And whereas here, in this process, you attribute unto Christ none other presence in heaven but spiritual without all manner of grossness or carnality, so that all manner of being is spiritual, and none otherwise than he is in the sacrament, here I join an issue with you for a joint, and for the price of a fagot. I wondered all this while that you were so ready to grant, that Christ is but after a spiritual manner in the sacrament; and now I wonder no more at that, seeing that you say he is but after a spiritual manner in heaven. And by this means we may say that he hath but a spiritual manhood, as you say that he hath in the sacrament but a spiritual body. And yet some carnal thing and grossness he hath in him, for he hath flesh and bones, which spirits lack; except that to all this impiety you will add, that his flesh and bones also be spiritual things, and not carnal. And it is not without some strange prognostication, that you be now waxed altogether so spiritual.
Now as concerning the word “figuratively,” what need this any proof, that Christ is in the sacraments figuratively? which is no more to say but sacramentally. And you grant yourself that Christ, under the figure of visible creatures, gave invisibly his precious body. And you say that Christ said, “This is my body,” using the outward signs of the visible creatures. And this doctrine was never reproved of any catholic man, but hath at all times and of all men been allowed without contradiction, saving now of you alone. Now followeth my answer to the authors particularly.
And first, to St Clement. My words be these.
They allege St Clement, whose words be these, as they report: The sacraments of God’s secrets are committed to three degrees: to a priest, a deacon, and a minister: which with fear and trembling ought to keep the leavings of the broken pieces of the Lord’s body, that no corruption be found in the holy place, lest by negligence great injury be done to the portion of the Lord’s body.” And by and by followeth: So many hosts must be offered in the altar as will suffice for the people. And if any remain, they must not be kept until the morning, but be spent and consumed of the clerks with fear and trembling. And they that consume the residue of the Lord’s body may not by and by take other common meats, lest they should mix that holy portion with the meat, which is digested by the belly, and avoided by the fundament. Therefore if the Lord’s portion be eaten in the morning,
the ministers that consume it must fast unto six of the clock; and if they do take it at three or four of the clock, the minister must fast until the evening.”
Thus much writeth Clement of this matter: if the epistle which they allege were Clements, (as in deed it is not, but they have feigned many things in other men’s names, thereby to stablish their feigned purposes, nevertheless whosesoever the epistle was, if it be thoroughly considered, it maketh much more against the papists than for their purpose. For by the same epistle appeareth evidently three special things against the errors of the papists.
The first is, that the bread in the sacrament is called the Lord’s body, and the pieces of the broken bread be called the pieces and fragments of the Lord’s body, which cannot be understand but figuratively.
The second is, that the bread ought not to be reserved and hanged up, as the papists everywhere do use.
The third is, that the priests ought not to receive the sacrament alone, (as the papists commonly do, making a sale thereof unto the people,) but they ought to communicate with the people.
And here is diligently to be noted, that we ought not unreverently and unadvisedly to approach unto this meat! of the Lord’s table, as we do to other common meats and drinks, but with great fear and dread, lest we should come to that holy table unworthily, wherein is not only represented, but also spiritually given unto us, very Christ himself.
And therefore we ought to come to that board of the Lord with all reverence, faith, love, and charity, fear, and dread, according to the same.
Winchester
144. Let us mow consider what particular answers this author deviseth to make to the fathers of the church; and first what he saith to St Clement’s Epistle, his handling whereof is worthy to be noted. Clement. First, he saith the epistle is not Clement’s, but feigned, as he saith many other things be for their purpose, he saith, which solution is short and may be soon learned of naughty men, and naughtily applied further as they list. But this I may say, if this epistle were feigned of the papists, then do they shew themselves fools that could feign mo better, but so as this author might of their feigned epistle gather three notes against them. This author’s notes be these: first, that the bread in the sacrament is called the Lord’s body, and that the broken bread be called the pieces and fragments of the Lord’s body.” Mark well, reader, this note that speaketh so much of bread, where the words of the epistle in the part here alleged name no bread at all. If this author hath read so much mention of bread in another? part of the epistle, why bringeth he mot that forth to fortify his note? I have read after the some? epistle, panes sanctuarii, but they would mot help this author’s note; and yet for the other matter joined with them, they would slander another way. And therefore seeing this author hath left them out, I will go no Surther than is here alleged.