεῖς εἰς τὸ ἐμὸν ὄνομα, ἐκεῖ [5 That Christ in his human nature, 1551.]]
more, that Christ is both gone hence from us unto heaven, and is also here with us in earth, but not in his human nature, (as the papists would have us to believe,) but the old authors say that he is in heaven, as concerning his manhood, and nevertheless both here and there, and every where, as concerning his Godhead. For although his divinity be such, that it is infinite, without measure, compass, or place, so that as concerning that nature he is cireumseribed with no place, but is every where, and filleth all the world: yet as concerning his human nature, he hath measure, compass, and place, so that when he was here upon earth, he was not at the same time in heaven; and now that he has ascended into heaven, as concerning that nature he hath now forsaken the earth, and is only in heaven. For one nature that is circumscribed, compassed, and measured, cannot be in divers places at one time. That is the faith” of the old catholic divers church, as appeareth as well by the authors before rehearsed, as by these that hereafter followeth.
’ If then the nature of the Godhead must needs be cireumseribed, if it were a body, much more must the nature of Christ’s manhood be circumscribed, and contained within the compass of a certain place.
Didymus also, in his book de Spiritu Sancto, which St Jerome did translate, proveth, that the Holy Ghost is very God, because he is in many places at one time, which no creature ean be. For, saith he, all creatures, visible and invisible, be eireumseribed and environed either within one place, (as corporal and visible things be,) or within the propriety of their own substance, (as angels and invisible ereatures be;) so that no angel, saith he, can be at one time in two places. And forasmuch as the Holy Ghost is in many men at one time, therefore, saith he, the Holy Ghost must needs be God ”
The same affirmeth St Basil, that the angel which was with Cornelius, was.. ge.. not at the same time with Philip; nor the angel which spake to Zachary in the altar, was not the same time in his proper place in heaven. But the Holy Ghost was at one time in Habakkuk, and in Daniel in Babylon, and with Jeremy in prison, and with Ezekiel in Chober; whereby he proveth that the Holy Ghost is ΓΙ God”,
Wherefore the papists, (which say, that the body of Christ is in an infinite number of places at one time,) do make his body to be God, and so confound the
[[^ This is the faith, 1551, and Orig. ed.] scribantur loco et finibus invisibiles creature, tamen]
[j [ Nam spatia locorum tolle corporibus, nus- proprietate substantie finiuntur. Spiritus autem]
[quam erunt; et quia nusquam erunt, nec erunt. sanctus, cum in pluribus sit, non habet substan-]
[Tolle ipsa corpora qualitatibus corporum, non erit tiam circumscriptam.— Didymus de Spiritu Sancto,]
[4 ubi sint, et ideo necesse est ut non sint.—August. Lib. 1. cap. i. ad calcem Hieron. Ed. Villars.]
[ad Dardanum, cap. viii. Pars viri. Basil. ap. Tom. IT. p. 105.]]
[is Amerbach. 1506.] [} Ὁ ydp τῷ Κορνηλίῳ ἐπιστὰς ἄγγελος οὐκ]
[i [5 Ei ydp ὅλως τομῆς τε xal μερισμοῦ, kal ὧν ἣν ἐν ταὐτῷ καὶ παρὰ τῷ Φιλίππῳ” οὐδὲ ὁ ἀπὸ τοῦ]
[ἐκεῖνοι φασὶν, ἡ θεία φύσις ἀνέχεται, νοείσθω kal θυσιαστηρίου τῷ Ζαχαρίᾳ διαλεγόμενος κατὰ τὸν]
[σῶμα” el δὲ τοῦτο, καὶ ἐν τόπῳ πάντως που, καὶ αὐτὸν καιρὸν καὶ ἐν οὐρανῷ τὴν οἰκείαν στάσιν ἐπλή-]
[ἐν μεγέθει, καὶ wood.—Cyril. cum Hermia Dial- ρου. τὸ μέν τοι πνεῦμα ὁμοῦ τε καὶ ἐν Ἀββακοὺμ]
[gus de Trinitate, Lib. 11. ( corpora non sunt sine ἐνεργεῖν, καὶ ἐν Δανιὴλ ἐπὶ τῆς Βαβυλωνίας πεπί-]
[loco et circumscriptione). Tom. V. Pars 1. p. 447. στευται’ καὶ ἐν τῷ καταῤῥάκτῃ [εἴρηται] εἶναι pera]
[Ed Aubert. Paris. 1638.] Ἱερεμίου, kal μετὰ “lel exuj ἐπὶ τοῦ Χοβάρ. πνεῦ-]
[Au [ Ipse Spiritus sanctus, si unus de creaturis ua yap Κυρίου πεπλήρωκε τὴν οἰκουμένην. Basil.]
[t esset, saltem cireumscriptam haberet substantiam, de Spiritu Sancto, cap. xxii. Tom. II. p. 342.]
[Sieut universa qua facta sunt. Nam etsi non circum- Paris. 1637.]]
[E:; lenaniren ] 7]
two natures of Christ, attributing to his human nature that thing which belongeth only to his divinity; which is a most heinous and detestable heresy.
Against whom writeth Fulgentius in this wise, speaking of the distinction and diversity of the two natures in Christ:
“One and the self-same Christ,” saith he, “of mankind was made a man, — eompassed in a place, who of his Father is God, without measure or place. One and the self-same person, as concerning his man’s substance, was not in heaven, when he was in earth, and forsook the earth when he ascended into heaven: but as concerning his godly substance, which is above all measure, he neither left heaven when he came from heaven, nor he left not the earth, when he ascended into heaven: which may be known by the most eertain word of Christ himself, who, to shew the placing of his humanity, said to his disciples, ‘I ascend up to my Father and your Father, to my God and your God. Also when he had said of Lazarus that he was dead, he added, saying: ‘I am glad for your sakes, that you may believe, for I was not there. But to shew the unmeasurable compass of his divinity, he said to his disciples, Behold, I am with you always unto the world’s end.” Now how did he go up into heaven, but because he is a very man, contained within a place? Or how is he present with faithful people, but because he is very God, being without measure ’?”
Of these words of Fulgentius it is declared most certainly, that Christ is not here with us in earth but by his Godhead, and that his humanity is in heaven only, and absent from us. ir Yet the same is more plainly shewed, if more plainly can be spoken, by WVieilius, a bishop and an holy martyr. He writeth thus against the heretic Eutyches, which denied the humanity of Christ, holding opinion that he was only God, and not man: whose error Vigilius confuting, proveth that Christ had in him two natures joined together in one person, the nature of his Godhead, and the nature of his manhood. Thus he writeth?:
“Christ said to his disciples, If you loved me you would be glad, for I go Ly glad, g unto my Father.” And again he said, It is expedient for you that I go, for if I go not, the Comforter shall not come unto you. And yet surely the eternal Word of God, the virtue of God, the wisdom of God, was ever with his Father,
[[! Unus idemque secundum carnem de matre Et iterum: Expedit vobis ut ego eam; si enim]
[temporaliter natus, qui secundum divinitatem de ego non abiero, Paracletus ad vos non veniet.” Et]
[Patre permanet sempiternus: unus idemque homo certe verbum Dei, virtus Dei, sapientia Dei, semper]
[localis ex homine, qui est Deus immensus ex Pa- apud Patrem et in Patre fuit, etiam quando in nobis]
[tre: unus idemque secundum humanam substan- nobiscum fuit. Neque enim cum terrena misericor-]
[tiam absens colo, cum esset in terra, et derelinquens diter incoluit, de celesti habitatione recessit. Cum]
[terram, cum ascendisset in celum; secundum divi- Patre enim ubique est totus pari divinitate, quem]
[nam vero immensamque substantiam, nec colum nullus continet locus. Plena sunt quippe omnia]
[dimittens, cum de celo descendit, nec terram dese- Filio, nec est aliquis locus divinitatis ejus presentia]
[rens, cum ad celum ascendit. Quod ipsius Domini vacuus. Unde ergo et quo se iturum dicit, aut]
[certissimo potest cognosci sermone; qui ut localem quomodo se ad Patrem perrecturum adserit, a quo]
[ostenderet humanitatem suam, dicit discipulis suis, sine dubio nunquam recessit? Sed hoc erat ire ad]
[Ascendo ad Patrem meum et ad Patrem vestrum, Patrem et recedere a nobis, auferre de hoc mundo]
[Deum meum et Deum vestrum.” De Lazaro quo- naturam quam susceperat ex nobis. Vides ergo ei-]
[que cum dixisset, Lazarus mortuus est,” ad. dem natura proprium fuisse, ut auferretur et abiret —]
[junxit dicens: “Et gaudeo propter vos, ut credatis, a nobis, quz in fine temporum reddenda est nobis, —]
[quoniam non eram ibi.” Immensitatem vero sue secundum attestantium vocem angelorum, Hic — -]
[divinitatis ostendens discipulis dicit: Ecce ego vo- Jesus, qui receptus est a vobis, sic veniet, quemad- —]
[biscum sum omnibus diebus, usque ad consumma- modum vidistis eum euntem in celum.” Nam vide.]
[tionem seculi.” Quomodo autem ascendit in celum, miraculum, vide utriusque proprietatis mysterium: —]
[nisi quia localis et verus est homo? aut quomodo Dei Filius, quisecundum humanitatem suam recessit —]
[adest fidelibus suis, nisi quia idem immensus et a nobis, secundum divinitatem suam ait nobis,]
[verus est Deus?— Fulgent. ad Trasimundum Re- Ecce ego vobiscum sum omnibus diebus usque]
[gem. Lib. 11. cap. xiii. p. 107. Paris. 1684.] ad consummationem szculi.”— Vigilius Afer Ad- [^ Ait discipulis suis, Si diligeretis me, gaude- versus Eutychen, Lib. 1. Tom. V. p. 712. Colon.]
