And it is untrue that you here say, that the proper and special name of a figure diminisheth the truth of the mystery.” For then Christ in vain did ordain the figures, M they diminish the mysteries.
And the authors term it here a figure, not thereby to “cover the mystery,” but to open the mystery, which was indeed in Christ’s words by figurative speeches understand. Amd with the figurative speech were the ethnick and carnal ears offended, not with the mystery, which they understood not. And not to the ethnick and carnal, but to the faithful and spiritual ears, the words of Christ be figurative, and to them the truth of the figures be plainly opened and declared by the fathers: wherein the fathers be worthy much commendation, because they travailed to open plainly unto us the obscure and figurative speeches of Christ. And yet in their said declarations they taught us, that these words of Christ, concerning the eating of his flesh and drinking of his blood, are not to be understanded. plainly, as the words properly signify, but by a figurative speech. - Nor St Augustine never wrote in all his long works, as you do, that Christ is in the.sacrament corporally, carnally; or naturally, or that he is so eaten, nor, I dare boldly say, he never thought it. For if he had, he would not have written so plainly, as he doth in the places by me alleged, that we must beware that we take not literally any thing that is spoken figuratively.” And specially he would not have expressed by name the words of “eating Christ’s flesh and drinking his blood,” and have said that they be figurative speeches. But St Augustine doth not only tell how we may not take those words, but also he declareth how we ought to take and understand the eating of Christ’s flesh and drinking of his blood, which, as he saith, is this: h “To keep in our minds, to our great comfort and profit, that Christ was crucified and
shed his blood for us, and so to be partakers of his passion. This,” saith St Augustine, “is to eat his flesh and to drink his blood.”
And St Augustine saith not as you do, that Christ’s words be “figurative to the unfaithful;” for they be figurative rather to the faithful than to the unfaithful. For the unfaithful take them for no figure or mystery at all, but rather carnally, as the Capernaites did. And there is indeed no mystery nor figure in eating with the mouth (as you say Christ’s flesh is eaten), but in eating with the soul and spirit is the figure and mystery. For the eating and drinking with the mouth is all one to the faithful and unfaithful, to the carnal and spiritual, and both understand in like what is eating and drinking with the mouth. And therefore in no place do the doctors declare, that there is a figure or mystery in eating and drinking of Christ’s body with our mouths, or that there is any truth in that mystery; but they say clean contrary, that he is not eaten and drunken with our mouths. And if in any place any old author write, that there is a figure or mystery in eating and drinking of Christ with de Our mouths, shew the place if you will have any credit. St Augustine specially (whom
33. you do here allege for your purpose) saith directly against you: Nolite parare fauces sed cor, Prepare not your mouth or jaws, but your heart.” And in another place he saith, Quid paras ventrem et dentem? ^ Crede et manducasti: Why dost thou prepare thy belly and teeth? Believe, and thou hast eaten.”
But to avoid the saying of St Augustine by me alleged, you say that St Augustines rule pertaineth not to Christ’s supper: which your saying is so strange, that you be the first that ever excluded the words of Christ from his supper. And St Augustine meant as well at the supper as at all other times, that the eating of Christ’s flesh is not to be understanded carnally with our teeth (as the letter signifieth), but spiritually with our minds, as he in the same place declareth. And how can it be that St Augustines rule pertaineth not to Christs supper, when by the rule he expoundeth Christ’s words in the sixth of John, which you say Christ spake of his supper? Did Christ speak of his supper, and St Augustine’s words expounding the same pertain not to the supper? You make St Augustine an expositor like yourself, that commonly use to expound both doctors and scriptures clean from the purpose, either for that by lack of exercise in the scriptures and doctors you understand them not, or else that for very frowardness you will not understand any thing that misliketh you. And where you say that we must do as Christ commanded us, without carnal thought or sensual device, is not this a carnal thought and sensual device which you teach, that we eat Christ corporally with our teeth; and contrary to that which you said before, that Christ’s body in the sacrament is a spiritual body, and eaten only spiritually? Now how the teeth can eat a thing spiritually, I pray you tell me.
Now thou seest, good reader, what avail all those glosses of carnal flesh and spiritual flesh,” of “the flesh of Christ, and the flesh of a common man,” of “a figure to the unfaithful, and not to the faithful,” that the fathers termed it a figure, because else the ethnick ears could not abide it,” and “because they would reverently cover the mystery.” And when none of these shifts will serve, he runneth to his sheet-anchor, that St Augustines rule pertaineth nothing to Christs supper. Thus mayest thou see, with what sincerity he handleth the old writers. And yet he might right well have spared all his long talk in this matter, seeing that he agreeth fully with me in the state of the whole cause, that to eat Christs flesh and to drink his blood be figurative speeches. For he that declareth the cause why they be figurative speeches agreeth in the matter that they be figurative speeches..And so have I my full purpose in this article. ^
Now hear what followeth in my book.
The same authors did say also, that when Christ called the bread his I body, and the wine his blood, it was no proper speech that he then used; but, as all sacraments be figures of other things, and ye have the very names
[! By that rule, 1551.] [? You will understand, 1551.]]
ef the things which they do signify; so Christ instituting the sacrament of his most precious body and blood, did use figurative speeches, calling the bread by the name of his body, and the wine he called his blood, because it represented his blood.
Tertullian herein writing against Marcion, saith these words: “Christ did not reprove bread, whereby he did represent his very body.” And in the same book he saith, that Jesus “taking bread and distributing it amongst his disciples made it his body, saying, This is my body;’ that is to say,” saith Tertullian, “a figure of my body.” And therefore, saith Tertullian, that Christ called bread his body, and wine his blood,” because that in the old testament bread and wine were figures of his body and blood.
Winchester
Tertullian speaking of the representation of Christ’s very body, in which place he termeth “the same body.” speaketh catholicly in such phrase as St Jerome speaketh: and then Tertullian saith afterward, as this author therein truly bringeth him forth, that Christ made the bread his body, which bread was in the mouth of the prophet a figure of his body. Wherefore it followeth by Tertullian’s confession, when Christ made the bread his body, that Christ ended the figure, and made it the truth, making now his body that was before the figure of his body. For if Christ did no more but make it a figure still, then did he not make it his body, as Tertullian himself saith he did. And Tertullian therefore, being read thus, as appeareth to me most probable, that that is to say” in Tertullian should be only referred to the explication of the first “this;” as when Tertullian had alleged Christ’s words, saying “this is my body,” and putteth to of his own, that is to say, the figure of my body,” these words, “that is to say,” should serve to declare the demonstration “this” in this wise, “that is to say, this,” which the prophet called the figure of the body, is now my body. And so Tertullian said before that Christ had made bread his body, which bread was a figure of his body with the prophet, and ow endeth in the very truth, being made his body by conversion (as Cyprian sheweth) of the mature of bread into his body. Tertullian reasoned against the Marcionists; and because a figure in the prophet signifieth a certain unfeigned truth of that is signified, seeing Christ’s body was figured by bread in the prophet Jeremy, it appeareth Christ had a true body; and that the bread was of Christ approved for a figure, he made now his very body. And this may be said evidently to Tertullian, who reasoning against heretics wuseth the commodity of arguing, and giveth mo doctrine of the sacrament to further this author’s purpose. And what advantage should the heretics have of Tertullian, if he should mean that these words, This is my body,” had only this sense, this is the figure of my body, having himself said before that Christ made bread his body? If so plain speech, to make bread his body, containeth no more certainty in understanding but the i figure of a body, why should mot they say, that a body in Christ should ever be spoken of € body in a figure, and so no certainty of any true body in Christ by Tertulliaw’s words? This place of Tertullian is no secret. point of learning, and hath been of GZcolampadius and ether alleged, and by other catholic men answered unto it; whereof this author may not think now as upon a wrangling argument to satisfy a conjecture devised, thereby to confirm a new teaching. Finally, Tertullian termeth it not an only figure, which this author must prove, or else he doth nothing.
[[ Sed ille quidem usque nunc nec aquam repro- ut panis crucifigeretur. Cur autem panem corpus]
[bavit—nec panem, quo ipsum corpus suum reprz- suum appellat, et non magis peponem, quem Mar-]
[sentat, T’ertullianus, Adversus Marcionem. Lib. i. clon cordis loco habuit? Non intelligens veterem]
[p. 972. Acceptum panem et distributum discipulis, fuisse istam figuram corporis Christi, dicentis per]
[corpus illum suum fecit, Hoc est corpus meum di- Hieremiam, adversus me cogitaverunt cogitatum]
[ed, id est, figura corporis mei. Figura autem dicentes, Venite, conjiciamus lignum in panem ejus;”]
[non fuisset, nisi veritatis esset corpus, Ceterum scilicet crucem in corpus ejus. ltaque illuminater]
[vacua res, quod est phantasma, figuram capere non antiquitatum quid tunc voluerit significasse panem]
[posset. Aut si propterea panem corpus sibi finxit, satis declaravit, corpus suum vocans panem. Ibid.]
[quia corporis carebat veritate: ergo panem debuit Lib. iv. pp. 457, 8. Paris. 1664.]]
[.. tradere pro nobis, Faciebat ad unitatem Marcionis, [ he made it now his very body, 1551.]]
Canterbury
Oh what a wrangling and wresting is here made! what crooks be cast! what leaping about is here, to avoid a foil! And yet I refer to any indifferent man that shall read the place of Tertullian, to judge whether you have truly expounded him, or in the wrestling with him be quite overthrown, and have a flat fall upon your back. For Tertullian saith not, that the bread was a figure of Christ’s body only in the prophet, as you expound Tertullian, but saith, that bread and wine were figures in the old testament, and so taken in the prophets, and now be figures again in the new testament, and so used of Christ himself in his last supper.”
And where Tertullian saith, that Christ made bread his body, he expoundeth himself how Christ made bread his body, adding by and by these words, “that is to say, a figure of his body.” But if thou canst forbear, good reader, (when thou readest the fond handling of Tertullian by this ignorant and subtle lawyer,) I pray thee laugh not; for it is no matter to be laughed at, but to be sorrowed, that the most ancient authors of Christs church should thus be eluded in so weighty causes. O Lord, what shall these men answer to thee at the last day, when no cavillations shall have place?
