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.
The calling of bread by enunciation for a name is not material, because it signifieth that was, but in that is here alleged is no mention of bread to prove the mote; amd to faithful men the words of the epistle reverently express the remain of the mysteries, in which when many hosts be offered in the altar, according to the multitude that should communicate, those many hosts after consecration be not many bodies of Christ, but of many breads one body of Christ. And yet, as we teach in England now in the book of common prayer, in every part of that is broken is the whole body of our Saviour Christ. Man’s words cannot suffice to express God’s mysteries, nor cant utter them so, as froward reason shall not find matter to wrangle. And yet to stay reason may suffice, that as in one loaf of bread broken every piece broken is a piece of that bread, and every piece of the bread broken is in itself a whole piece of bread, and so whole bread, for every piece hath am whole substance of bread in it: so we truly speak of the host consecrated, to avoid
[[! The meat, 1551, and Orig. ed.] [3 In the same, 1551.] [2 Any other, 1551.] [7 Cannot, Orig. ed. Winch. ]]
OF THE PRESENCE OF CIIRIST. Mà the fantasy of multiplication of Christ’s body, which in all the hosts, and all the parts of the hosts, is but one, not broken mor distribute by pieces, and yet in a speech, to tell and signify that is broken, called in name the leaving pieces of the body,” portion of the body,” residue of the body;” in which nevertheless each one piece is Christ’s whole body.
So as this speech having a figure, hath it of necessity to avoid the absurdity, whereby to signify a multitude of bodies, which is not so, and the sound of the speech christian ears do abhor. But this I ask, where is the matter of this author’s note, that bread is called Christ’s body? where there is no word of bread in the words alleged; and if there were, as there is not, it were worthy no note at all. For that name is not abhorred, and the catholic faith teacheth that the fraction is in the outward sign, and not in the body of Christ, invisibly present, and signified so to be present by that visible sign. The second note of this author is touching reserving, which Clement might seem to deny, because he ordered the remain to be received of the clerks, thinking so best; mot declaring expressly that nothing might be reserved to the use of them that be absent. The contrary whereof appeareth by Justin the Martyrs, who testifieth a reservation to be sent to them that were sick, who and they dwell far from the church, as they do in some places, it may by chance in the way, or trouble in the sick man, tarry till the morning or it be received. And Cyril writeth expressly, that in case it so doth, the mystical benediction, by which terms he calleth the sacrament, remaineth still in force. When this author findeth fault at hanging wp of the sacrament, he blameth only his own country and the isles hereabout; which fault Linehood?, after he had travelled other countries Jownd here, being the manner of custody in reservation otherwise used tham in other parts. But one thing this author should have noted of Clement’s words when he speaketh of fearing and trembling, which and the bread were never the holier, as this author teacheth, and but only a signification, why should any man fear or tremble more in their presence than he doth when he heareth of Christ’s supper, the gospel read, or himself or any other saying his creed, which in words signify as much as the bread doth, if it be but a signification? And Peter Martyr saith, that words signify more clearly than these signs do, and saith further in his disputation with Chedsay, that we receive the body of Christ, no less by words than by the sacramental signs; which teaching if it were true, why should this sacrament be trembled at? But because this author moteth the epistle of Clement to be feigned, I will mot make with him any foundation of it, but note to the reader the third note, gathered by this author of Clement’s words, which is, “that priests ought mot to receive alone,” which the words of the epistle prove not. It sheweth indeed what was done, and how the feast is indeed prepared for the people as well as the priest.
And I never read amy thing of order in law or ceremony forbidding the people to communicate with the priest, but all the old prayers and ceremonies sounded as the people did communicate with the priest. And when the people is prepared for, and then come not, but Searing and trembling forbear to come, that then the priest might not receive his part alone, the words of this epistle shew not. And Clement, in that he speaketh so of leavings, seemeth to think of that case of disappointment of the people that should come, providing in that case the clerks to receive the residue; whereby should appear, if there were no store of clerks, but only one clerk, as some poor churches have no more, then a man might rather make a note of Clement’s mind, that in that case one priest might receive all alone8, and so upon a chance keep the feast alone. But whatsoever we may gather, that note of this author remaineth unproved, that the priest ought not to receive alone.
And here I dare therefore join an issue with this author, that none of his three feigned notes is grounded of any words of this that he moteth a feigned epistle, taking only words? that he allegeth here. This author upon occasion of this epistle, which he calleth feigned, speaketh more reverently of the sacrament than he doth in other places, which methink worthy to be noted of me. Here he saith that very Christ himself is not only represented, but also spiritually given unto us
[[^ Kai 5 διάδοσις kai ἡ μετάληψις ἀπὸ τῶν pus, καὶ κἡὶ ζωοσποιὸς χάρις διηνεκής ἐστιν ἐν αὐτῷ. ----]
[εὐχαριστηθέντων ἑκάστῳ γίνεται, καὶ τοῖς ob wap- Cyrillus, ad Calosyrium. Ed. Aubert. Tom. VI.]
[oUct διὰ τῶν διακόνων πέμπεται. Just. Op. Par. p. 365. Ed. Par. 1638.]]