[retis, quia vado ad Patrem, quia Pater majormeest.” Agrip. 1618.]]
OF THE PRESENCE OF CHRIST. 99 and in his Father, yea, even at the same time when he was with us, and in us. For when he did mercifully dwell in this world, he left not his habitation in heaven: for he is every where whole with his Father, equal in divinity, whom no place can contain; for the Son filleth all things, and there is no place that lacketh the presence of his divinity. From whence then, and whither did he say he would go? Or how did he say, that he went to his Father, from whom doubtless he never departed; but that to go to his Father, and from us, was to take from this world that nature which he received of us? “Thou seest therefore that it was the property of that nature to be taken away and go from us, which in the end of the world shall be rendered again to us, as the angels witnessed, saying: This Jesus which is taken from you, shall come again like as you saw him going up into heaven. For look upon the miracle, look upon the mystery of both the natures: the Son of God, as eoncerning his humanity, went from us; as concerning his divinity, he said unto us: Behold, I am with you all the days unto the world’s end.’”
Thus far have I rehearsed the words of Vigilius, and by and by he concludeth thus?: He is with us, and not with us. For those whom he left, and went from them, as concerning his humanity, those he left not, nor forsook them not, as touching his divinity. For as touching the form of a servant, which he took away from us into heaven, he is absent from us; but by the form of God, which goeth not from us, he is present with us in earth, and nevertheless, both present and absent, he is all one Christ.”
Hitherto you have heard Vigilius speak, that Christ, as concerning his bodily presenee and the nature of his manhood, is gone from us, taken from us, is gone up into heaven, is not with us, hath left us, hath forsaken us.” But as concerning the other nature of his deity, “he is still with us,” so that he is both with us, and not with us, with us in the nature of his deity, and not with us in the nature of his humanity.” And yet more clearly doth the same Vigilius declare the same thing in another place, saying:
“If the word and flesh were both of one nature, seeing that the word is every where, why is not the flesh then every where? For when it was in earth, then verily it was not in heaven: and now when it is in heaven, it is not surely in earth. And it is so sure that it is not in earth, that as concerning it we look for him to come from heaven, whom as concerning his eternal word we believe to be with us in earth. Therefore by your doctrine,” saith Vigilius unto Eutyches, who defended that the divinity and humanity in Christ was but one nature, “either - the word is contained in a place with his flesh, or else the flesh is every where
[5 Sed et nobiscum est, et non est nobiscum. verbum ubique est, caro autem ejus ubique non est,]
[Quia quos reliquit, et a quibus discessit humanitate apparet unum eundemque Christum utriusque esse]
[sua, non reliquit nec deseruit divinitate sua. Per nature; et esse quidem ubique secundum naturam]
[formam enim servi, quam abstulit a nobis in celum, divinitatis suze, et loco contineri secundum naturam]
[absens est nobis: per formam Dei, qua non recedit humanitatis suz: creatum esse, et initium non ha-]
[a nobis, in terris praesens est nobis; tamen et pre- bere: morti subjacere, et mori non posse: quod]
[sens et absens ipse unus idemque est nobis.—Ibid.] unum illi est ex natura verbi, qua Deus est, aliud ex [ Si verbi et carnis una natura est, quomodo, natura carnis, qua idem Deus homoest. Igitur unus]
[eum verbum ubique sit, non ubique inveniatur et Dei Filius, idemque hominis factus Filius; habet]
[caro? Namque quando in terra fuit, non erat utique initium ex natura carnis sue, et non habet initium]
[in celo: et nunc, quia in colo est, non est utique ex natura divinitatis suze: creatus est per naturam]
[in terra, et in tantum non est, ut secundum ipsam carnis su, et non est creatus per naturam divinita-]
[Christum spectemus venturum de colo, quem se- tis sum: circumscribitur loco per naturam carnis]
[cundum verbum nobiscum esse credimus in terra. sua et loco non capitur per naturam divinitatis suz:]
[Igitur secundum vos, aut verbum cum came sua minor est etiam angelis per naturam carnis suz, et]
[loco continetur, aut caro cum verbo ubique est, equalis est Patri secundum naturam divinitatis]
[quando una natura contrarium quid et diversum sua: mortuus est natura carnis sus, et non est]
[non recipit in se ipsa. Diversum est autem et longe mortuus natura divinitatis suz.— Ibid. Lib. iv.]
[dissimile circumscribi loco, et ubique esse; et quia p. 722.]]
with the word. For one nature cannot receive in itself two diverse and eontrary things. But these two things be diverse and far unlike, that is to say, to be contained in a place, and to be every where. Therefore inasmuch as the word is every where, and the flesh is not every where, it appeareth plainly, that one Christ himself hath in him two natures; and that by his divine nature he is every where, and by his human nature he is contained in a place; that he is created, and hath no beginning; that he is subject to death, and cannot die: whereof one he hath by the nature of his word, whereby he is God, and the other he hath by the nature of his flesh, whereby the same God is man also. Therefore one Son of God, the self-same was made the son of man; and he hath a beginning by the nature of his flesh, and no beginning by the nature of his Godhead. He is created by the nature of his flesh, and not created by the nature of his Godhead. He is comprehended in a place by the nature of his flesh, and not comprehended in a place by the nature of his Godhead. He is inferior to angels in the nature of his flesh, and is equal to his Father in the nature of his Godhead. He died by the nature of his flesh, and died not by the nature of his Godhead. This is the faith and catholic confession, which the apostles taught, the martyrs did corroborate, and faithful people keep unto this day.”
All these be the sayings of Vigilius, who according to all the other authors before rehearsed, and to the faith and catholic confession of the apostles, martyrs, and all faithful people unto his time, saith, that as concerning Christ’s humanity, when he was here on earth, he was not in heaven, and now when he is in heaven, he is not in earth; for one nature cannot be both contained in a place in heaven, and be also here in earth at one time. And forasmuch as Christ is here with us in earth, and also is contained in a place in heaven, he proveth thereby, that Christ hath two natures in him, the nature of a man, whereby he is gone from us, and ascended into heaven, and the nature of his Godhead, whereby he is here with us in earth. So that it is not one nature that is here with us, and that is gone from us, that is ascended into heaven and there contained, and that is permanent here with us in earth. Wherefore the papists (which now of late years have made a new faith, that Christ’s natural body is really and naturally present both with us both here in earth’, and sitteth at the right hand of his Father in heaven,) do err in two very horrible heresies:
The one, that they confound his two natures, his Godhead and his manhood, attributing unto his humanity that thing which appertaineth only to his divinity, that is to say, to be in heaven, earth?, and in many places at one time. The other is, that they divide and separate his human nature or his body, making of
101. one body of Christ two bodies and two natures, one which is in heaven, visible and palpable, having all members and proportions of a most perfect natural man; and another which they say is in earth here with us, in every bread and wine that is consecrated, having no distinction, form, nor proportion of members: which contrarieties and diversities, as this holy martyr Vigilius saith, cannot be together in one nature.
Winchester
These differences end in the forty-eighth leaf, in the second column. 1 intend now to touch the J’urther matter of the book with the manner of handling of it3, and where an evident untruth is, there to join an issue, and where sleight and craft is, there to mote it in the whole.
The matter of the book, from thence unto the fifty-sivth leaf, touching the being of Christ in [’ Both with us here in earth, 1551, and Orig. ed.] [? In heaven and earth, 1551, Orig. ed.]
Of the handling of it, 1551.]
heaven and not in earth, is out of purpose superfluous. The article of our creed that Christ ascended to heaven, and sitteth on the right hand of his Father, hath been and is most constantly believed of true christian men, which the true faith of Christ’s real presence in the sacrament doth mot touch or impair. Nor Christ being whole God and man in the sacrament, is thereby either out of heaven, or to be said conversant in earth, because the conversation is not earthly, but spiritual and godly, being the ascension of Christ, the end of his conversation in earth; and therefore all that reasoning of the author is clearly void, to travail to prove that is not denied, only for a sleight to make it seem às though it were denied.
Canterbury
Here is such a sleight used by you, as is worthy to be noted of all men. For I go not only about to prove in this place only that Christ, as concerning his human nature, is in heaven, (which I know you deny not,) but I prove also that he is so in heaven, that he is not in earth, which you utterly deny, and it is the chief point in contention between us. But by this craft of appeaching me of sleight, that I go about to prove that thing which you deny not, (which is untrue,) you have used such a sleight, that you pass over eight leaves of my book together, wherein I prove that Christ, as concerning his corporal presence, is not here in earth, and you answer not one word to any of my arguments. And I pray thee note, good reader, what a strange manner of sleight this is, to pass over eight leaves together clearly unanswered, and that in the chief point that is in variance between us, under pretence that I use sleight, where in deed I use none, but prove plainly that Christ is not bodily in heaven and in earth, both at one time. If he had but touched mine arguments glancing by them, it had been somewhat: but utterly to fly away, and not once to touch them, I think thou wilt judge no small sleight and craft therein. And methink in good reason, the matter ought to be judged against him for default of answer, who being present answereth nothing at all to the matter whereof he is accused; seeing that the law saith: Qui tacet, consentire videtur.
Yet Smith is to be commended in respect of you, who attempteth at the least to see what shifts he could make to avoid my proofs, and busieth himself rather than he would stand mute, to say something to them. And yet in deed it had been as good for him to have said nothing at all as to say that which is nothing to the purpose.