These be Tertullian’s words: “Jesus taking bread, and distributing it among his disciples, made it his body, saying, This is my body, that is to say, a figure of my body.” Here Tertullian expoundeth not the saying of the prophet, but the saying of Christ, “This is my body.” And where Tertullian hath but once the word this,” you say “the first this.” And so you make a wise speech to say “the first,” where is but one. And Tertullian speaketh of “this” in Christ’s words, when he said, “This is my body;” and you refer them to the prophet’s words, which be not there, but be spoken of long after. And if you had not forgotten your grammar and all kind of speech, or else hurled away all together purposely to serve your own wilful device, you would have referred the demonstration of his antecedent before, and not to a thing that in order cometh long after. And “bread” in the prophet was but a figurative speech, but in Christ’s words was not only a figurative speech, but also a figurative thing; that is to say, very material bread, which by a figurative speech Christ ordained to be a figure and a sacrament of his body. For as the prophet by this word “bread” figured Christ’s body, so did Christ himself institute very material bread to be a figure of his body in the sacrament. But you refer “this” to the bread in the prophet, which Christ spake, as Tertullian saith, of the bread in the gospel. And Christs words must needs be understanded of the bread which he gave to his apostles, in the time: of the gospel, after he had ended the supper of the law. And if Christ made the bread in the prophet his very body, which was no material bread, but this word bread,” then did Christ make this word bread his body, and converted this word bread into the substance of his body. This is the conclusion of your subtle sophistication of Tertullian’s words.
Now, as concerning St Cypfian, whom you here allege, he spake of a sacramental, and not of a corporal and carnal conversion, as shall be plainly declared, when I come to the place of Cyprian, and partly I have declared already in mine other book… And Tertullian proved not in that place the verity of Christ’s body by the figure of the prophet, but by the figure which Christ ordained of his body in his last supper. For he went not about to prove that Christ should have a body, but that he had then a true body, because he ordained a figure thereof, which could have had no figure, as Tertullian saith, if it had been but a fantastical body, and no true body in deed. Wherefore this which you say, in answering to the plain words of Tertullian, may be said of them that care not what they say; but it cannot be “said evidently,” that is spoken so sophistically.
But “if so plain speech” of Tertullian, say you, that Christ “made bread his body, contain no more certainty in understanding but the figure of a body, why should not the body of Christ ever be taken for a figure, and so no certainty of any true body to
[[! The demonstrative, 1551.] atin m i]
be in Christ?” This reason had been more fit to be made by a man that had lost both his wit and reason. For in this place Tertullian must needs be so understand, that by the body of Christ is understand the figure of his body, because Tertullian so expoundeth it himself. And must it be always so, because it is here so? Must ever Christ’s body be taken for a figure, because it is here taken for a figure, as Tertullian saith? Have you so forgotten your logic, that you will make a good argument, « particulari ad universale? By your own manner of argumentation, because you make a naughty argument here in this place, shall I conclude that you never make none good? Surely this place of Tertullian, as you have handled it, is neither secret nor manifest point either of learning, wit, or reason, but a mere sophistication, if it be no worse.
“What other papists have answered to this place of Tertullian, I am not ignorant, nor I am sure you be not so ignorant but you know that never none answered as you do. But your answer varieth as much from all other papists, as yours and theirs also do vary from the truth.
Here the reader may note by the way, how many foul shifts you make to avoid the saying of Tertullian. First you say, that “bread was a figure in the prophet’s mouth, but not in Christs words.” Second, that the thing which the prophet spake of was not that which Christ spake of. “Third, that other have answered this place of Tertullian before. Fourth, that you call this matter but “a wrangling argument.” Fifth, that if Tertullian call bread a figure, yet he termeth it not only figure.” These be your shifts. Now let the reader look upon Tertullian’s plain words, which I have rehearsed in my book, and then let him judge whether you mean. to declare Tertullian’s mind truly, or no.
And it is not requisite for my purpose to prove that bread is only a figure, for I take upon me there to prove no more but that the bread is a figure representing Christ’s body, and the wine his blood. And if bread be a figure, and not only a figure, then must you make bread both the figure and the truth of the figure.
Now hear what other authors I do here allege.
And St Cyprian the holy martyr saith of this matter, that Christ’s blood is shewed in the wine, and the people in the water that is mixed with the wine;s so that the mixture of the water to the wine signifieth the spiritual commixtion and joining of us unto Christ?.” By which similitude Cyprian meant not that the blood of Christ is wine, or the people water, but as the water doth signify and represent the people, so doth the wine signify and represent Christ’s blood; and the uniting of the water and wine together signifieth the uniting of Christian people unto Christ himself. ’ And the same St Cyprian in another place, writing hereof, saith, that «Christ in his last supper gave to his apostles with his own hands bread and wine, which he called his flesh and blood; but in the cross he gave his very body to be wounded with the hands of the soldiers, that the apostles might declare to the world, how and in what manner bread and wine may be the flesh and blood of Christ.” And the manner he straightways declareth thus, that “those things which do signify, and those things which be signified by them, may be- both called by one name.”
[[? He termeth it not an only figure, 1551.] priis manibus panem et vinum: in cruce vero mani-.[ Videmus in aqua populum intelligi, in vino bus militum corpus tradidit vulnerandum; ut in]
[vero ostendi sanguinem Christi. Quando autem in Apostolis secretius impressa sincera veritas, et vera]
[calice vino aqua miscetur, Christo populus adunatur, sinceritas, exponeret gentibus, quomodo vinum et]
[et credentium plebs ei, in quem credidit, copulatur panis caro esset et sanguis, et quibus rationibus]
[δὲ conjungitur.—Cyprian. Epist. lxiii. Caecilio causa effectibus convenirent, et diversa nomina vel]
[᾿ς fratri. (Lib. rr. Epist. iii.) p. 146. Par. 1574.] species ad unam reducerentur essentiam, et signifi- [ Dedit itaque Dominus noster in mensa,inqua cantia et significata eisdem vocabulis censerentur.]
[ultimum cum Apostolis participavit convivium, pro- Cyprian. De unctione Chrismatis, p. 477. This]
Here it is certain, by St Cyprian’s mind, wherefore and in what wise bread is called Christ’s flesh, and wine his blood; that is to say, because that every thing that representeth and signifieth another thing, may be called by the name
of the thing which it signifieth
Chrys. in Ps. And therefore St John Chrysostom saith, that Christ ordained the table XXI. ”. H.
the consecration the body of Christ is signified. Christ said his blood: before the consecration it is called another thing, but after the consecration is signified
the blood of Christ?“
of our body and soul.”
Of these places of St Chrysostom, St Jerome, and St Ambrose, it is clear, that in the sacramental bread and wine is not really and corporally the very
[Treatise is spurious.—Vid. James’ Corruptions of Ante consecrationem aliud dicitur, post consecraScripture, &c. p. 19. Lond. 1843.] tionem sanguis nuncupatur. Ambros. de Initiandis. [! The passage is not in the Greek of Chrysos- Tom. IV. p. 166. Ed. Colon. Agrip. 1616.] tom. It stands as follows in the Homily, incerto [ Ideo in similitudine quidem accipis sacraauctore,” printed in the Latin edition of Chrysos- mentum, sed vere nature gratiam virtutemque contom, Paris. 1570. Tom. I. col. 720. Et quia istam sequeris: tu, qui accipis carnem, divine ejus submensam praeparavit servis et ancillis in conspectu stantiz in illo participaris alimento. De Sacram. eorum, ut quotidie in similitudinem corporis et san- Lib. vr. cap. i. Tom. IV. p. 176.] guinis Christi panem et vinum secundum ordinem [5 Sicut enim mortis similitudinem sumpsisti, Melchisedech nobis ostenderet in sacramento, ita di- ita etiam similitudinem pretiosi sanguinis bibiscit, Parasti in conspectu meo mensam adversus eos Lib. 1v. cap. iv. Tom. IV. p. 173.] qui tribulant me.) [6 Dicit sacerdos: Fac nobis, inquit, hanc obla- [2 Cenantibus autem eis, accepit Jesus panem, tionem adscriptam, rationabilem, acceptabilem: dc. Postquam typicum pascha fuerat impletum, quod sit in figuram corporis et sanguinis Domini et agni carnes cum apostolis comederat, assumit nostri Jesu Christi. — Ib. Lib. 1v. cap. v. Tom. IV. panem, qui confortat cor hominis, et ad verum p. 173.] pasche transgreditur sacramentum; ut quomodo in [7 Quia enim morte Domini liberati sumus, huprafiguratione ejus Melchisedec, summi Dei sacer- jus rei memores, in edendo et potando carnem et sandos, panem et vinum offerens fecerat, ipse quoque guinem, qua pro nobis oblata sunt, significamusveritatem sui corporis et sanguinis representaret.— “Testamentum ergo sanguine coustitutum est, quia Hieronymus, Commentarii in Matt. Lib. 1v. cap. beneficii divini sanguis testis est. In cujus typum 26. Tom. IX. p. 64. Francof. 1684.] nos calicem mysticum sanguinis ad tuitionem cor- [? Ipse clamat Dominus Jesus; Hoc est corpus poris et anima nostrae percipimus.—Id. in 1 Co-meum. Ante benedictionem verborum celestium rinth. xi. Tom. III. p. 184. But these commenspecies nominatur, post consecrationem corpus taries are considered to be spurious.] Christi significatur. Ipse dicit sanguinem suum,]
natural substance of the flesh and blood of Christ, but that the bread and wine signs be similitudes, mysteries and representations, significations, sacraments, figures, the and signs of his body and blood: and therefore be called, and have the name of which is very body, flesh, and blood.
Winchester
Cyprian shall be touched after, when we speak of him again.
Chrysostom shall open himself hereafter plainly.
St Jerome speaketh here very pithily, using the word “represent,” which signifieth a true real exhibition: for St Jerome speaketh of the representation of the truth of Christ’s body, which truth excludeth an only figure. For howsoever the visible matter of the sacrament be a figure, the invisible part is a truth: which St Jerome saith is here represented, that is to say, made present, which only signification doth not.
St Ambrose shall after declare himself: and it is not denied, but the authors in speaking of the sacrament used these words, “sign,” “figure,” “similitude,” “token;” but those speeches exelude not the verity and truth of the body and blood of Christ, for no approved author hath this exclusion?, to say an only sign, an only token, an only similitude, or an only signification, which is the issue with this author,: CANTERBURY.