First to the scriptures by me alleged particularly, he utterly answereth nothing. To Origen and St Augustine by name, and to all the other authors by me alleged, he maketh this brief answer in general, that whatsoever those, authors say, they mean no more, but that Christ is not here in earth visibly, naturally, and by circumscrip- 1… σον. ion, and yet nevertheless he is in the sacrament above nature, invisibly, and without circumscription. This subtle distinction hath Smith devised, (or rather followeth other papists therein,) to answer the authors which I have alleged. And yet of Smith’s own distinction it followeth, that Christ is not in the sacrament carnally and corporally. For if Christ be in the sacrament but supernaturally, invisibly, and without circum- seription, then he is not there carnally and corporally, as St Augustine reasoneth ad JDardanwm. But yet Smith only saith that the authors so meant, and proveth not one word of his saying, supposing that the old holy writers be like to the papists, 1 which write one thing, and when they list not, or cannot defend it, they say they ~ mean another. i For those authors make no such distinction as Smith speaketh of, affirming divers and contrary things to be in one nature of Christ in divers respects; but their dis- ᾿ς tinetion is of the two natures in Christ, that is to say, the nature of his Godhead, and the nature of his manhood. And they affirm plainly, that the diversity whereof they spake cannot be in one nature, as you say it is, but must needs argue and prove diversity of natures. And therefore by that diversity and instinction^ in Christ they prove against the heretics that Christ hath two natures in him; which were utterly
[[ To flee away, 1551. ] [ See note 8, p. 97.] [5 Distinction, 1551]]
no proof at all, if one nature in divers respects might have that diversity: for the heretics should have had a ready answer at hand, that such diversity proveth not that Christ had two natures, for one nature may have such diversity, if it be true that Smith saith. And so Smith, with other papists which saith as he doth, putteth a sword in the heretics’ hands to fight against the catholic faith. This, good reader, thou shalt easily perceive, if thou do no more but read the authors which I have in this place alleged.
And yet, for thy more ready instruction, I shall make a brief rehearsal of the Chief effect of them, as concerning this matter. To answer this question, how it can be said that Christ is a stranger, and gone hence into heaven, and yet is also here with us in earth, Smith and other papists resolve this matter by divers respects in one nature of Christ; but the old catholic writers which I alleged, resolve the matter 9 by two natures in Christ, affirming most certainly that such two diverse things cannot have place both in one nature. And therefore say they, that Christ is gone hence ond js absent in his humanity, who in his deity is still here with us. They say also that as concerning his man’s nature, the catholic profession in our creed teacheth us to believe that he hath made it immortal, but not changed the nature of a very man’s body; for his body is in heaven, and in one certain place of heaven, because that so requireth the measure and compass of a very man’s body.
It is also, say they, visible, and hath all the members of a perfect man’s body. And further they say, that if Christs body were not contained within the compass of a place, it were no body, insomuch that if the Godhead were a body, it must needs be in a place, and have quantity, bigness, and circumscription. For all creatures, say they, visible and invisible, be circumscribed and contained within a certain compass, either locally within one place, as corporal and visible things be, or else within the property of their own substance, as angels and invisible creatures be. And this is one strong argument whereby they prove that the Holy Ghost is God, because he is in many places at one time, which no creature can be, as they teach. And yet they say moreover, that Christ did not ascend into heaven but by his humanity, nor is not here in earth but by his divinity, which hath no compass nor measure. And finally they say, that to go to his Father from us, was to take from us that nature which he received of us: and therefore when his body was in earth, then surely it was not in heaven; and now when it is in heaven, surely it is not in earth. For one nature cannot have in itself two sundry and contrary things.
All things’ here rehearsed be written by the old ancient authors which I have alleged, and they conclude the whole matter in this wise, that this is the faith and catholic confession, which the apostles taught, the martyrs did corroborate, and faithful people keep unto this day. Whereby it appeareth evidently, that the doctrine of Smith and the papists at that day was not yet sprung, nor had taken no root.
Wherefore diligently ponder and weigh, I beseech thee, gentle reader, the sayings of these authors, and see whether they say, that one nature in Christ may be both in heaven and in earth, both here with us and absent from us at one time; and whether they resolve this matter of Christ’s being in heaven and in earth, as Smith doth, to be understand of his manhood in diversity of these respects visible and invisible. And when thou hast well considered the authors’ sayings, then give credit to Smith as thou shalt see cause.
But this allegation of these authors hath made the matter so hot, that the bishop of Winchester durst not once touch it, and Smith, as soon as he had touched it, felt it so scalding hot, that he durst not abide it, but shrank away by and by for fear of burning his fingers. Now hear what followeth further in my book.
the catholic faith ever since Christ’s ascension; it is now to be considered what moved the papists to make a new and contrary faith, and what scriptures have they? for their purpose. What moved them I know mot, but their own iniquity, or the nature and condition of the see of Rome, which is of all other most contrary to Christ, and therefore most worthy to be called the see of antichrist. And as for scripture, they allege none but only one, and that not truly understanded, but to serve their purpose wrested out of tune, whereby they make it to jar and sound contrary to all other scriptures pertaining to the matter.
“Christ took bread,” say they, “blessed, and brake it, and gave it to his diseiples, saying, This is my body.” These words they ever still repeat and beat upon, that Christ said, “This is my body.” And this saying they make their sheet-anchor, to prove thereby as well the real and natural presence of Christ’s body in the sacrament, as their imagined transubstantiation. For these words of Christ, say they, be most plain and most true. Then forasmuch as he said, This is my body,” it must needs be true that that thing which the priest holdeth in his hands is Christ’s body. And if it be Christ’s body, then can it not be bread. ^ Whereof they gather by their reasoning, that there is Christ’s body really present, and no bread.
Now forasmuch as all their proof hangeth only upon these words, “This is my body:” the true sense and meaning of these words must be examined. But, say they, what need théy any examination? what words can be more plain than to say, “This is my body?”
Truth it is indeed, that the words be as plain as may be spoken; but that the sense is not so plain, it is manifest to every man that weigheth substantially the circumstances of the place. For when Christ gave bread to his disciples, and said, “This is my body,” there is no man of any discretion, that understandeth the English tongue, but he may well know by the order of the speech that Christ spake those words of the bread, calling it his body: as all the old authors also do affirm, although some of the papists deny the same. Wherefore this sentence cannot mean as the words seem and purport, but there must needs be some figure or mystery in this speech, more than appeareth in the plain words. For by this manner of speech plainly understand without any figure, as the words lie, can be gathered none other sense, but that bread is Christ’s body, and that Christ’s body is bread; which allehristian ears do abhor to hear. Wherefore in these words must needs be sought out another sense and meaning than the words of themselves do bear.
And although the true sense and understanding of these words be sufficiently declared before, when I spake of transubstantiation, yet to make the matter so plain that no scruple or doubt shall remain, here is occasion given more fully to entreat thereof: in which process shall be shewed, that these sentenees of Christ, “This is my body,” “This is my blood,” be figurative speeches. And although it be manifest enough by the plain words of the gospel, and proved before in the process of transubstantiation, that Christ spake οὗ bread, when he said, “This is my body;” likewise that it was very wine which he called his blood; yet lest the papists should say, that we suck this out of our own fingers, the same shall be proved by testimony of the old authors, to be the true and old faith of the catholic church: whereas the school authors and papists shall not be able to shew so much as one word of any ancient author to the contrary.
[3 [3 They have, 1551, and Orig. ed.]]
32. that “Christ confessed bread (which is a creature) to be his body, and the cup to be his blood.” And in the same book he writeth thus also: The bread wherein the thanks be given is the body of the Lord.” And yet again in the same book he saith, that Christ taking bread of the same sort that our bread is of, confessed that it was his body; and that that thing which was tempered in the chalice was his blood.” And in the fifth book he writeth further, “that of the chalice (which is his blood) a man is nourished, and doth grow by the bread,” which is his body’.
These words of Irenzus be most plain, that-3XChxist taking very material bread, a creature of God, and of such sort as other bread is which we do use, called that his body, when he said, This is my body;” and the wine also which doth feed and nourish us, “he called his blood.”
105. peateth the self-same words.
And St Cyprian, in the first book of his epistles, saith the same thing, that Christ called such bread as is made of many corns joined together his body, and such wine he called his blood, as is pressed out of many grapes, and made Epist. into wine.” And in his second book he saith these words: Water is not the blood of Christ, but wine.” And again in the same epistle he saith, that “it was wipe which Christ called his blood; and that if wine be not in the chalice, then we drink not of the fruit of the vine?.” And in the same epistle he saith, that meal alone, or water alone, is not the body of Christ, except they be both joined together, to make thereof bread.” in Epiphanius also saith that Christ, speaking of a loaf which is round in fashion, and cannot see, hear, nor feel, said of it: This is my body’”.”
And St Jerome, writing ad Hedibiam, saith these words: Let us mark… wi ὑἰς that the bread which the Lord brake, and gave to his disciples, was the body of our Saviour Christ, as he said unto them: Take and eat; this is my body.
[[! Sed et suis discipulis dans consilium, primi- 3 ad Magnum. Lib. 1. Epist. vi. p. 208. Paris.]
[tias Deo offerre de suis creaturis, non quasi indi- 1574.]]
[genti, sed ut ipsi nec infructuosi nec ingrati sint, [ Sanguis Christi non aqua est utique, sed vi-]
[eum qui ex creatura est panis accepit, et gratias num.—Id. ad Caecilium. Lib. 11. Epist. iii. p. 143.]]
[egit, dicens: Hoc est corpus meum.” Et calicem [5 Vinum fuisse, quod sanguinem suum dixit.]
[similiter, qui est ex ea creatura, quz est secundum Quomodo autem de creatura vitis novum vinum cum]
[nos, suum sanguinem confessus est, et novi Testa- Christo in regno patris bibemus, si in sacrificio Dei]
[menti novam docuit oblationem.—lIrenzeus, contr. patris et Christi vinum non offerimus nec calicem]
[Valent. Lib. rv. cap. 32, p. 323. Quomodo autem Domini dominica traditione miscemus? — Ib. p.]