Here you shift off St Cyprian and Chrysostom with fair promise to make answer to them hereafter, who approve plainly my saying, that the bread representeth Christ’s body, and the wine his blood; and so you answer here only to St Jerome. In answering to whom you were loth, I see well to leave behind any thing that might have any colour to make for you, that expound this word “represent” in St Jerome to signify real exhibition. Here appeareth that ye can, when you list, change the signification of words, that can make vocare to signify facere, and facere to signify sacrificare, as you do in your last book. And why should you not then in other words (when it will serve for like purposes) have the like liberty to change the signification of words when you list? And if this word “represent” in St Jerome’s words signify real exhibition, then did Melchisedech really exhibit Christ’s flesh and blood, who, as the same St Jerome saith, did represent his flesh and blood by offering bread and wine.
And yet in the Lord’s supper, rightly used, is Christ’s body exhibited indeed spiritually, and so really, if you take really to signify only a spiritual and not a corporal and carnal exhibition. But this real and spiritual exhibition is to the receivers of the sacrament, and not to the bread and wine.
And mine issue in this place is no more, but to prove that these sayings of Christ, This is my body, this is my blood,” be figurative speeches, signifying that the bread representeth Christ’s body, and the wine his blood; which forasmuch as you confess, there needed no great contention in this point, but that you would seem in words to vary, where we agree in the substance of the matter, and so take occasion to make a long book, where a short would have served.
And as for the exclusion “only,” many of the authors, as I proved before, have the same exclusive, or other words equivalent thereto. And as for the sacramental signs, they be only figures. And of the presence of Christ’s body yourself hath this exclusive, that Christ is but after a spiritual manner present, and I say he is but spiritually present.
Now followeth St Augustine.
And yet St Augustine sheweth this matter more clearly and fully than any of the rest, specially in an epistle which he wrote ad Bonifacium, where he Epist. ἡ [ The Original ed., and that of 1551, omit the [9 This exclusive, 1551.] X word body ” in this sentence. ] [/? The exclusive, 1551.]
saith: “That a day or two before Good Friday, we use in common speech to say thus, To-morrow, or this day two days, Christ suffered his passion;’ where in very deed he never suffered his passion but once, and that was many years past. Likewise upon Kaster-day we say, This day Christ rose from death; where in very deed it is many hundred years sithens he rose from death. Why then do not men reprove us as liars, when we speak in this sort, but because we call these days so, by a similitude of those days wherein these things were done in deed? And so it is called that day, which is not that day in deed, but by the course of the year it is a like day. And such things be said to be done that day for the solemn celebration of the sacrament, which things in deed were not done that day, but long before. Was Christ offered any more but once? And he offered himself: and yet in a sacrament or representation, not only every solemn feast of Easter, but every day he is offered to the people; so that he doth not lie that saith, He is every day offered. For if sacraments had not some similitude or likeness of those things whereof they be sacraments, they could in no wise be sacraments. And for their similitude and likeness, commonly they have the name of the things, whereof they be sacraments. Therefore, as after a certain manner of speech the sacrament of Christ’s body is Christ’s body, the sacrament of Christ’s blood is Christ’s blood; so likewise the sacrament of faith is faith. And to believe is nothing else but to have faith; and therefore when we answer for young children in their baptism, that they believe, which have not yet the mind to believe, we answer that they have faith, because they have the sacrament of faith. And we say also that they turn unto God, because of the sacrament of conversion unto God; for that answer pertaineth to the celebration of the sacrament. And likewise speaketh the apostle of baptism, saying, that by baptism we be buried with him into death: he saith not that we signify burial, but he saith plainly, that we be buried. So that the sacrament of so great a thing is not called but by the name of the thing itself’.”
Hitherto I have rehearsed the answer of St Augustine unto Boniface, a learned bishop, who asked of him, how the parents and friends could answer for a young babe in baptism, and say in his person that he believeth and converteth unto God, when the child can neither do nor think any such things.: Whereunto the answer of St Augustine is this: that forasmuch as baptism is the sacrament of the profession of our faith, and of our conversion unto
[[! Nempe szpe ita loquimur, ut pascha pro- essent. Ex hac autem similitudine plerumque etiam]
[pinquante dicamus, crastinam vel perendinam Do- ipsarum rerum nomina accipiunt. Sicut ergo]
[mini passionem, cum ille ante tam multos annos secundum quendam modum sacramentum corporis]
[passus sit, nec omnino nisi semel illa passio facta Christi corpus Christi est, sacramentum sanguinis]
[sit. Nempe ipso die Dominico dicimus, Hodie Christi sanguis Christi est, ita sacramentum fidei]
[Dominus resurrexit, cum ex quo resurrexit tot anni fides est. Nihil est autem aliud credere quam]
[transierunt. Cur nemo tam ineptus est, ut nos ita fidem habere. Ac per hoc cum respondetur par-]
[loquentes arguat esse mentitos, nisi quia istos dies vulus credere, qui fidei nondum habet affectum,]
[secundum illorum quibus hzc gesta sunt similitu- respondetur fidem habere propter fidei sacramentum,]
[dinem nuncupamus, ut dicatur ipse dies qui non est et convertere se ad Deum propter conversionis I]
[ipse, sed revolutione temporis similis ejus; et sacramentum, quia et ipsa responsio ad celebra-]
[dicatur illo die fieri, propter sacramenti celebra- tionem pertinet sacramenti, Sicut de ipso baptismo]
[tionem, quod non illo die, sed jam olim factum Apostolus, Consepulti, inquit, «sumus Christo]
[est? Nonne semel immolatus est Christus in se per baptismum in mortem.” Non ait, sepulturam]
[ipso? et tamen in sacramento non solum per omnes significavimus: sed prorsus ait, Consepulti sumus.”]
[pasclie solemnitates, sed omni die populis immo- Sacramentum ergo tante rei non nisi ejusdem rei]
[latur, nec utique mentitur qui interrogatus eum vocabulo nuncupavit. Augustin. ad Bonifacium]
[responderit immolari. Si enim sacramenta quan- de Bapt. parvul. Epist. xxiii. Tom. II. p. 36.]
[dam similitudinem earum rerum quarum sacra- Paris. 1637.]]
[menta sunt non haberent, omnino sacramenta non ’]
i God, it becometh us so to answer for young children coming thereunto, as to the? sacrament appertaineth, although the children in deed have no knowledge of such things..;
And yet in our said answers we ought not to be reprehended as vain men or liars, forasmuch as in common speech we use daily to call sacraments and figures by the names of the things that be signified by them, although they be not the same thing indeed. As every Good Friday, as often as it returneth from year to year, we call it the day of Christ’s passion: and every Easter-day we eall the day of his resurrection: and every day in the year, we say that Christ is offered: and the sacrament of his body, we call it his body: and the sacrament of his blood, we call it his blood: and our baptism St Paul calleth our burial with Christ. And yet in very deed Christ never suffered but once, never arose but once, never was offered but once, nor in very deed in baptism we be not buried, nor the sacrament of Christs body is not his body, nor the sacrament of his blood is not his blood. But so they be called, because they be figures, sacraments, and representations of the things themselves, which they signify, and whereof they bear the names. Thus doth St Augustine most plainly open this matter in his epistle to Bonifacius.
Of this manner of speech, (wherein a sign is called by the name of the thing which it signifieth,) speaketh St Augustine also right largely in his questions super Leviticum, et contra Adamantium, declaring how blood in scripture is called the soul. “A thing which signifieth,” saith he, is wont to be called by the name of the thing which it signifieth, as it is written in the scripture: The seven ears be seven years’ The scripture saith not, signifieth seven years’ And seven kine be seven years, and many other like. And so said St Paul, that the stone was Christ, and not that it1icorx. signified Christ, but even as it had been he indeed, which nevertheless was not Christ by substance, but by signification. Even so,” saith St Augustine, “because the blood signifieth and representeth the soul, therefore in a sacrament or signification it is called the soul.” And contra Adamantium he writeth much like, saying: “In such wise is blood the soul, as the stone was Christ; and yet the apostle saith not that the stone signified Christ, but saith it was Christ. And this sentence, blood is the soul,” may be understand to be spoken in a sign or figure; for Christ did not stick to say, This is my body, when he gave the sign of his body.”
Here St Augustine, rehearsing divers sentences, which were spoken figuratively, that is to say, when one thing was called by the name of another, and yet was not the other in substance, but in signification, as “the blood is the soul;” “seven kine be seven years;” seven ears be seven years;” “the stone was Christ;” among such manner of speeches, he rehearseth those
[[? That, Orig. ed. and 1551.] [ Sic est enim sanguis anima, quomodo petra [? Solet autem res qua significat, ejus rei nomine erat Christus:—de quibus [loquebatur] Apostolus]
[quam significat nuncupari, sicut scriptum est, cum hac diceret, nec tamen ait, petra significabat]
[Septem spice septem anni sunt.” Non enim dixit, Christum, sed ait, petra erat Christus.” Quz rur-]
[septem annos significant. Et septem boves septem sus ne carnaliter acciperetur, spiritalem ille vocat:]
[anni sunt;’ et multa hujusmodi. Hinc est quod id est, eam spiritaliter intelligi docet.]
[dictum est: Petra erat Christus.” Non enim dixit, Possum etiam interpretari preceptum illud in]
[petra significat Christum, sed tanquam hoc esset, signo esse positum. Non enim Dominus dubitavit]
[quod utique per substantiam non hoc erat, sed per dicere, Hoc est corpus meum, cum signum daret]
[significationem. Sic et sanguis, quoniam propter corporis sui.—lbid. contra Adamantium, cap. 12.]
[S vitalem quandam corpulentiam animam significat, parsiii. Basil. ap. Amerbach. 1506.]
[in in sacramentis anima dictus est.—Augustin. super The position of these quotations is reversed by]
[τ Levit. Lib. rrr. Quest. lvii. Tom. IV. p. 95.] Cranmer.]]
Words which Christ spake at his last supper, This is my body.” Which declareth plainly St Augustine’s mind, that Christ spake those words figuratively, not meaning that the bread was his body by substance, but by signification. Maxi- And therefore St Augustine saith, contra Maximinum, that “in the sacraLib. A..
Winchester
As for St Augustine ad Bonifacium, the author shall perceive his fault at Martin Bwcer’s hand, who in his epistle dedicatory of his enarrations of the gospels, vehearseth his mind of St Augustine in this wise. Est (scribit divus Augustinus) secundum quendam modum sacramentum corporis Christi corpus Christi; sacramentum sanguinis Christi sanguis Christi. At secundum quem modum? Ut significet tantum corpus et sanguinem Domini absentia? Absit: honorari enim et percipi in symbolis visibilibus corpus et sanguinem Domini, idem passim seribit. These words of Bucer may be thus Englished: “St Augustine writeth: The sacrament of the body of Christ is after a certain manner the body of Christ, the sacrament of the blood of Christ, the blood of Christ But after what manner? that it should signify only the body and blood absent? Absit, in no wise; for the same St Augustine writeth. in many places, the body and blood of Christ to be honoured, and to be received in those visible tokens.” Thus saith Bucer, who understandeth not St Augustine to say the sacrament of Christ’s body, to be Christ’s body after a certain manner of speech, as this author doth: nor St Augustine hath no such words, but only, secundum quendam modum, after a certain manner, whereunto to put of speech” is am addition more than truth required of necessity. In these words of Bucer may appear his whole judgment concerning St Augustine, who affirmeth the very true presence of the thing signified in the sacrament; which truth established in the matter, the calling it a sign, or a token, a figure, a similitude, or a, shewing, maketh mo matter when we understand the thing really present that is signified. Which and it were not indeed in the sacrament, why should it, after Bucer’s true understanding of St Augustine, be honoured there? Arguing upon men’s speeches may be without end; and the authors? upon diverse respects speak of one thing diversely. for Therefore we should resort to the pith and knot of the matter, and see what they say in exbe pounding the special place, without contention, and not what they utter in the heat of their dispu-.;.. tation, me to search their dark and ambiguous places, wherewith to confound that they speak openly and plainly. contention.
Canterbury
What need you to bring Martin Bucer to make me answer, if you could answer yourself? But because you be ashamed of the matter, you would thrust Martin Bucer in your place, to receive rebuke for you. But in this place he easeth you nothing at all; for he saith no more but that the body and blood of Christ be exhibited unto the worthy receivers of the sacrament, which is true, but yet spiritually, not corporally.
[[! Hec enim sacramenta sunt, in quibus non sacerdotis manibus fit, Christi passio, mors, cruci-]
[quid sit, sed quid ostendant semper attenditur: quo- fixio, non rei veritate, sed significante mysterio.]
[niam signa sunt rerum, aliud existentia, aliud sig- Corpus Juris Canonici. Gratiani Decreti, tert. pars.]
[nificantia.—Ibid. contra Maximinum, Lib. 111. cap. De consecrat. Dist. ii. Hoc est.” cap. xlviii. Tom.]
[22 pars xr. Basil. ap. Amerbach. 1506,] I. col. 1937. Lugd. 1618.—Cranmer quoted this [? Sicut ergo coelestis panis, qui vere Christus passage from the Corpus Juris Canonici, and not]
[caro est, suo modo vocatur corpus Christi, cum from Augustine.]]
[revera sit sacramentum corporis Christi, illius vide- [? Thauctour, 1551.]]
[licet, quod visibile, palpabile, mortale in cruce est [^ To receive the rebuke for you, 1551.]]
[suspensum; vocaturque ipsa immolatio carnis, qua]
And 1 never said that Christ is utterly absent, but I ever affirmed that he is truly The and spiritually present, and truly and spiritually exhibited unto the godly receivers: but corporally is he neither in the receivers, nor in or under the forms of bread or wine, as you do teach clearly without the consent of master Bucer, who writeth no such thing.
And where I allege of St Augustine, that the sacrament of Christ’s body is called Christ’s body, after a certain manner of speech, and you deny that St Augustine meant of a certain manner of speech, but saith only after a certain manmer:, read the place of St Augustine who will, and he shall find that he speaketh of the manner of speech, and that of such a manner of speech, as calleth one thing by the name of another, where it is not the very thing in deed. For of the manner of speech is all the process there, as appeareth by these his words: “A day or two before Good Friday, we use in common speech to say, To-morrow, or this day two days, Christ suffered, &c. Likewise upon Easter-day we say, This day Christ rose. And why do no men reprove us as liars, when we speak in this sort? And we call those days so by a similitude, &c. And so it is called that day, which is not that day in deed. And sacraments commonly have the name of the things whereof they be sacraments. “Therefore as after a certain manner the sacrament of Christs body is Christ’s body; so likewise the sacrament of faith is faith. And likewise saith St Paul, that in baptism we be buried, he saith not that we signify burial, but he saith plainly that we be buried: so that the sacrament of so great a thing is called by the name of the thing.” All these be St Augustines words, shewing how in the common use of speech one thing may have the name of another. Wherefore when Doctor Gardiner saith that St Augustine spake not of the manner of speech, thou mayest believe him hereafter as thou shalt see cause, but if thou trust his words too much, thou shalt soon be deceived.
As for the real presence of Christ in the sacrament, I grant that he is really present after such sort as you expound really in this place, that is to say, in deed, and yet but spiritually. For you say yourself, that he is but after a spiritual manner there, and so is he spiritually honoured, as St Augustine saith.
But as concerning heat of disputation, mark well the words of St Augustine, good reader, cited in my book, and thou shalt see clearly that all this multiplication of words is rather a juggling than a direct answer. For St Augustine writeth not in heat of disputation, but temperately and gravely, to a learned bishop, his dear friend, who demanded a question of him. And if St Augustine had answered in heat of disputation, or for any other respect otherwise than the truth, he had not done the part of a friend, nor of a learned and godly bishop. And whosoever judgeth so of St Augustine, hath small estimation of him, and sheweth himself to have little knowledge of St Augustine.
But in this your answer to St Augustine, you utter where you learned a good part of your divinity, that is, of Albertus Pighius, who is the father of this shift, and with this sleight eludeth St Augustine when he could no otherwise answer: as you do now shake off the same St Augustine, resembling as it were in that point the lively countenance of your father Pighius.
Next in my book followeth “Theodoret.
And to this purpose it is both pleasant, comfortable, and profitable to read “Theodoretus in his dialogues, where he disputeth and sheweth at length how the names of things be changed in scripture, and yet things remain still. And for example he proveth that the flesh of Christ is in the scripture sometime called a vail or covering, sometime a cloth, sometime a vestment, and sometime a stole: and the blood of the grape is called Christ’s blood, and the names of bread and wine, and of his flesh and blood, Christ doth so change, that sometime he calleth his body corn or bread, and sometime
[5 none, 1551.]]
contrary he calleth bread his body. And likewise his blood sometime he calleth wine, and sometime contrary he calleth wine his blood. For the more plain understanding whereof it shall not be amiss to recite his own sayings in his foresaid dialogues, touching this matter of the holy sacrament of Christ’s flesh and blood. The speakers in these dialogues be Orthodoxus, the right believer, and Eranistes, his companion, but not understanding the right faith. Orthodoxus saith to his companion: ‘Dost thou not know that God calleth read his flesh? Eran. I know that.
OrTH. And in another place he calleth his body corn.
Eran. I know that also, for I have heard him say: The hour is come that the Son of man shall be glorified,” &e. “Except the grain of corn that falleth in the ground die, it remaineth sole; but if it die, then it bringeth forth much fruit.” OnrH. When he gave the mysteries or sacraments, he called bread his body, and that which was mixt in the cup he called his blood. Eran. So he called them. OnTrH. But that also which was his natural body may well be called his body, and his very blood also may be called his blood. Eran. It is plain.
OrTH. But our Saviour without doubt changed the names, and gave to the body the name of the sign or token, and to the token he gave the name of the body. And so when he called himself a vine, he called blood that which was the token of blood.
Eran. Surely thou hast spoken the truth. But I would know the cause wherefore the names were changed.
OnTH. The cause is manifest to them that be expert in true religion. For he would that they which be partakers of the godly sacraments, should — not set their minds upon the nature of the things which they see, but by the changing of the names should believe the things which be wrought in them by grace. For he that called that, which is his natural body, corn and bread, and also called himself a vine, he did honour the visible tokens and signs with the names of his body and blood, not changing the nature, but adding grace to nature.
Eran. Sacraments be spoken of sacramentally, and also by them be manifestly declared things which all men know not.
OnTH. Seeing then that it is certain that the patriarch called the Lord’s body a vestment and apparel, and that now we be entered to speak of godly sacraments, tell me truly of what thing thinkest thou this holy meat to be a token and figure; of Christ’s divinity, or of his body and blood?
Eran. It is clear that it is the figure of those things whereof it beareth the name. ’
OnTH. Meanest thou of his body and blood?
Eran. Even so I mean.
OnTH. Thou hast spoken as one that loveth the truth: for the Lord when he took the token or sign, he said not, This is my divinity; but This 18 my body,” and “This is my blood.” And in another place: ’ The bread which I will give is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world.” Po- Egan. These things be true, for they be God’s words.
”Theodoretus, in Dialogo i. Tom. 25-27. Hala. 1769-94
~All these writeth “Theodoretus in his first dialogue.
And in the second he writeth the same in effect, and yet in some thing more plainly, against such heretics as affirmed, that after Christ’s resurrection and ascension his humanity was changed from the very nature of man? and turned into his divinity. Against whom thus he writeth:. OnrH. Corruption, health, sickness, and death, be accidents, for they go and come. Eran. It is meet they be so called. OnmrH. Men’s bodies after their resurrection be delivered from corruption, death, and mortality, and yet they lose not their proper nature. Eran. Truth it is.
OrrH. The body of Christ therefore did rise quite clean from all corruption and death, and is impassible, immortal, glorified with the glory of God, and is honoured of the powers of heaven, and it is? a body, and hath the same bigness that it had before.
Eran. Thy saying” seem true and according to reason; but after he was ascended up into heaven, I think thou wilt not say, that his body was not turned? into the nature of his Godhead ὃ.