[constabit eis, eum panem in quo gratie acte sint, 145.]]
[corpus esse Domini sui—— Quemadmodum enim qui [$ Quomodo nec corpus Domini potest esse fa-]
[est a terra panis, percipiens invocationem Dei, jam rina sola, aut aqua sola, nisi utrumque adunatum]
[non communis panis est, sed eucharistia, ex duabus fuerit et copulatum, et panis unius compage solida- ’]
[rebus constans, terrena et ceelesti. Cap. 34. pp. tum.—Ib. 146.]]
[326 7. Quando ergo et mixtus calix et factus pa- [7 Ανέστη ἐν τῷ δείπνῳ, kal ἔλαβε τάδε” καὶ]
[nis percipit verbum Dei, et fit eucharistia sanguinis εὐχαριστήσας εἶπε, τοῦτο μου ἐστὶ τόδε” καὶ ὁρῶ-]
[et corporis Christi, ex quibus augetur et consistit μεν ὅτι οὐκ Todv ἐστιν, οὐδὲ ὅμοιον, οὐ τῇ ἐνσάρκῳ]
[carnis nostr substantia. Lib. v. cap. ii. p. 397. εἰκόνι, οὐ τῇ ἀοράτῳ θεότητι, οὐ τοῖς χαρακτῆρσι]
[ed. Oxon. 1702. ] τῶν μελῶν: TO μὲν γάρ ἐστι στρογγυλοειδὲς Kal [3 Sic enim Christus revelavit, panem corpus ἀναίσθητον, ὡς πρὸς τὴν δύναμιν” καὶ ἠθέλησεν]
[suum appellans. Tertullian. adversus Judeos, χάριτι εἰπεῖν, τοῦτό μου ἐστὶ T6de.—Epiphanius,]
[p. 196, et adversus Marcionem, Lib. 1v. p. 458. in Ancorato, Cap. lvii. Tom. II. p. 60. Ed. Patav.]
[Lutetizz Paris. 1664.] Paris. 1622.] [> Nam quando Dominus corpus suum panem [? Nos autem audiamus panem, quem fregit]
[vocat de multorum granorum adunatione congestum; Dominus, deditque discipulis suis, esse corpus]
[et quando sanguinem suum vinum appellat, de bo- Domini Salvatoris, ipso dicente ad eos: Accipite]
[tris atque acinis plurimis expressum atque in unum et comedite, hoc est corpus meum.”’—Hieron. He-]
[coactum. (Editio Erasmica in vinum).— Cyprian. dibiz. Quest. ii. Tom. IIT. p. 95. Francof. 1684.] —]
And St Augustine also saith, that although we may set forth Christ by mouth, by writing, and by the sacrament of his body and blood, yet we call neither our tongue, nor words, nor ink, letters, nor paper, the body and blood of Christ; but that we call the body and blood of Christ, which is taken of the fruit of the earth, and consecrated by mystical prayer.” And also he saith: Jesus called meat his body, and drink his blood.” E^
Moreover Cyril upon St John saith, that Christ gave to his disciples
pieces of bread, saying: Take, eat; this is my body,”
Likewise Theodoretus saith: When Christ gave the holy mysteries, he called bread his body, and the cup mixed with wine and water, he called his blood.”
By all these foresaid authors and places, with many more, it is plainly proved, that when our Saviour Christ gave bread unto his disciples, saying, “Take and eat; this is my body;” and likewise when he gave them the cup, saying, “Divide this among you, and drink you all of this, for this is my blood;” he called then the very material bread his body, and the very wine his blood.
That bread, I say, that is one of the creatures here in earth among us, and that groweth out of the earth, and is made of many grains of corn beaten into flour, and mixed with water, and so baken and made into bread, of such sort as other our bread is, that hath neither sense nor reason, and finally that feedeth and nourisheth our bodies; such bread Christ called his body, when he said, “This is my body:” and such wine as is made of grapes pressed together, and thereof is made drink, which nourish? the body, such wine he called his blood.
This is the true doctrine, confirmed as well by the holy scripture, as by all ancient authors of Christ’s church, both Greeks and Latins; that is to say, that when our Saviour Christ gave bread and wine to his disciples, and spake. these words, This is my body, this is my blood,” it is very bread and wine which he called his body and blood.
Now let the papists shew some authority for their opinion, either of scripture, or of some ancient author. And let them not constrain all men to follow their fond devices, only because they say it is so, without any other ground or authority, but their own bare words. For in such wise credit is to be given p to God’s word only, and not to the word of man. As many of them as I have read (the bishop of Winchester only excepted) do say, that Christ called not bread his body, nor wine his blood, when he said, “This is my body, this is my blood.” And yet in expounding these words they vary among themselves; which is a token that they be uncertain of their own doctrine.: For some of them say, that by this pronoun demonstrative this” Christ understood not the bread and wine, but his body and blood. b. And other some say, that by the pronoun “this” he meant neither the bread mor wine, nor his body nor blood; but that he meant a particular thing un-
[[? Potuit tamen significando predicare Dominum [1 Τοῖς ydp ἤδη πεπιστευκόσι διακλάσας τὸν]
[Jesum Christum, aliter per linguam suam, aliter ἄρτον ἐδίδου, λέγων: Λάβετε, φάγετε” τοῦτό]
[per epistolam, aliter per sacramentum corporis et ἐστι τὸ σῶμά mov.—Cyrill. in Joannem. Lib. rv.]
[sanguinis ejus. Nec linguam quippe ejus, nec cap. ld. “Tom. IV. p. 360. Ed. Aubert. Paris.]
[membranas, nec atramentum, nec significantes 1638. In the Latin version, fragmenta panis]
[sonos lingua editos, nec signa literarum conscrip- dedit.]]
[ta pelliculis, corpus Christi et sanguinem dici- [!! Ἔν δέ ye τῇ τῶν μυστηρίων παραδόσει σῶμα]
[ἶ mus, sed illud tantum quod ex fructibus terre accep- τὸν ἄρτον ἐκάλεσε, καὶ αἷμα τὸ κρᾶμα.:— ΤἜεο-]
[tum et prece mystica consecratum.—Augustin, de doretus in Dialogo 1. Tom. IV. p. 26. Hal»]
[Trinitate. Lib. rrr. cap. 4. Pars v. Basil. ap. 1769-94.]]
[Amerbach. 1506.] [13 Nourisheth, 1551, and Orig. ed.]]
certain, which they call individuum vagum, or individuwm in genere; Y trow some mathematical quiddity, they cannot tell what’.
But let all these papists together shew any one authority, either of seripture or of ancient author, either Greek or Latin, that saith as they say, that Christ called not bread and wine his body and blood, but individuum vagum; and for my part I shall give them place and confess that they say true.
And if they can shew nothing for them of antiquity, but only their own bare words, then it is reason that they give place to the truth confirmed by so many authorities, both of scripture and of ancient writers, which is, that Christ called very material bread his body, and very wine made of grapes his blood.
Winchester
After this the author occupieth a great mwmber of leaves, that is to say, from the fiftyseventh leaf unto the seventy-fourth, to prove Christ’s words, This is my body,” to be a figurative speech. Sleight and shift is used in the matter, without any effectual consecution, to him that is learned.
First, the author saith, Christ called “bread” his body, confessed? “bread” his body. To this is answered, Christ’s calling is a making, as St Paul saith: Vocat ea que non sunt, tanquam ea quee sint; “He calleth that be not as they were.” And so his calling (as Chry-in sostom 3 and the Greek commentaries say) is a making; which also the catechism teacheth, iv. translated by Justus Jonas in Germany, and after by this author in English. Tertullian saith: Christ made bread his body;” and it is all one speech in Christ being God, declaring pis ordinances, whether he use the word “call,” or “makes” for in his mouth to call is to make4. de Cyprian saith according hereunto, how bread is by God’s ommipotency made flesh: whereupon also this speech, Bread is flesh, is as much to say as made flesh; mot that bread being bread is flesh, but that was bread is flesh by God’s omnipotency; and so this author, entreating this matter as he doth, hath partly opened the faith of transubstantiation. For indeed bread being bread is mot Christ’s body, but that was bread is mow Christ’s body, because bread is made Christ’s body, and because Christ called bread his body, which was in Christ to make bread his body. When Christ made water wine, the speech is very proper to say, water is made wine. For after like manner of speech we say, Christ justifeth a wicked man, Christ saveth sinners, and the physician hath made the sick man whole, and such diet will make an whole man sick. All these speeches be proper amd plain, so as the construction be mot made captious and sophistical, to join that was to that now is, forgetting the mean work.
When Christ said, This is my body,” there is no” necessity that the demonstration this” should be referred to the outward visible matter, but may be referred to the invisible substance. As in the speech of God the Father upon Christ in baptism: This is my Son.”
And here, when this author taketh his recreation to speak of the feigning of the papists, I shall join this issue wn this place, that he wnderstandeth mot what he saith, and if his knowledge be mo better than is uttered here in the pen, to be in this point clearly condemned of ignorance.
Canterbury
Here is another sleight, such as the like hath not lightly been seen. For where I wrote that when Christ said, “This is my body,” it was bread that he called his body, you turn the matter to make a descant upon these two words, “calling” and
[[! The various opinions may be found collected dicendo, id est, figura corporis mei.— Tertullian.]
[by bishop Jewellin his Reply to Harding, Article adversus Marcionem. Lib. 1v. pp. 457, 8. Lu-]
[24 on Individuum vagum, p. 462, &c.] tetizz Paris. 1664.]]