OnrH. I would not so say for the persuasion of man’s reason: nor I am not so arrogant and presumptuous to affirm any thing which scripture passeth over in silence. But I have heard St Paul cry, “that God hath ordained a day when he will judge all the world in justice by that man which he appointed before, performing his promise to all men, and raising him from death.” I have learned also of the holy angels, that he will come after that fashion, as his disciples saw him go to heaven. But they saw a nature of a certain bigness, not a nature which had no bigness. I heard furthermore the Lord say: “You shall see the Son of man come in the clouds of heaven.” And I know that every thing that men see hath a certain bigness: for that nature that hath no bigness cannot be seen. Moreover to sit in the throne of glory, and to set the lambs upon his right hand, and the goats upon his left hand, signifieth a thing that hath quantity and bigness.
Hitherto have I rehearsed Theodoretus’ words, and shortly after Eranistes saith’: Eran. We must turn every stone, as the proverb saith, to seek out the truth, but specially when godly matters be propounded. OrTH. Tell me then the sacramental signs which be offered to God by his priests, whereof be they signs, sayest thou? Eran. Of the Lord’s body and blood. Onru. Of a very body? or not of a very body? Eran. Of a very body.
Orta. Very well, for an image must be made after a true pattern: for painters follow nature, and paint the images of such things as we see with our eyes.
Eran. Truth it is.
Onru. If therefore the godly sacraments represent a true body, then is the Lord’s body yet still a body, not converted into the nature of his Godhead, but replenished with God’s glory.
[[? Things, 1551, and Orig. ed.] of 1580.] [ Of a man, 1551, and Orig. ed.] [7 Sayings, 1551, and Orig. ed.] [ Id in Dialogo ii, Tom. IV. pp. 122, 3.] [8 Was turned, 1551, and Orig. ed.]]
[: [ And yet it is, 1551, and Orig. ed.] [? Of the Godhead, 1551, and Orig. ed.] [ Hath, 1551. The Orig. ed. reads with that ὀ [!? Theodoret. ubi supra, pp. 122, 3.]]
[y [CRANMER.] ϑ]
Eran. Τὺ cometh in good time that thou makest mention of God’s sacraments; for by the same I shall prove that Christ’s body is turned into another nature. Answer therefore unto my questions. OnTrH. I shall answer. Eran. What callest thou that which is offered before the invocation of the priest? OnrH. We must not speak plainly; for it is like that some be present which have not professed Christ. Eran. Answer covertly. OnTH. It is a nourishment made of seeds that be like. Eran. Then how call we the other sign? OrTH. It is also a common name that signifieth a kind of drink. Eran. But how dost thou call them after the sanctification? Orta. The body of Christ, and the blood of Christ. Enaw. And dost thou believe that thou art made partaker of Christ’s body and blood? OnTH. I believe so.
Eran. Therefore as the tokens of God’s body and blood be other things before the priest’s invocation, but after the invocation they be changed, and be other things; so also the body of Christ after his assumption is changed into his divine substance..
OnTrH. Thou art taken with thine own net. For the sacramental signs go not from their own nature after the sanctification, but continue in their former substance, form, and figure, and may be seen and touched as well as before: yet in our minds we do consider what they be made, and do repute and esteem them and have them in reverence, according to the same things that they be taken for. Therefore compare their images to the pattern, and thou shalt see them like. For figure! must be like to the thing itself. For Christ’s body hath his former fashion, figure, and bigness, and, to speak at one word, the same substance of his body: but after his resurrection it was made immortal, and of such power, that no corruption nor death could come unto it; and it was exalted unto that dignity, that it was set at the right hand of the Father, and honoured of all creatures, as the body of him that is the Lord of nature.
Eran. But the sacramental token changeth his former name; for it is no more called as it was before, but is called Christ’s body. Therefore must his body after his ascension be called God, and not a body.
Orta. Thou seemest to me ignorant: for it is not called his body only, but also the bread of life, as the Lord called it. So the body of Christ we call a godly body, a body that giveth life, God’s body, the Lord’s body, our master’s body; meaning? that it is not a common body, as other men’s bodies be, but that it is the body of our Lord Jesu Christ, both God and man.
This have I rehearsed of the great clerk and holy bishop Theodoretus, whom. some of the papists perceiving to make so plainly against them, have defamed, saying that he was infected with the error of Nestorius.
Here the papists shew their old accustomed nature and condition, which is even in a manifest matter rather to lie without shame, than to give place unto the truth, and confess their own error. And although his adversaries
[[’ a figure, 1551.] [? So the Orig. edit, and 1551; that of 1580 has name ning.]]
. OF THE PRESENCE OF CHRIST. 131 falsely bruited such a fame against him, when he was yet alive, nevertheless he was purged thereof by the whole council of Chalcedon, about eleven hundred years ago.
And furthermore in his book which he wrote against heresies, he specially condemneth Nestorius by name. And also all his three books of his dialogues before rehearsed he wrote chiefly against Nestorius, and was never herein noted of error this thousand year, but hath ever been reputed and taken for an holy bishop, a great learned man, and a grave author, until now at this present time, when the papists have nothing to answer unto him, they begin in excusing of themselves to defame him.
Thus much have I spoken for Theodoretus, which I pray thee be not weary to read, good reader, but often and with delectation, deliberation, and good advertisement to read. For it containeth plainly and briefly the true instruction of a christian man, concerning the matter, which in this book we treat upon.
First, that our Saviour Christ in his last supper, when he gave bread and wine to his apostles, saying, This is my body; this is my blood;” it was bread which he called his body, and wine mixed in the cup which he called his blood: so that he changed the names of the bread and wine, which were the mysteries, sacraments, signs, figures, and tokens of Christ’s flesh and blood, and called them by the names of the things which they did represent and signify; that is to say, the bread he called by the name of his very flesh, and the wine by the name of his blood.
Second, that although the names of bread and wine were changed after sanctification, yet, nevertheless, the things themselves remained the selfsame that they were before the sanctification, that is to say, the same bread and wine in nature, substance, form, and fashion.
The third, seeing that the substance of the bread and wine be not changed, why be then their names changed, and the bread called Christ’s flesh, and the wine his blood? Theodoretus sheweth that the cause thereof was this, that we should not have so much respect to the bread and wine (which we see with our eyes, and taste with our mouths) as we should have to Christ himself, in whom we believe with our hearts, and feel and taste him by our faith, and with whose flesh and blood (by his grace) we believe that we be spiritually fed and nourished. These things we ought to remember and revolve in our minds, and to lift up our hearts from the bread and wine unto Christ that sitteth above. And because we should so do, therefore after the consecration they be no more called bread and wine, but the body and blood of Christ.
The fourth, it is in these sacraments of bread and wine, as it is in the very body of Christ. For as the body of Christ before his resurrection and after is all one in nature, substance, bigness, form, and fashion; and yet it is not called as another common body, but with addition, for the dignity of his exaltation, it is called a heavenly, a godly, an immortal, and the Lord’s body: so likewise the bread and wine before the consecration and after is. all one in nature, substance, bigness, form, and fashion; and yet it is not called as other common bread, but for the dignity whereunto it is taken, it. is called with addition, heavenly bread, the bread of life, and the bread of The fifth, that no man ought to be so arrogant and presumptuous to. affirm for a certain truth in religion any thing which is not spoken of in k holy scripture. And this is spoken to the great and utter condemnation of
the papists, which make and unmake new articles of our faith from time to time at their pleasure, without any scripture at all, yea, quite and clean contrary to seripture. And yet will they have all men bound to believe whatsoever they invent, upon peril of damnation and everlasting fire. And yet will they constrain with fire and fagot all men to consent (contrary to the manifest words of God) to these their errors in this matter of the holy sacrament of Christ’s body and blood:
First, that there remaineth no bread nor wine after the consecration, but that Christ’s flesh and blood is made of them.
Second, that Christ’s body is really, eorporally, substantially, sensibly, and naturally in the bread and wine.
Thirdly, that wicked persons do eat and drink Christs very body and blood.!
Fourthly, that priests offer Christ every day, and make of him a new sacrifice propitiatory for sin.
Thus for shortness of time I do make an end of Theodoretus, with other old ancient writers, which do most clearly affirm that to eat Christ’s body and to drink his blood be figurative speeches. ^ And so be these sen- tenees likewise which Christ spake at his supper: “This is my body;” this is my blood.”
Winchester
The author bringeth in Theodoret, a Greek, whom to discuss particularly were long and tedious: one notable place there is in him which toucheth the point of the matter, which place Peter Martyr allegeth in Greek, and then translateth it into Latin, not exactly as other have done to the truth; but as he hath done, I will write here?. And then will I write the same, translated into English by one that hath translated Peter Martyr’s book; and then will I add the translation of this author, and finally, the very truth of the Latin, as I will abide by, and join an issue with this author in it, whereby thou, reader, shalt perceive with what sincerity things be handled.
Peter Martyr hath of Theodoret this in Latin, which the same Theodoret, in a disputation with an heretic, maketh the catholic man to say: Captus es iis quz tetenderas retibus. Neque enim post sanctificationem mystica symbola illa propria sua natura egrediuntur; manent enim in priori sua substantia, et figura, et specie, adeoque et videntur, et palpantur, quemadmodum et antea. Intelliguntur autem quse facta sunt, et creduntur, et adorantur tanquam ea existentia, quz creduntur. He that translateth Peter Martyr in English, doth express these words thus: Lo, thou art now caught in the same net which thow hadst set to catch me in. For those same mystical signs do not depart away out of their own proper nature after the hallowing of them. For they remain still in their former substance, and their former shape, and their former kind, amd are even? as well seen and felt as they were afore. But the things that are done are understanded, and are believed, and are worshipped, even as though they were in very deed the things that are believed.” This is the common translation into English of Peter Martyr’s book translated, which this author doth translate after his fashion thus: Thou art taken with thine own met; for the sacramental signs go not from their own nature after the sanctification, but continue in their former substance, form, and figure, and be seen and touched as well as before. Yet in our minds we do consider what they be made, and do repute and esteem them and have them in reverence according to the same things that they be taken for.” Thus is the translation of this author. Mine English of this Latin is thus:
“Thou art taken with the same nets thou didst lay forth. For the mystical tokens after the sanctification go not away out of their proper mature. For they abide in their former substance, shape, and form, and so far forth, that they may be seen and felt as they might before. But they be understanded that they be made, and ave believed, and are worshipped, as being the same things which be believed.” This is my translation, who in the first sentence [^ And they would constrain, 1551, and Orig. ed.] [3 Ever, 1551. Orig. ed. Winch. reads with ed. [? I will write in here, 1551.] 1580.]
OF THE PRESENCE OF CHRIST. 133 mean not to vary from the other translations touching the remain of substance, shape, form, or figure: I will use all those names. But in the second part, where Theodoret speaketh of our what the tokens be made, and where he saith those tokens be worshipped, as being the same things which be believed, thou mayest see, reader, how this author flieth the words “believe” and “worship,” which the common translation in English doth plainly and truly express, howsoever the translator swerved by colour of the word tanquam, which there, after the Greek, signifieth the truth, and not the similitude only; like as St Paul, Vocat ea quz non sunt, tanquam sint, which is to make to be in deed, not as though they were. And the Greek is there ὡς ὄντα, as it is here ὥσπερ ἐκεῖνα ὄνταῦ. And it were an absurdity to believe things otherwise than they be, as though they were, and very idolatry to worship wittingly that is not, as though it were in deed. And therefore in these two words, that they believed? that they be made and be worshipped, is declared by Theodoret his faith of the very true real presence of Christ’s glorious flesh, whereunto the Deity is united, which flesh St Augustine, consonantly to this Theodoret, said must be worshipped before it be received. The word “worshipping” put here in English is to express the word adorantur, put by Peter in Latin, signifying adoring, being the verb in Greek of such signification, as is used to express godly worship with bowing of the knee. Now, reader, what should I say by this author, that conveyeth these two words of believing and worshipping, and instead of them cometh in with reverence, taking, reputing, and esteeming? whereof thou mayest esteem how this place of Theodoret pinched this author, who could not but see that adoring of the sacrament signifieth the presence of the body of Christ to be adored, which else were an absurdity; and therefore the author took pain to ease it with other words of calling, believing, reputing, and esteeming, and for adoration, reverence. Consider what praise this author giveth Theodoret, which praise condemmeth this author sore. For Theodoret, in his doctrine, would have us believe the mystery, and adore the sacrament, where this author after in his doctrine professeth there is nothing to be worshipped at all. If one should now say to me, Yea, sir, but this Theodoret seemeth to condemn transubstantiation, because he speaketh so of the bread” thereunto shall be answered when I speak of transubstantiation, which shall be after the third and fourth book discussed. For before the truth of the presence of the substance of Christ’s body may appear, what should we talk of transubstantiation? I will travail no more in Theodoret, but leave it to thy judgment, reader, what credit this author ought to have, that handleth the matter after this sort.
Canterbury
“This bladder is so puffed up with wind, that it is marvel it brasteth not. But be patient awhile, good reader, and suffer until the blast of wind be past, and thou shalt see a great calm, the bladder broken, and nothing in it but all vanity.
“There is no difference between your translation and mine, saving that mine is more plain, and giveth less occasion of error; and yours, as all your doings be, is dark and obscure, and containeth in it no little provocation to idolatry. For the words of Theodoret, after your interpretation, contain both a plain untruth and also manifest idolatry: for the signs and tokens which he speaketh of, be the very forms and substances of bread and wine. For the nominative case to the verb of adoring, in Theodoret, js not the body and blood of Christ, but the mystical tokens, by your own translation: which mystical tokens if you will have to be the very body and blood of Christ, what ean be spoken more untrue or more foolish? And if you will have them to be worshipped with godly worship, what can be greater idolatry? Wherefore I, to eschew such occasions of error, have translated the words of Theodoretus faithfully and truly as his mind was, and yet have avoided all occasions of evil: for tanquam, or ὥσπερ ἐκεῖνα ὄντα, signifieth not the truth, as you say, but is an adverb of similitude, as it is likewise in this place of St Paul: Vocat ea que non sunt, tanquam sint. For St
[[ that translator, 1551.] ὡς ἐκεῖνα ὄντα ἅπερ πιστεύεται. Theodoret. ubi]
[5 The original of Theodoret is as follows: supra, p. 126.]]
[i OPO. ‘EaXws als ὕφῃνες ἄρκυσιν. οὐδὲ ydp [ Orig. ed. Winch. omits the word wittingly”’]]
[ο΄ μετὰ τὸν ἁγιασμὸν τὰ μυστικὰ σύμβολα τῆς οἰκείας [7 they be believed, 1551.]]
[ο΄ ἐξίσταται φύσεως, μένει γὰρ ἐπὶ τῆς προτέρας [ Orig. ed. Winch. instead of, which shall be]
[ο΄ οὐσίας, kai τοῦ σχήματος, καὶ τοῦ εἴδους, kal ὁρατὰ after the third and fourth book discussed,” reads,]
[ς ἐστι, καὶ dzrrd, ola καὶ πρότερον ἦν” νοεῖται δὲ “which shall be the last.”]]
[ἅπερ ἐγένετο, καὶ πιστεύεται, καὶ προσκυνεῖται,]
Paul saith, “as though they were;” which indeed were not, as he said the next word before, non sunt, “they be not.” And nevertheless unto God all things be present; and those things which in their nature be not yet present, unto God were ever present, in whom be not these successions of time, before and after: for Christ the Lamb in his present was slain before the world began; and a thousand year to his eyes be but ^as it were yesterday; and one day before him is as it were a thousand year, and a thousand year as one day. de, And if you had read and considered a saying of St Augustine, De doctrina Christiana, cap. Lib. 1m. cap. 9, you might have understand this place of Theodoret better than you do. “He serveth under a sign,” saith St Augustine, “who worketh or worshippeth any sign, not knowing what it signifieth. But he that worketh or worshippeth a profitable sign ordained of God, the strength and signification whereof he understandeth, he worshippeth not that which is seen and is transitory, but rather that thing whereto all such signs ought to be referred.” And anon after he saith further: At this time when our Lord Jesus Christ is risen, we have a most manifest argument of our freedom, and be not burdened with the heavy yoke of signs which we understand not; but the Lord and the teaching of his apostles hath given to us a few signs for many, and those most easy to be done, most excellent in understanding, and in performing most pure; as the sacrament of baptism, and the celebration of the body and blood of our Lord, which every man when he receiveth knoweth whereunto they be referred, being taught that he worship not them with a carnal bondage, but rather with a spiritual freedom. And as it is a vile bondage to follow the letter, and to take the signs for the things signified by them; so to interpret the signs to no profit, is an error that shrewdly spreadeth abroad!.” “These words of St Augustine, being conferred with the words of Theodoret, may declare plainly what Theodoret meaning was, For where he saith that we may not worship with a carnal bondage the visible signs, (meaning of water in baptism, and of bread and wine in the holy communion, ) when we receive the same, but rather ought to worship the things whereunto they be referred, he meant that although those signs or sacraments of water, bread, and wine ought highly to be esteemed, and not to be taken as other common water, bakers bread, or wine in the tavern, but as signs dedicated, consecrated, and referred to an holy use; and by those earthly things to represent things celestial; yet the very irue honour and worship ought to be given to the celestial things, which by the visible signs be understand, and not to the visible signs themselves. And nevertheless, both St Augustine and Theodoret count it a certain kind of worshipping the signs, the reverent esteeming of them above other common and profane things, and yet the same principally to be referred to the celestial things represented by the signs; and therefore saith St Augustine pofius, “rather.” And this worship is as well in the sacrament of baptism, as in the sacrament of Christ’s body and blood. And therefore, although whosoever is baptized unto Christ, or eateth his flesh and drinketh his blood in his holy supper, do first honour him; yet is he corporally and carnally neither in the supper, nor in baptism, but spiritually and effectually.
Now where you leave the judgment of Theodoret to the reader, even so do I also, not doubting but the indifferent reader shall soon espy, how little cause you have so to boast, and blow out your vain-glorious words as you do. But hear now what followeth next in my book.
[[! Sub signo enim servit qui operatur aut vene. castissima ipse Dominus et apostolica tradidit dis-:]
[ratur aliquam rem significantem, nesciens quid sig- ciplina: sicuti est baptismi sacramentum, et cele- — —]
[nificet: qui vero aut operatur, aut veneratur utile bratio corporis et sanguinis Domini. Que unusquis- —.]
[signum divinitus institutum, cujus vim significa- que cum percipit, quo referantur imbutus agnoscit, ——]
[tionemque intelligit, non hoc veneratur quod videtur ut ea non carnali servitute, sed spiritali potius]
[et transit, sed illud potius quo talia cuncta refe- libertate veneretur. Ut autem literam sequi, et signa]
[renda sunt.—Hoc vero tempore posteaquam resur. pro rebus que iis significantur accipere, servilis in-]
[rectione Domini nostri manifestissimum indicium firmitatis est; ita inutiliter signa interpretari, male]
[nostra libertatis illuxit, nec eorum quidem signorum, vagantis erroris est. Augustin, De doctrina]
[quzjamintelligimus, operationegravionerati sumus; Christiana, Lib. 111. cap.9. Pars rv. Basil. ap.]
[sed quaedam pauca pro multis, eademque factu fa- Amerbach. 1506.]]
[cillima, et intellectu augustissima, et observatione]
H
OF THE PRESENCE OF CHRIST. 135 And marvel not, good reader, that Christ at that time spake in figures, Chap. when he did institute that sacrament, seeing that it is the nature of all sacra- speeeher ments to be figures. And although the scripture be full of schemes, tropes, and figures, yet specially it useth them when it speaketh of sacraments.
When the ark, which represented God’s majesty, was come into the army of the Israelites, the Philistines said that God was come into the army. And isam.iv. God himself said by his prophet Nathan, that from the time that he had 2 brought the children of Israel out of Egypt, he dwelled not in houses, but that he was carried about in tents and tabernacles. And yet was not God himself so carried about, or went in tents or tabernacles: but because the ark, which was a figure of God, was so removed from place to place, he spake of himself that thing, which was to be understand of the ark.