[[? Christ confessed bread, 1551.] [5 Panis iste quem Dominus discipulis porrige-]
[[? διὰ τοῦτο οὐδὲ cime, kal παράγοντος Td οὐκ bat, non effigie sed natura mutatus, omnipotentia]
[ὄντα, ἀλλὰ καλοῦντος, τὴν πλείονα εὐκολίαν δηλῶν. verbi factus est caro.— Cyprian. (Arnoldi) De Cena]
[ὥσπερ γὰρ, k. τ. é.—Chrysost. in Epist. ad Rom. Domini. p. 468. Paris. 1574.]]
[Hom. viii. Tom. IX. p. 504. Ed. Bened.] [$ So as construction, but not made captious,]
^ Acceptum panem, et distributum discipulis, Orig. ed. Winch.
[n corpus illum suum fecit, hoc est corpus meum [7 no inserted from edit. 1551.]]
“making,” that the minds of the readers should be so occupied with the discussion of these two words, that in the meantime they should forget what thing it was that was called and made. Like unto men that dare larks?, which hold up an hoby, that the larks’ eyes being ever upon the hoby, should not see the net that is laid on their heads.
And yet finally you grant that which Smith denieth, that it was bread which Christ called his body, when he said, “This is my body.” And so that which was not his body in deed he called his body, who calleth things that be not, as they were the things in deed. And if his calling be making, then his calling bread his body is making bread his body: and so is not only Christs body made present, but also the bread is made his body, because it is called his body; and so must bread be the thing whereof Christ’s body is made: which before you denied in the eleventh comparison, calling that saying so foolish, that it were “not tolerable to be devised by a scoffer in a play to supply when his fellow had forgotten his part.” And thus should you conclude yourself, if Christs calling were making, which in deed is not true: for then should Christ have made himself a vine, when he called himself a vine; and have made St John the blessed virgin Mary’s son, when he called him her son; and should have made his apostles vine-branches, when he called them s0; and should have made Peter a devil, when he called him devil.
After, when you come to make answer unto the authors cited by me in this place, first you skip over Irene, the eldest author of them all, because, I think, he is too hard meat for you well to digest, and therefore you will not once taste of him.
In Tertullian and Cyprian you agree again, that when Christ said, “This is my body,” it was bread that he called his body. And so when he said “this” he meant the bread, making demonstration upon it: as before you have said more at large in your book, which you named, “The Detection of the Devil’s Sophistry?.” And herein you say more truly than the other papists do, (which deny that the demonstration was made upon the bread,) although you say not true in the other part that Christ’s calling was making.
And if his calling be changing of the bread and making it the body of Christ, yet then it is not true to speak of the bread, and to say that it is the body of Christ. For when one thing is changed into another, the first still remaining, it may be said both that it is made the other thing, and that it is the other thing, (as when cloth is made a gown, we may say this cloth is made a gown, and also this cloth is a gown;) but when the former matter or state remaineth not, it may be said that it is made the other thing, but not that it is the other thing: as when Christ had turned water into wine”, And likewise, although we say, a wicked man is made just, a sick man is made whole, or an whole man sick, yet it is no true speech to say a wicked man is just, a sick man is whole, or an whole man is sick; because the former state remaineth not. And therefore, although it might in speech be allowed that the bread is made Christ’s body, when the bread is gone, yet can it not be proper and approved speech to say, it is his body, except the bread remain still. For of that thing which is not, it cannot be said that it is Christs body. For if it be his body, it must needs be by the rule of logic, a tertio adjacente ad secundum adjacens.
And I marvel how you have overshot yourself in this place, when you teach how and after what manner bread is made Christ’s body. “Not that bread (say you) being bread is his body, but that which was bread is now made his body:” whereof it followeth necessarily that his body is made of bread. For as the wine in the Cana of Galilee was made of water, when the substance of water was turned into the substance of wine; so if in the sacrament the substance of bread be turned into the substance of Christ’s body, then is his body in the sacrament made of bread: which
[[ To dare larks, i.e. to frighten in order to replied to by Hooper and others before the publi-]
[catch them. An hoby, i.e.a species of hawk.] cation of Cranmer’s first book on the Sacrament.] [? Gardiner’s Detection of the Devil’s So- [1 In Ed. 1551, after “as when Christ had]
[phistrie, wherwith he robbeth the unlearned people turned water into wine,” follow these words, «It]
[of the true byleef in the most blessed Sacrament of was true to say water is made wine, but not to say]
[the aulter,” was first published in 1546, and was water is wine.”] Ut]
in the eleventh comparison you affirmed to be so foolish a saying, as were “not tolerable to be devised by a scoffer in a play to supply when his fellow had forgotten his part.”:
Therefore I have not here “partly opened the faith of transubstantiation” as you say of me; but you have here manifestly opened the wisdom of the papistical doctrine, which is more foolish than were to be devised by a scoffer in a play.
But what need I much to contend with you in this place, seeing that you grant the thing for the which I cited all these.authors, that is to say, that Christ called bread his body when he said, This is my body?”
And in your “Detection of the Devil’s Sophistry, as you call it, you say that Christ spake plainly, This is my body,” making demonstration of the bread when he said, “This is my body.” But it seemeth you be sorry that you have granted so much, and that you spake those words unadvisedly, before you knew what the papists had written in this matter; and now, when you perceive bow far you vary from them, you would fain call your words back again, and prepare a way for the same, saying thus: “When Christ said, This is my body, there is no necessity that the demonstration this’ should be referred to the outward visible matter, but may be referred to the invisible substance.” In these your words it seemeth you begin to doubt in that thing which before you certainly affirm without all doubt.
And when you have confessed the whole matter that I do here prove, which is only this, that Christ called bread his body, and wine his blood, when he said, This is my body, this is my blood:” yet you conclude your answer with an issue of mine ignorance, that it is so great that I “understand not what I say, if my knowledge be no better than is uttered here in my pen.” And yet my words be so plain, that the least child, as they say, in the town may understand them. For all my study is to speak plain, that the truth may be known, and not with dark speeches, as you do, to hide the truth. But when I had made a plain issue against all the papists in general, it had been your part to have joined in the said issue, and not io devise new issues.
But because neither you nor Smith dare join with me in mine issue, I shall repeat mine issue again, and take it for confessed of you both, because neither of you dare say the contrary, and join an issue with me therein. My issue is this: Let all the papists together shew any one authority, either of scripture or of ancient author, either Greek or Latin, that saith as they say, that Christ called not bread and wine his body and blood, but éndividuum vagum; and for my part I shall give them place and confess that they say true. And if they can shew nothing for them of antiquity, but only their own bare words, then it is reason that they give place to the iruth confirmed by so many authorities, both of scripture and of ancient writers, which is, that Christ called very material bread his body, and very wine made of grapes his blood.”
Now it shall not be much amiss to examine here the wise device of M. Smith, what he can say to this matter, that the opinion of divers doctors may be known, as well of Doctor Smith, as of Doctor Gardiner. “It is very false,” saith Smith to me, “that you do say, that as these words This is my body do lie, there can be gathered of them none other sense, but that bread is Christs body, and that Christ’s body is bread. For there can no such thing be gathered of those words, but only that Christ gave his disciples his very body to eat, into which he had turned the bread, when he spake those words.” First, Smith useth here a great and manifest falsehood in reciting of my sentence, leaving out those words, which should declare the truth of my saying. For I say, that by this manner of speech plainly understand without any figure, there can be gathered none other sense, but that bread is Christ’s body. In which my sentence he leaveth out these words, “by this manner of speech plainly understand without any figure;” which words be so material, that in them resteth the pith and trial of the whole sentence.
When Christ took the five loaves and two fishes, and looking up into heaven
[[! Is in, edit. 1580. by a manifest error. ] [3 In that matter, 1551.]]
blessed them, and brake them, and gave them unto his disciples, that they should distribute them unto the people, if he had then said, Eat; this is meat, which shall satisfy your hunger: by this manner of speech, plainly understand without any figure, could any other sense have been gathered, but that the bread and fishes which he gave them was meat? And if at the same time he had blessed wine, and commanding them to drink thereof, had said, ‘This is drink which shall quench your thirst:” what could have been gathered of those words, plainly understand without any figure, but that he called wine drink? So likewise when he blessed bread and wine, and gave them to his disciples, saying, Eat, this is my body;” Drink, this is my blood:” what can be gathered of this manner of speech, plainly understand without any figure, but that he called the bread his body, and wine his blood? For Christ spake not one word there of any changing or turning of the substance of the bread, no more than he did when he gave the loaves and fishes. And therefore the manner of speech is all one, and the changing of the substances can no more be proved by the phrase and fashion of speech, to be in the one than in the other, whatsoever you papists dream of your own heads without scripture, that the substance of the bread is turned into the substance of Christ’s body.
But Smith bringeth here news, using such strange and novelty of speech, as other papists use not; which he doth either of ignorance of his grammar, or else that he dissenteth far from other papists in judgment. For he saith, that Christ had turned the bread when he spake these words, “This is my body.” And if Smith remember his accidence, the preterpluperfect tense signifieth the time that is more than perfectly past; so that if Christ had turned the bread when he spake those words, then was the turning done before and already past, when he spake those words, which the other papists say was done after, or in the pronunciation of the words. And therefore they use to speak after this sort, that when he had spoken the words, the bread was turned, and not that he had turned the bread when he spake the words.
Another novelty of speech Smith useth in the same place, saying, that Christ ealled his body bread, because he turned bread into it; it seemeth and appeareth still to be it, it hath the quality and quantity of bread, and because it is the food of the soul, as corporal meat is of the body. These be Smith’s words, which if he “understand of the outward form of bread, it is a novelty to say, that it is the food of the soul; and if he mean of the very body of Christ, it is a more strange novelty to say, that it hath the quantity and quality of bread. For there was never manI trow, that used that manner of speech, to say that the body of Christ hath the quantity and quality of bread, although the papists use this speech, that the body of Christ is contained under the form, that is to say, under the quantities and qualities of bread.
Now when Smith should come to make a direct answer unto the authorities of the old writers, which I have brought forth to prove that Christ called bread his body, when he said, “This is my body;” Smith answereth no more but this: “The doctors which you, my lord, allege here for you, prove not your purpose.” Forsooth, & substantial answer, and well proved, that the doctors by me alleged prove not my purpose; for Smith saith so. I looked here, that Smith should have brought forth a great number of authors to approve his saying, and to reprove mine, specially seeing that I offered fair play to him, and to all the papists joined with him in one troop.
For after that I had alleged for the proof of my purpose a great many places of old authors, both Greeks and Latins, I provoked the papists to say what they could to the contrary. Let all the papists together,” said I, “shew any one authority for them, either of scripture or ancient author, either Greek or Latin, and for my part I shall give them place. And if they can shew nothing for them of antiquity, then is it reason that they give place to the truth, confirmed by so many authorities, both of scripture and of ancient writers, which is, that Christ called very material bread his body, and very wine made of grapes his blood.”
Now I refer to thy judgment, indifferent reader, whether I offered the papists
reason or no; and whether they ought not, if they had any thing to shew, to have brought it forth here: and forasmuch as they have brought nothing, (being thus provoked With all their counsel) whether thou oughtest not to judge, that they have nothing in deed to shew, which if they had, without doubt we should have heard of it in this place. But we hear nothing at all, but these their bare words, Not one of all these doctors saith as ye do, my Lord.” Which I put in thy discretion, indifferent reader, to view the doctor’s words by me alleged, and so to judge.
But they say not that there is only bread in the sacrament, saith Smith, and not Christ’s body: what then? What is that to purpose here in this place, I pray you? For I go not about in this place to prove that only bread is in the sacrament, and not Christ’s body: but in this place I prove only, that it was very bread, which Christ called his body, and very wine which he called his blood, when he said, “This is my body, this is my blood:” which Smith with all his rablement’ of the papists deny, and yet all the old authors affirm it with doctor Stephen Gardiner, late bishop of Winchester also, who saith, “that Christ made demonstration upon the bread, when he said, This is my body’^ And as all the old authors be able to countervail the papists, so is the late bishop able to match Smith in this matter; so that we have, at the least, a Rowland for an Oliver. But shortly to comprehend the answer of Smith: where I have proved my sayings, a dozen leaves together, by the authority of scripture and old catholic writers, is this a sufficient answer, only to say without any proof, that all my travail is lost? and that all that I have alleged is nothing to the purpose? Judge indifferently, gentle reader, whether I might not, by the same reason, cast away all Smith’s whole book, and reject it quite and clean with one word, saying, All his labour is lost, and to no purpose.” Thus Smith and Gardiner being answered, I will return again to my book, where it followeth thus.
Now this being fully proved, it must needs follow consequently, that this Tanner of speaking is a figurative speech. For in plain and proper speech, τον my it is not true to say that bread is Christ’s body, or wine his blood. For Christ’s body hath a soul, life, sense, and reason: but bread hath neither soul, life, sense, nor reason.
Likewise in plain speech it is not true, that we eat Christ’s body, and drink his blood. For eating and drinking, in their proper and usual signification, is with the tongue, teeth, and lips, to swallow, divide, and chaw in pieces: which thing to do to the flesh and blood of Christ, is horrible to be heard of any Christian.
So that these speeches, To eat Christs body and drink his blood,” to call bread his body, and wine his blood,” be speeches not taken in the proper signification of every word, but by translation of these words, “eating” and drinking,” from the signification of a corporal thing to signify a spiritual thing; and by calling a thing that signifieth by the name of the thing which is signified thereby. Which is no rare nor strange thing, but an usual manner and phrase in common speech. And yet, lest this fault should be imputed unto us, that we do feign things of our own heads without authority, (as the papists be accustomed to do,) here shall be cited sufficient authority, as well of scriptures as of old ancient authors, to approve the same.
First, when our Saviour Christ, in the sixth of John, said, that he was the bread of life, which whosoever did eat, should not die, but live for ever; and that the bread which he would give us, was his flesh; and therefore whosoever should eat his flesh, and drink his blood, should have everlasting
[With all the rablement, 1551. ] words, “to call bread his body, and winehis blood.”] [? Ed. 1551, and also the Orig. ed., omit these [? As well of scripture, 1551, and Orig. ed.]]
OF THE PRESENCE OF CHRIST. ni life; and they that should not eat his flesh, and drink his blood, should not have everlasting life: when Christ had spoken these words, with many more, of the eating of his flesh, and drinking of his blood, both the Jews, and many also of his disciples, were offended with his words, and said: “This is an hard saying. For how can he give us his flesh to be eaten?” Christ, perceiving their murmuring hearts, (because they knew none other eating of his flesh, but by chawing and swallowing,) to declare that they should not eat his body after that sort, nor that he meant of any such carnal eating, he said thus unto them: “What if you see the Son of man ascend up where he was before? It is the spirit that giveth life, the flesh availeth nothing: the words which I spake unto you be spirit and life.”
These words our Saviour Christ spake, to lift up their minds from earth to heaven, and from carnal to spiritual eating, that they should not phantasy that they should with their teeth eat him present here in earth: for his flesh so eaten, saith he, should nothing profit them. And yet so they should not eat him, for he would take his body away from them, and ascend with it into heaven; and there by faith, and not with teeth, they should spiritually eat him, sitting at the right hand of his Father. And therefore, saith he, “The words which I do speak be spirit and life:” that is to say, are not to be understand, that we shall eat Christ with our teeth, grossly and carnally, but that we shall spiritually and ghostly with our faith eat him, being carnally absent from us in heaven; and in such wise as Abraham and other holy fathers did eat him, many years before he was incarnated and born, as St Paul saith: “That all they did eat the same spiritual meat that we do, and drink the same spiritual drink; that is to say, Christ.” For they spiritually by their faith were fed and nourished with Christ’s body and blood, and had eternal life by him, before he was born, as we have now, that come after his ascension.
Thus have you heard the declaration of Christ himself, and of St Paul, that the eating and drinking of Christ’s flesh and blood is not taken in the - eommon signification, with mouth and teeth to eat and chaw a thing, being - present, but by a lively faith in heart and mind to chaw and digest a thing, being absent, either ascended hence into heaven, or else not yet born. upon earth. In the siatieth leaf the author entreateth, whether it be a plain speech of Christ to say, site that the mature of man should with like common effect work, in eating and drinking that Eat and drink,” speaking of his body and blood. I answer, the speech of itself is proper, eommanding them present to eat and drink that is proponed for them: and yet it is not requiheavenly meat and drink, as it doth in earthly and carnal meats. In this mystery man doth as Christ ordained, that is to say, receive with his mouth that is ordered to be received with his mouth, granting it nevertheless of that dignity and estimation, that Christ’s words affirm: and whether he so doth or no, Christ’s ordinance is as it is in the substance of itself alone, whereof no good man judgeth carnally or grossly, ne discusseth the unfaithful question “how,” which he cannot conceive, but leaveth the deepness thereof, and doth as he is bidden. This mystery receiveth no man’s thoughts. Christ’s institution hath a property in it, which cannot be discussed by man’s sensual reason. Christ’s words be spirit and life, which this author wresteth with his own gloss, to exclude the truth of the eating of Christ’s flesh in his supper. And yet for a shift, if a man would join issue with him, putteth to his speech the words “grossly” and carnally,” which words in such a rude understanding be terms meeter to express how dogs devour paunches, than to be inculked in speaking of this high mystery. Wherein 3 [ Drank, 1551, and Orig. ed.]
I will make the issue with this author, that no catholic teaching is so framed! with such terms, as though we should eat Christ’s most precious body grossly, carnally, joining those words so together. For else carnally” alone may have a good signification, as Hilary useth it: but contrariwise speaking in the catholic teaching of the manner of Christ’s presence, they call it a spiritual manner of presence, and yet there is present by God’s power the very true natural body and blood of Christ, whole God and man, without leaving his place in heaven: and in the holy supper men use their mouths and teeth, following Christ’s commandment in the receiving of that holy sacrament, being in faith sufficiently instruct, that they cannot, ne do not tear, conswme, or violate that most precious body and blood, but wnworthily receiving it, are cause of their own judgment and condemnation.
Canterbury
But where you say, that of the substance of Christs body no good man judgeth carnally, ne discusseth the unfaithful question “how”: you charge yourself very sore in so saying, and seem to make demonstration upon yourself, of whom may be said, Hx ore tuo te judico. For you both judge carnally in affirming a carnal presence, and a carnal eating; and also you discuss this question “how,” when you say that Christ’s body is in the sacrament really, substantially, corporally, carnally, sensibly, and naturally, as he was born of the virgin Mary, and suffered on the cross.
And as concerning these words of Christ, “The words which I do speak be spirit and life;” I have not wrested them with mine own gloss, as you misreport, but I have cited for me the interpretation of the catholic doctors and holy fathers of the church, as I refer to the judgment of the reader.
But you teach such a carnal and gross eating and drinking of Christ’s flesh and blood, as is more meet to express how dogs devour paunches, than to set forth the high mystery” of Christs holy supper. For you say that Christs body is present really, substantially, corporally, and carnally, and so is eaten; and that we eat Christ’s body as eating is taken in common speech: but in common speech it is taken for chawing and gnawing, as dogs do paunches: wherefore of your saying it followeth, that we do so eat Christ’s body, as dogs eat paunches; which all christian ears abhor for to hear. μ
But why should I join with you here an issue in that matter which I never spake? For I never read, nor heard no man that said, saving you alone, that we do eat Christ grossly, or carnally, or as eating is taken in common speech without any figure; but all that ever I have heard or read say quite clean contrary. But you, who affirm that we eat Christ carnally, and as eating is taken in common speech, (which is carnally and grossly to chew with the teeth,) must needs consequently grant, that we cat him grossly and carnally, as dogs eat paunches. And this is a strange thing to hear, that where before you said, that Christ is present but after a spiritual manner, now you sny that he is eaten carnally.