And Christ himself oftentimes spake in similitudes, parables, and figures; Christ as when he said: “The field is the world, the enemy is the devil, the seed figurative is the word of God;” “John is Elias;” “I am a vine, and you be the Mat. branches;” “I am bread of life;” “my Father is an husbandman, and he & hath his fan in his hand, and will make clean his floor, and gather the jm wheat into his barn, but the chaff he will cast into everlasting fire;” “I have oh. a meat to eat which you know not;” work not meat that perisheth, but habeo. that endureth unto everlasting life;” “I am a good shepherd;” the Son vos of man will set the sheep at his right hand, and the goats at his left hand;” Johnx “I am a door, one of you is the devil; “whosoever doeth my Father’s will, John he is my brother, sister, and mother:” and when he said to his mother Mat. and to John, This is thy son,” this is thy mother.” John These, with an infinite number of like sentences, Christ spake in parables, metaphors, tropes, and figures. But chiefly when he spake of the sacraments, he used figurative speeches.
As when in baptism he said, that we must be baptized with the Holy aesi. Ghost,” meaning of spiritual baptism. And like speech used St John the Baptist, Matt. saying of Christ, “that he should baptize with the Holy Ghost and fire.” And Christ said, “that we must be born again, or else we cannot see the Johniii. kingdom of God.” And said also: Whosoever shall drink of that water which zom I shall give him, he shall never be dry again. But the water which I shall exaqua give him, shall be made within him a well, which shall spring into ever- n” lasting life.” And St Paul saith, “that in baptism we clothe us with Christ, rom. and be buried with him.” This baptism and washing by the fire and the Holy Sal Ghost, this new birth, this water that springeth in a man and floweth into everlasting life, and this clothing and burial, cannot be understand of any material baptism, material washing, material birth, clothing, and burial; but by translation of things visible into things invisible, they must be understand spiritually and figuratively. After the same sort the mystery of our redemption, and the passion of our Saviour Christ upon the cross, as well in the new as in the old testament, is expressed and declared by many figures and figurative speeches. As the pure paschal lamb without spot signified Christ, the effusion of The the lamb’s blood signified the effusion of Christ’s blood; and the salvation of the children of Israel from temporal death by the lamb’s blood signified our salvation from eternal death by Christ’s blood. And as Almighty God, passing through Egypt, killed all the Egyptians’ heirs in every house, and left not one alive, and nevertheless he passed by
the children of Israel’s houses, where he saw the lamb’s blood upon the doors, and hurted none of them, but saved them all by the means of the lamb’s blood; so likewise at the last judgment of the whole world, none shall be passed over and saved but that shall be found marked with the blood of the most pure and immaculate Lamb, Jesus Christ, And forasmuch as the shedding of that lamb’s blood was a token and figure of the shedding of Christ’s blood then to come; and forasmuch also as all the sacraments and figures of the old testament ceased and had an end in Christ; lest by our great unkindness we should peradventure be forgetful of the great benefit of Christ, therefore at his last supper, (when he took his leave of his apostles to depart out of the world,) he did make a new will and testament, wherein he bequeathed unto us clean remission of all our sins, and the everlasting inheritance of heaven. And the same he confirmed the next day with his own blood and death.
And lest we should forget the same, he ordained not a yearly memory, (as the paschal lamb was eaten but once every year,) but a daily remembrance he ordained thereof in bread and wine, sanctified and dedicated to that purpose, saying: “This is my body; this cup is my blood, which is shed for the remission of sins: do this in remembrance of me:”—admonishing us by these words, spoken at the making of his last will and testament, and at his departing out of the world, (because they should be the better remembered,) that whensoever we do eat the bread in his holy supper, and drink of that cup, we should remember how much Christ hath done for us, and how he died for Our sakes. Therefore saith St Paul: As often as ye shall eat this bread, and drink the cup, you shall shew forth the Lord’s death until he come.”
And forasmuch as this holy bread broken, and the wine divided, do represent unto us the death of Christ now past, as the killing of the paschal lamb did represent the same yet to come; therefore our Saviour Christ used the same manner of speech of bread and wine, as God before used the paschal lamb!.
For as in the old testament God said, This is the Lord’s pass-by, or passover”; even so saith Christ in the new testament, “This is my body; this is my blood.” But in the old mystery and sacrament the lamb was not the Lord’s very passover or passing by, but it was a figure which represented his passing by: so likewise in the new testament the bread and wine be not Christ’s very body and blood, but they be figures, which by Christ’s institution be unto the godly receivers thereof sacraments, tokens, significations, and representations of his very flesh and blood; instructing their faith, that as the bread and wine feed them corporally and continue this temporal life, so the very flesh and blood of Christ feedeth them spiritually, and giveth everlasting life.
And why should any man think it strange to admit a figure in these at Speeches, This is my body,” “this is my blood;” seeing that the communieation the same night, by the papists’ own confessions, was so full of figurative speeches? For the apostles spake figuratively when they asked Christ, “where he would eat his passover or pass-by:” and Christ himself used the same figure, when he said: “I have much desired to eat this passover with you.”
Also, to eat Christ’s body and to drink his blood, I am sure they will not say that it 1s taken properly, to eat and drink, as we do eat other meats and drinks.
And when Christ said, “This cup is a new testament in my blood,” here in one sentence be two figures: one in this word, cup,” which is not taken for the cup itself, but for the thing contained in the cup: another is in this word,
Of the Paschal Lamb, 1551.]
testament;” for neither the cup, nor the wine contained in the cup, is Christ’s — testament, but is a token, sign, and figure, whereby is represented unto us his testament, confirmed by his blood.
And if the papists will say, as they say indeed, that by this cup is neither meant the eup, nor the wine contained in the cup, but that thereby is meant Christ’s blood contained in the cup, yet must they needs grant that there is a figure. For Christ’s blood is not in proper speech the new testament, but it is the thing that confirmed the new testament. And yet by this strange interpretation the papists make a very strange speech, more strange than any figurative speech is. For this they make the sentence: “This blood is a new testament in my blood.” Which saying is so fond and so far from all reason, that the foolishness thereof is evident to every man.
Winchester
As for the use of figurative speeches to be accustomed in scripture is not denied. But Philip Melancthon in an epistle to GZcolampadius of the sacrament, giveth one good note of observation in difference between the speeches in God’s ordinances and commandments, and otherwise?. For if in the understanding? of God’s ordinances and commandments figures may be often received; truth shall by allegories be shortly subverted, and all our religion reduced to significations. There is no speech so plain and simple but it hath some piece of a figurative speech, but such as expresseth the common plain understanding; and then the common use 0f the figure causeth it to be taken as a common proper speech. As these speeches, “drink wp this cup,” or “eat this dish^,” is indeed a figurative speech, but by custom made so eommon that it is reputed the plain speech, because it hath but one only understanding commonly received. And when Christ said, This cup is the new testament,” the proper speech thereof in letter hath an absurdity in reason, and faith also. But when Christ said, “This is my body,” although the truth of the literal sense hath an absurdity in carnal reason, yet hath it no absurdity in humility of faith, nor repugneth not to any other truth of scripture. And seeing it is a singular miracle of Christ whereby to exercise us in the faith, understanded as the plain words signify in their proper sense, there can mo reasoning be made of other figurative speeches to make this to be their fellow and like unto them. No man denieth the use of figurative speeches in Christ’s supper, but such as be equal with plain proper speech, or be expounded by other evangelists in plain speech.
Canterbury
I see well you would take a dung-fork to fight with, rather than you would lack a weapon. For how highly you have esteemed Melancthon in times past, it is not unknown. But whatsoever Melancthon saith, or howsoever you understand Melancthon, where is so convenient a place to use figurative speeches as when figures and sacraments be instituted? And St Augustine giveth a plain rule how we may know when God’s commandments be given in figurative speeches^, and yet shall neither the truth be subverted, nor our religion reduced to significations. And how can it be but that in the understanding of God’s ordinances and commandments figures must needs be often received, (contrary to Melancthon’s saying,) if it be true that you say, that there is no speech so plain and simple, but it hath some piece of a figurative speech?” But now be all speeches figurative, when it pleaseth you. What need I then to travail any more to prove that Christ in his supper used figurative speeches, seeing that all that he spake was spoken in figures by your saying?
And these words “This is my body,” spoken of the bread, and This is my blood,”
[[? The epistle referred to appears to be that in- cur eam deseramus.” pp. 14, 15. The letter is]
[serted in CEcolampadii Dialogus, Quid de Eucharis- dated Spires, an. 1529.]]
[tia veteres tum Graeci tum Latini senserint, Basil. [? For if theunderstanding, 1551. Evidently]
[1590. “Nullam enim firmam rationem invenio, an error of the press.]]
[qua conscientiz discedenti a proprietate verborum [ Eat up this dish, 1551. Orig. ed, reads as ed.]
[satisfaciat.Cum proprietas verborum cum nullo 1580.]]
[articulo fidei pugnet, nulla satis magna causa est [^ See before, p. 115, note 5.]]
138 THE THIRD BOOK. spoken of the cup, express no plain common understanding, whereby the common use of these figures should be equal with plain proper speeches, or cause them to be taken as common proper speeches: for you say yourself, “that these speeches in letter have an absurdity in reason.” And as they have absurdity in reason, so have they “absurdity in faith.” For neither is there any reason, faith, miracle, nor truth, to say that material bread is Christ’s body. For then it must be true that his body is material bread, a conversa ad convertentem; for of the material bread spake Christ those words, by your confession’. And why have not these words of Christ, “This is my body,” an absurdity both in faith and reason, as well as these words, “This cup is the new testament,” seeing that these words were spoken by Christ as well as the other, and the credit of him is all one whatsoever he saith?
But if you will needs understand these words of Christ, “This is my body,” as the plain words signify in their proper sense, (as in the end you seem to do, repugning therein to your own former saying,) you shall see how far you go, not only from reason, but also from the true confession of the christian faith.
Christ spake of bread, say you, “This is my body;” appointing by this word this” the bread: whereof followeth, as I said before, if bread be his body, that his body is bread: and if his body be bread, it is a creature without sense and reason, having neither life nor soul; which is horrible of any christian man to be heard or spoken.
Hear now what followeth further in my book.
Now forasmuch as it is plainly declared and manifestly proved, that Christ Called bread his body, and wine his blood, and that these sentences be figurative o speeches; and that Christ, as concerning his humanity and bodily presence, is “ascended into heaven with his whole flesh and blood, and is not here upon earth; and that the substance of bread and wine do remain still, and be received in the sacrament, and that although they remain, yet they have changed their names, so that the bread is called Christ’s body, and the wine his blood; and that the cause why their names be changed is this, that we should lift up our hearts and minds from the things which we see unto the things which we believe and be above in heaven; whereof the bread and wine have the names, although they be not the very same things in deed: these things well considered and weighed, all the authorities and arguments, which the papists feign to serve for their purpose, be clean wiped away.