~~ And where you say, that in the holy supper men use their mouth and teeth, truth it is that they so do, but to chaw the sacrament, not the body of Christ. And if they do not tear that most precious body and blood, why say you then that they eat the body of Christ as eating is taken in common speech? And wherefore doth that false papistical faith of pope Nicholas, (which you wrongfully call catholic,) teach that Christ’s body is torn with the teeth of the faithful? De Conseer. dist. 2. Ego. Now follow the particular authorities which I have alleged for the interpretation of Christ’s words, which if you had well considered, you would not have said, as you do, that I wrested Christ’s words with mine own gloss. For? I begin with Origen, saying:
And Origen, declaring the said eating of Christ’s flesh and drinking of his blood not to be understand as the words do sound, but figuratively, writeth thus upon these words of Christ: “Except you eat my flesh, and drink my blood, you shall not have life in you.” Consider,” saith Origen’, “that these things written in God’s books are figures, and therefore examine and understand them as spiritual, and not as carnal men. For if you understand them as carnal men, they hurt you, and feed you not. For even in the gospels is there found letter that killeth. And not only in the old testament, but also in the new is there found letter that slayeth him, that doth not spiritually understand that which is spoken. For if thou follow the letter or words of this that Christ said, Except you eat my flesh, and drink my blood, this letter killeth.”
Who ean more plainly express in any words, that the eating and drinking of Christ’s flesh and blood are not to be taken in common signification, as the words pretend and sound, than Origen doth in this place?
Winchester
Now I will touch shortly what may be said to the particular authorities brought in by this author. Origen is noted (among other writers of the church) to draw the text to allegories, who doth mot thereby mean to destroy the truth of the letter, and therefore when he speaketh of a figure, saith not there is only a figure, which exclusive “only” being away, (as it 4s not found by amy author catholic taught that the speech of Christ of the eating of his Jlesh to be only a figure,) this author hath nothing avanced his purpose. As for spiritual understanding meaneth not any destruction of the letter where the same may stand with the rules of our faith9. All Christ’s words be life and spirit, containing in the letter many times that is above our capacity, as specially in this place of the eating of his flesh, to discuss the particularities of “how;” and. yet we must believe to be true that Christ saith, (although we cannot tell how:) for when we go about to discuss of God’s mystery “how,” then we fall from faith, and waz carnal men, and would have God’s ways like ours.. i] CANTERBURY.
Here may every man that readeth the words of Origen plainly see, that you seek in this weighty matter nothing but shifts and cavillations. For you have nothing answered [P Ego Berengarius.anathematizo omnem dicuntur. Si enim quasi carnales ista suscipitis, heresin,… que astruere conatur panem et vinum, ledunt vos, et non alunt. Est enim et in evangeliis qu in altari ponuntur, post consecrationem solum- litera quz occidit: non solum in veteri Testamento modo sacramentum, et non verum corpus et sangui- occidens litera deprehenditur. Est et in novo Tes-nem Domini nostri Jesu Christi esse, et non posse tamento litera, qua occidat eum, qui non spiritaliter sensualiter, nisi in solo sacramento, manibus sacer- qua dicuntur adverterit. Si enim secundum literam dotum tractari vel frangi, aut fidelium dentibus at- sequaris hoc ipsum quod dictum est, Nisi manteri Decret, Gratian. Pars 111. De Consecr. Dist. ducaveritis carnem meam, et biberitis sanguinem 2. col. 2021. Antv. 1573.] meum,” occidit hzc litera. Origen. in Levit. Hom. x [ First, 1551.] vir. Tom. II. p. 225. ed. Bened.] [ Agnoscite quia figure sunt, qua in divinis [ There is a only figure, 1551.]. voluminibus scripta sunt, et ideo tanquam spiritales [ The rule of our faith, Orig. ed. Winch.] d tanquam carnales examinate et intelligite qua
[τ Clun] 8]
directly to Origen, although he directly writeth against your doctrine. For you say that the eating of Christ’s flesh is taken in the proper signification without a figure. Origen saith there is a figure. And Origen saith further, that it is only a figurative speech, although not adding this word “only,” yet adding other words of the same effect. For he saith, that we may not understand the words as the letter soundeth: and saith further, that if we understand the words of Christ in this place as the letter soundeth, the letter killeth. Now who knoweth not, that to say these words, “not as the letter soundeth,” and “the letter killeth,” be as much to say, as only spiritually, and only otherwise than the letter soundeth? Wherefore you must spit upon your hands and take better hold, or else you cannot be able to pluck Origen so shortly from me. And I marvel that you be not ashamed thus to trifle with the ancient authors in so serious a matter, and such places, where the reader only looking upon the authors words may see your dealing.
The next is Chrysostom, whom I cite thus.
And St John Chrysostom affirmeth the same, saying, that if any man understand the words of Christ carnally, he shall surely profit nothing thereby. For what mean these words, the flesh availeth nothing’? He meant not of flesh?, (God forbid!) but he meant of them that fleshly and carnally understood those things that Christ spake. But what is carnal understanding? To understand the words simply as they be spoken, and nothing else. For we ought not so to understand the things which we see, but all mysteries must be considered” with inward eyes, and that is spiritually to understand them.”
In these words St John Chrysostom sheweth plainly that the words of Christ concerning the eating of his flesh and drinking of his blood, are not to be understand simply, as they be spoken, but spiritually and figuratively.
Winchester
St Chrysostom declareth himself, how mysteries must be considered with inward eyes, which is a spiritual understanding, whereby the truth of the mystery is mot (as it were by a figurative speech) impaired, but with an humility of understanding in a certain faith of the truth marvelled at. And here the author of this book? useth a sleight to join figuratively to spiritually, as though they were always all one, which is not so.
Canterbury
As you have handled Origen before, even so do you handle Chrysostom. Wherefore I only refer the reader to look upon the words of Chrysostom recited in my book, who saith, that to understand the words of eating of Christ’s flesh, simply as they be spoken, is a carnal understanding. And then can it be no proper speech, (as you say it is,) because it cannot be understand as the words be spoken, but must have another understanding spiritually. Then followeth next St Augustine, of whom I write thus: dM And yet most plainly of all other St Augustine doth declare this matter jn his book De doctrina Christiana, in which book he instructeth christian “people how they should understand those places of scripture which seem hard and obscure.
“Seldom,” saith he, “is any difficulty in proper words, but either the circumstance of the place, or the conferring of divers translations, or else the original
[[! ‘Edv γὰρ αὐτὸ σαρκικῶς Tis ἐκλάβοι, οὐδὲν μὴ οὕτω κρίνειν τοῖς ὁρωμένοις, ἀλλὰ πάντα τὰ]
[ἀπώνατο. Ti οὖν, οὐκ ἔστι ἡ σὰρξ αὐτοῦ σάρξ; μυστήρια τοῖς ἔνδον ὀφθαλμοῖς κατοπτεύειν. TOVTO —]
[καὶ σφόδρα μὲν οὖν. καὶ πῶς εἶπεν, ἡ σὼρξ οὐκ γάρ ἐστι πνευματικῶς.---ΟΠγγβοβί. in Joannem.]
[ὠφελεῖ οὐδέν; οὐ περὶ τῆς ἑαυτοῦ σαρκὸς λέγων” Hom. xlvii. (al. 46.) Tom. VIII. p. 278. Ed.]
[un γένοιτο” ἀλλὰ περὶ τῶν σαρκικῶς ékhapfavév- Bened.]]
[τῶν τὰ λεγόμενα. τί δέ ἐστι τὸ sapkiküs νοῆσαι; [3 Of his flesh, 1551, and Orig. ed.]]
[τὸ ἁπλῶς els Td προκείμενα ὁρᾷν, kal μὴ πλέον τι [3 Of the book, Orig. ed. Winch. ]]
[φαντάζεσθαι. τοῦτο γάρ ἐστι σαρκικῶς. χρὴ δὲ]
tongue wherein it was written, will make the sense plain. But in words that be altered from their proper signification, there is great diligence and heed to be taken. And specially we must beware, that we take not literally any thing that is spoken figuratively: nor contrariwise, we must not take for a figure any thing that is spoken properly.” “Therefore must be declared,” saith St Augustine, the manner how to discern a proper speech from a figurative. Wherein,” saith he, “must be observed this rule, that if the thing which is spoken be to the furtherance of charity, then it is a proper speech, and no figure. So that if it be a commandment that forbiddeth any evil or wicked act, or commandeth any good or beneficial thing, then it is no figure. But if it command any ill or wicked thing, or forbiddeth anything that is good and beneficial, then it is a figurative speech. Now, this saying of Christ, Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, you shall have no life in you, seemeth to command an heinous and wicked thing: therefore it is a figure, commanding us to be partakers of Christ’s passion, keeping in our minds, to our great comfort and profit, that his flesh was crucified and wounded for us?” This is briefly the sentence of St Augustine in his book De doctrina Christiana.
And the like he writeth in his book De catechisandis rudibus, and in his
book Contra adversarium legis et prophetarum, and in divers other places, which for tediousness I pass over. For if I should rehearse all the authorities of St Augustine and others, which make mention of this matter, it would weary the reader too much.