For whether the authors, which they allege, say that we do eat Christ’s oan. flesh and drink his blood; or that the bread and wine is converted into the substance of his flesh and blood; or that we be turned into his flesh; or that in the Lord’s supper we do receive his very flesh and blood; or that in the bread and wine is received that which did hang upon the eross; or that Christ hath left his flesh with us; or that Christ is in us and we in him; or that he is whole here and whole in heaven; or that the same thing is in the chalice, which flowed out of his side; or that the same thing is received with our mouth, which is believed with our faith; or that the bread and wine after the consecration be the body and blood of Christ; or that we be nourished with the body and blood of Christ; or that Christ is both gone hence and is still here; or that Christ at his last supper bare himself in his own hands: these and all other like sentences may not? be understanded of Christ’s humanity literally and carnally, as the words in common speech do properly signify; for so doth no man eat Christ’s flesh, nor drink his blood, nor so is not the bread and wine? after the consecration his flesh and blood, nor so is not his flesh and blood whole here in earth eaten with our mouths, nor so did not Christ take himself in his own hands. [ By your own confession, 1551.] words, turned into his flesh and blood, nor we into [? Not omitted in edit. 1580.] him; nor so isthe bread and wine,” and the passage
[3 The Orig. ed. and ed. 1551, add the following thenruns on as above, “after the consecration,” &c.]]
But these and all other like sentences, which declare Christ to be here in earth, and to be eaten and drunken of christian people, are to be understanded either of his divine nature, (whereby he is everywhere,) or else they must be understanded figuratively, or spiritually. For figuratively he is in the bread and wine, and spiritually he is in them that worthily eat and drink the bread and wine; but really, carnally, and corporally, he is only in heaven, from whence he shall come to judge the quick and dead.
This brief answer will suffice for all that the papists can bring for their purpose, if it be aptly applied. And for the more evidence hereof, I shall apply the same to some such places, as the papists think do make most for them, that by the answer to those places the rest may be the more easily answered unto.
Winchester
In the seventy-fourth leaf this author goeth about to give a general solution to all that may be said of Christ’s being in earth, in heaven, or in the sacrament; and giveth instructions how these words of Christ’s divine nature, figuratively, spiritually, really, carnally, corporally, may be placed: and thus he saith: Christ in his divine nature may be said to be in the earth, figuratively in the sacrament, spiritually in the man that receiveth, but really, carnally, corporally, only in heaven.”, Let us consider the placing of these terms. When we say Christ is in his divine nature everywhere, is he mot really also everywhere, according to the true essence of his Godhead? in deed everywhere? That is to say, not in fantasy, nor imagination, but verily, truly, and therefore really, as we believe, so in deed every where? And when Christ is spiritually in good men by grace, is not Christ in them really by grace? but in fantasy and imagination? And therefore whatsoever this author saith, the word really” may not have such restraint to be referred only to heaven, unless the author would deny that substance of the Godhead, which as it comprehendeth all, being incomprehensible, and is everywhere without limitation of place, so as it is, truly it is, in deed is, and therefore really is; and therefore of Christ must be said, wheresoever he is in his divine nature by power or grace, he is there really, whether we speak of heaven or earth.
As for the terms carnally” and corporally,” as this author seemeth to use them in other places of this book to express the manner of presence of the human nature in Christ, I marvel by what scripture he shall 4 prove that Christ’s body is so carnally and corporally in heaven, We be assured by faith, grounded upon the scriptures, of the truth of the being of Christ’s flesh and body there, and the same to be a true flesh and a true body; but yet in such sense as this author wuseth the terms carnal and corporal against the sacrament to imply a grossness, he cannot so attribute those terms to Christ’s body in heaven. St Augustine after the gross sense of carnally, saith: Christ reigneth not carnally in heaven.” And Gregory Nazianzen saith: Although Christ shall come in the last day to judge, so as he shall be seen; yet there is in him no grossness,” he saith, and referreth the manner of his being to his knowledge only. “And our resurrection,” St Augustine saith, “although it shall be of our true flesh, yet it shall not be carnally.” And when this author had defamed as it were the terms carnally” and corporally,” as terms of grossness, to whom he used always to put as an adversative the term “spiritually,” as though carnally and spiritually might not agree in one; now for all that he would place them both in heaven, where is no carnality, but all the manner of being spiritual, where is no grossness at all, the secrecy of the manner of which life is hidden from us, and such as eye hath not seen, or ear heard, or ascended into the heart and thought of man.
I know these terms carnally and corporally may have a good understanding out of the mouth of him that had not defamed them with grossness, or made them adversaries to spiritual; and a man may say Christ is corporally in heaven because the truth of his body is there, and carnally im heaven because his flesh is truly there: but in this understanding both the words carnally and corporally may be coupled with the word spiritually, which is against this author’s teaching, who appointeth the word spiritually to be spoken of Christ’s presence in the man that received the sacrament worthily, which speech I do not disallow; but as Christ is spiritually in the man that doth receive the sacrament worthily, so is he in him spiritually before he receive, or else he cannot receive worthily, as I have before said. And by this appeareth how this author, to
[[ Will, 1551.] [5 Hath, 1551.]]
rame his general solution, hath used neither of the terms “really,” “carnally,” and corporally” or “spiritually,” in a convenient order, but hath in his distribution misused them notably. For Christ in, his divine nature is really everywhere, and in his human nature is carnally and corporally, as these words signify substance of the flesh and body, continually in heaven to the day of judgment, and nevertheless after that signification present in the sacrament also. And in those terms in that signification the fathers have spoken of the? effect of the eating of Christ in the sacrament, as in the particular solutions to the authors hereafter shall appear. Marry as touching the use of the word “figuratively,” to say that Christ is figuratively in the bread and wine, is a saying which this author hath not proved at all, but is a doctrine before this divers times reproved, and now by this author in England renewed.
Canterbury
Although my chief study be to speak so plainly that all men? may understand every thing what I say, yet nothing is plain to him that will find knots in a rush. For when I say that all sentences which declare Christ to be here in earth, and to be eaten and drunken of christian people, are to be understanded either of his divine nature, (whereby he is everywhere,) or else they must be understanded figuratively or spiritually; (for figuratively he is in the bread and wine, and spiritually he is in them that worthily eat and drink the bread and wine; but really, carnally and corporally, he is only in heaven;) you have termed these my words as it liketh you, but far otherwise than I either wrote or meant, or than any indifferent reader would have imagined.
For what indifferent reader would have gathered of my words, that Christ in his divine nature is not really in heaven? For I make a disjunctive, wherein I declare a plain distinction between his divine nature and his human nature. And of his divine nature I say in the first member of my division, which is in the beginning of my aforesaid words, that by that nature he is everywhere. And all the rest that followeth is spoken of his human nature, whereby he is carnally and corporally only in heaven.
And as for this word “really,” in such a sense as you expound it, (that is to say, not in fantasy nor imagination, but verily and truly,) so I grant that Christ is really, not only in them that duly receive the sacrament of the Lord’s supper, but also in them that duly receive the sacrament of baptism, and in all other true christian people at other times when they receive no sacrament. For all they be the members of Christ’s body, and temples in whom he truly inhabiteth, although corporally and really (as the papists take that word “really”) he be only in heaven, and not in the sacrament. And although in them that duly receive the sacrament he is truly and in deed, and not by fancy and imagination, and so really, (as you understand really,”) yet is he not in them corporally, but spiritually,” as I say, and “only after a spiritual manner,” 88 you say. and And as for these words, “carnally” and corporally,” I defame them not; for I mean by carnally and corporally none otherwise than after the form and fashion of a man’s body, as we shall be after our resurrection, that is to say, visible, palpable, and circumscribed, having a very quantity with due proportion and distinction of members, in place and order, one from another. And if you will deny Christ so to be in heaven, I have so plain and manifest scriptures against you, that I will take you for no christian man, except that you revoke that error. For sure I am that Christ’s natural body hath such a grossness, or stature and quantity, if you will so call it, because the word grossness, grossly taken, as you understand it, soundeth not well in an incorruptible and immortal body.
Marry, as for any other grossness, as of eating, drinking, and gross avoiding of the same, with such other like corruptible grossness, it is for gross heads to imagine or think either of Christ, or of any body glorified.
And although St Augustine may say, that Christ reigneth not carnally in heaven, yet he saith plainly, that his body is of such sort that it is circumscribed and contained in one place.
[[! Carnally, corporally, or spiritually, 1551.] the intermediate words. ] [3 Of the sacrament, Orig. ed. Winch. omitting [3 So that all men, 1551.]]
And Gregory Nazianzen meant that Christ should not come at the last judgment in a corruptible and mortal flesh, as he had before his resurrection, and as we have in this mortal life, (for such grossness is not to be attributed to bodies glorified;) but yet shall he come with such a body as he hath since his resurrection, absolute and perfect in all parts and members of a man’s body, having hands, feet, head, mouth, side and wounds, and all other parts of a man visible and sensible, like as we shall all appear before him at the same last day, with this same flesh in substance that we now have, and with these same eyes shall we see God our Saviour. Marry to what fineness and pureness our bodies shall be then changed, no man knoweth in the peregrination of this world, saving that St Paul saith, “that he shall change this vile body, that he may make it like unto his glorious body.” But that we shall have diversity of all members, and a due proportion of men’s natural bodies, the scripture manifestly declareth, whatsover you can by a sinister gloss gather of Nazianzen to the contrary, that glorified bodies have no flesh nor grossness.
But see you not how much this saying of St Augustine (that our resurrection shall not be carnally) maketh against yourself? For if we shall not rise carnally, then is not Christ risen carnally, nor is not in heaven carnally. And if he be not in heaven carnally, how can he be in the sacrament carnally, and eaten and drunken carnally with our mouths, as you say he is? And therefore, as for the terms carnally and corporally,” it is you that defame them by your gross taking of them, and not I, that speak of none other grossness, but of distinction of the natural and substantial parts, without the which no man’s body can be perfect.
← 7. Book III. Of the Presence of Christ · Contents · 9. Book III. Of the Presence of Christ →