Wherefore to all them that by any reasonable means will be satisfied, these things before rehearsed are sufficient to prove, that the eating of Christ’s flesh and drinking of his blood is not to be understand simply and plainly (as the words do properly signify), that we do eat and drink him with our mouths: but it is a
[[ forbid, 1551, and Orig. ed.] [$ De sacramento sane quod accepit, cum ei [^ Rarissime igitur et difficillime inveniri potest bene commendatum fuerit, signacula quidem re-]
[ambiguitas in propriis verbis, quantum ad libros rum divinarum esse visibilia, sed res ipsas invisi-]
[divinarum scripturarum spectat, quam non aut cir- biles in eis honorari: nec sic habendam esse illam]
[cumstantia ipsa sermonis qua cognoscitur scripto- speciem benedictione sanctificatam, quemadmodum]
[rum intentio, aut interpretum collatio, aut prece- habetur in usu quolibet. Dicendum etiam quid sig-]
[dentis lingue solvat inspectio. Sed verborum nificet et sermo ille quem audivit, quid in illo con-]
[translatorum ambiguitates, de quibus deinceps lo- diat [condatur], cujus illa res similitudinem gerit.]
[. quendum est, non mediocrem curam industriamque Deinde monendus est ex hác occasione, ut si quid]
[Ἷ desiderant. Nam in principio cavendum est, ne etiam ἴῃ scripturis audiat quod carnaliter sonet, etiam]
[figuratam locutionem ad literam accipias.—Neque si non intelligit, credat tamen spiritale aliquid signi-]
[^. illud quod proprio verbo significatur, refert ad aliam ficari, quod ad sanctos mores futuramque vitam per-]
[- significationem.-—A ugustin. de Doctrina Christiana, tineat. Hoc autem ita breviter discet, ut quicquid]
[ΤΩΡ. 111. Cap. iv. v. Pars 1v. Basil. ap Amer- audierit ex libris canonicis, quod ad dilectionem]
[7 bach. 1506. Demonstrandus est igitur prius modus zeternitatis et veritatis et sanctitatis et ad dilecti-]
[. inveniende locutionis, propriane an figurata sit. Ib. onem proximi referre non possit, figurate dictum vel]
[Cap. x. Servabitur ergo in locutionibus figuratis gestum esse credat; atque ita conetur intelligere ut]
[regula hujusmodi, ut tam diu versetur diligenti con- ad illam geminam referat dilectionem.—Augustin.]
[sideratione quod legitur, donec ad regnum charitatis de Catechizandis rudibus, Cap. xxvi. Pars 1v.]]
[interpretatio perducatur. Si autem hoc jam proprie [7 Sicut mediatorem Dei et hominum, hominem]
[sonat, nulla putetur figurata locutio. Si precep- Christum Jesum, carnem suam nobis manducan-]
[tiva locutio est, aut flagitium aut facinus vetans, dam bibendumque sanguinem dantem, fideli corde]
[aut utilitatem aut beneficentiam jubens; non est atque ore suscipimus: quamvis horribilius videatur]
[figurata: si autem flagitium aut facinus videtur humanam carnem manducare, quam perimere, et]
[Jubere, aut utilitatem aut beneficentiam vetare, humanum sanguinem potare quam fundere: atque]
[figurata est. Nisi manducaveritis,’ inquit, carnem in omnibus sanctis scripturis, secundum sane fidei]
[Filii hominis et sanguinem biberitis, non habebitis regulam figurate dictum vel factum si quid exponi-]
[vitam in vobis; facinus vel flagitium videter ju- tur, de quibuslibet rebus et verbis quz sacris pagi-]
[bere. Figura est ergo, pracipiens passioni Domini nis continentur, expositio illa ducatur, non asper-]
[esse communicandum, et suaviter atque utiliter re- nanter sed sapienter audiamus.— Augustin. contra]
[condendum in memoria, quod pro nobis caro ejus adversarium legis et Prophetarum, Lib. 11. Cap. ix.]
[erucifixa et vulnerata sit, Ib. Cap. xv. xvi.] Pars virr.]]
figurative speech spiritually to be understand, that we must deeply print and fruitfully believe in our hearts, that his flesh was crucified and his blood shed for our redemption. And this our belief in him is to eat his flesh and drink his blood, although they be not present here with us, but be ascended into heaven: as our forefathers before Christ’s time did likewise eat his flesh and drink his blood, which was so far from them, that he was not yet then born.
Winchester
St Augustine, according to his rules of a figurative and proper speech, taketh this speech, Except ye eat,” &c., for a figurative speech; because it seemeth to command in the letter carnally understanded an heinous and wicked thing to eat the flesh of a man, as man’s carnal imagination conceiveth it: as appeared by the Capharnaites, who murmured at it. And therefore because only faithful men can by faith understand this mystery of the eating of Christ’s flesh in the sacrament, in which we eat mot the carnal flesh of a common man, as the letter soundeth, but the very spiritual flesh of Christ, God and man, as faith teacheth; it ds in that respect well noted for a figurative speech, for that it hath such a sense in the letter as is hidden from the unfaithful: so as the same letter being to faithful men spirit and life (who in humility of faith understandeth the same), is to the faithful! a figure, as containing such a mystery as by the outward bark of the letter they understand mot: upon which consideration it seemeth probable that the other fathers, also signifying a great secrecy in this mystery of the sacrament, wherein is a work of God ineffable, such as the ethnick ears could mot abide, they termed it a figure, not thereby to diminish the truth of the mystery, as the proper and special name of a figure doth, but by the name of a figure reverently to cover so great a secrecy, apt only to be wnderstanded of men believing: and therefore the said fathers, in some part of their works, in plain words express and declare the truth of the mystery, and the plain doctrine thereof according to the catholic faith, and in the other part pass it over with the name of a figure, which consideration in St Augustine’s writings may be evidently gathered: for in some place no man more plainly openeth the substance of the sacrament than he doth, speaking expressly of the very body and blood of Christ contained in it; and yet therewith in other places moteth in those words a figure, not thereby to contrary his other plain sayings and doctrine, but meaning by the word “figure” to signify a secret deep mystery hidden from carnal understanding. For avoiding amd expelling of which carnality he giveth this doctrine here of this text: Except ye eat,” &c., which, as I said before, in the bare literal sense implieth to carnal judgment other carnal circumstances to attain the same flesh to be eaten, which in that carnal sense cannot be but by wickedness. But what is this to the obeying of Christ’s commandment in the institution of his supper, when he himself? delivereth his body amd blood in these mysteries, and biddeth “eat and drink?” There can be mo offence to do as Christ biddeth, and therefore St Augustine’s rule pertaineth mot to Christ’s supper, wherein when Christ willeth us to use our mouth, we ought to dare do as he biddeth; for that is spiritual understanding, to do as is commanded without carnal thought or murmuring in our sensual device how it cam be so. And St Augustine in the same place, speaking de communicando passionibus Christi, declareth plainly he meaneth of the sacrament.
Canterbury
If thou takest not very good heed, reader, thou shalt not perceive where the cuttle becometh. He wrappeth himself so about in darkness, and he cometh not near the net by a mile, for fear he should be taken. But I will draw my net nearer to him that he shall not escape. I say that the words which Christ spake of the eating of his flesh and drinking of his blood were spoken by a figure, and he would avoid the matter by saying, that “those words have a spiritual mystery in them;” which is most true, and nothing contrary to my saying, but confirmeth the same. For the words of eating and drinking be figurative speeches, because they have a secret and hid spiritual mystery in them, and cannot be taken otherwise than in that spiritual mystery, which is a
[[! Unfaithful, 1551. See p. 118, at the beginning.] [#2 When himself delivereth, 1551. ];]
figure. And, moreover, you plainly here confess, that to eat Christ’s flesh and to drink his blood be figurative speeches. But you traverse the cause, wherefore they be figurative speeches; which is not material in this place, where my process is only to prove that they be figurative speeches. And forasmuch as you grant here all that I take upon me to prove, which is that they be figurative speeches, what needeth all this superfluous. multiplication of words, when we agree in the matter which is here in question?
And as for the cause of the figure, you declare it far otherwise than St Augustine doth, as the words of St Augustine do plainly shew to every indifferent reader. For the cause, say you, is this, that “in the sacrament we eat not the carnal flesh of a common man, as the letter soundeth, but the very spiritual flesh of Christ, God and man, and in that respect it is well noted for a figurative speech.”
In which one sentence be three notable errors or untruths. The first is, that you say “the letter soundeth that we eat the carnal flesh of a common man;” which your saying the plain words of the gospel do manifestly reprove. For Christ, separating himself in that speech from all other men, spake only of himself, saying, “My flesh is very meat, and my blood is very drink: he that eateth my flesh and drinketh my blood, dwelleth in me and I in him.” The second is, that you call the flesh of Christ a “spiritual flesh,” as before you said that he is spiritually eaten. And so by your docirme his flesh is spiritual, and is spiritually eaten, and all is spiritual: which hath need of a favourable interpretation, if it should be counted a sound and catholic teaching. And if all be spiritual and done spiritually, what meaneth it then that in other places you make so often mention that he is present and eaten carnally, corporally, and naturally?
The third is, that you say “the speech of Christ is noted figurative in respect of the eating of the flesh of a common man,” which is utterly untrue. For the authors note not the figurative speech in that respect; but as Christ spake of his own flesh joined unto his divinity, whereby it giveth life, even so do the authors note a figurative speech in respect of Christ’s own flesh, and say thereof that the letter cannot be true without a figure. For although Christ be both God and man, yet his flesh is a very man’s flesh, and his blood is truly man’s blood, (as is the flesh and blood of his blessed mother,) and therefore cannot be eaten and drunken properly, but by a figure. For he js not meat and drink of the body, to be eaten corporally with mouth and teeth, and to be digested in the stomach: but he is the meat of the soul, to be received spiritually in our hearts and minds, and to be chawed and digested by faith.
← 6. Book III. Of the Presence of Christ · Contents · 8. Book III. Of the Presence of Christ →