[1742. Apol. 1. (al. 11.) 67. p. 83.] [7 Linehood or Lindwood compiled the Pro-]
[5 Ἀκούω δὲ ὅτι els ἁγιασμὸν ἀπρακτεῖν φασὶν vincial Constitutions in the time of king Henry VI.]
[τὴν μυστικὴν εὐλογίαν, el ἀπομένοι λείψανον αὐτῆς, and is referred to by Beal, clerk of the Council,]
[eis ἑτέραν ἡμέραν. μαίνονται δὲ ταῦτα λέγοντες. as an authority, in Strype, Whitgift, II. p. 138.]]
[οὐ yap ἀλλοιοῦται Χριστὸς, οὐδὲ τὸ ἅγιον αὐτοῦ [8 Receive alone, Orig. ed. Winch.]]
[σῶμα μεταβληθήσεται, ἀλλ ἡ τῆς εὐλογίας δύνα- [? The only words, 1551.]]
in this table; for so I understand the word “wherein.” And then if very Christ himself be represented and given in the table, the author meaneth not the material table, but by the word “table” the meat upon the table; as the word mensa, “a table,” doth signify in the 16th of the Acts, and the 10th of the Corinthians. Now if very Christ himself be given in the meat, then is he present in the meat to be given. So as by this teaching very Christ himself is not only figuratively in the table, that is to say, the meat of the table, which this author now calleth representing, but is also spiritually given in the table, as these words sound to me. But whether this author will say very Christ himself is given spiritually in the meat, or by the meat, or with the meat, what scripture hath he to prove that he saith, if the words of Christ be only a figurative speech, and the bread only signify Christ’s body? For if the words of the institution be but in figure, man cannot add of his device any other substance or effect than the words of Christ purport: and so this supper, after this author’s teaching in other places of his book, where he would have it but a signification, shall be a bare memory of Christ’s death, and signify only such communication of Christ, as we have otherwise by faith in that benefit of his passion, without any special communication of the substance of his flesh in this sacrament, being the same only a figure, if it were true that this author would persuade in the conclusion of this book, although by the way he saith otherwise, for fear percase and trembling, that he conceiveth even of am epistle which he himself saith is feigned.
Canterbury
It is no marvel, though this epistle feigned by the papists many years passed do vary from the papists in these latter days. For the papistical church at the beginning was not so corrupt as it was after, but from time to time increased in errors and coriii. ruption more and more, and still doth, according to St Paul’s saying: “Evil men and deceivers wax ever worse, both leading other into error, and erring themselves.” For at the first beginning they had no private masses, no pardons in purgatory, no reservation of the bread; they knew no masses of Scala Celi, no lady psalters, no transubstantiation; but of later days all these, and an infinite number of errors besides, were invented and devised without any authority of God’s word. As yourself have newly invented a great sort of new devices contrary to the papists before your time, as that Christ is in the sacrament carnally and naturally; that the demonstration was made upon the bread when Christ said, This is my body;” that the word satisfactory” signifieth no more but the priest to do his duty; with many other things, which here for shortness of time I will omit at this present, purposing to speak of them more hereafter. And the epistles of Clement were feigned before the papists had run so far in errors as they be now. For yet at that time was not invented, as I said, the error of transubstantiation, nor the reservation of the sacrament, nor the priests did not communicate alone without the people. But that the said epistle of Clement was feigned, be many most certain arguments. For there be five epistles of Clement so knit together, and referring one to another, that if one be feigned, all must needs be feigned.
Now neither Eusebius in Heclesiastica Historia, nor St Jerome, nor Gennadius, nor any other old writer, maketh any mention of those epistles; which authors, in rehearsing what works Clement wrote, (not leaving out so much as one epistle of his,) would surely have made some mention of the five epistles, which the papists long before our time feigned in his name, if there had been any such in their time.
Moreover those epistles make mention, that Clement at James’s request wrote unto him the manner of Peters death: but how could that be, seeing that James was dead seven years before Peter? For James died the seventh year, and Peter the fourteenth year, of Nero the emperor.
Thirdly, it is contained in the same epistles, that Peter made Clement his successor, which could not be true, forasmuch as next to Peter succeeded Linus, as all the histories tell.
Fourthly, the author of those epistles saith, that he made the book called Ztinerarium
[[! To the Corinth. 1551.] [? As yourself newly invented, 1551.]]
Clementis, which was but feigned in Clement’s name, as it is declared, Dist. xv., Sancta’. And then it followeth likewise of the other epistles,
Fifthly, the author of those epistles taketh upon him to instruct St James in the sacraments, and in all manner fashion how he should use himself in his vocation, as he? should say, that James, who learned of Christ himself, knew not how to use himself in the necessary points of Christ’s religion, except Clement must teach him.
Sixthly, there be few things in those epistles that either be observed at this day, or were at any time observed sithens Christ’s religion first began.
Seventhly, a great number of scriptures in those epistles be so far wrested from the true sense thereof, that they have an evil opinion of Clement that think that he would do such injury to God’s word.
Eighthly, those epistles spake of palls, and archdeacons, and other inferior orders, which is not like that those things began so soon, but (as the histories”) were invented many years after Peters time.
And finally, in one of those epistles is contained a most pernicious heresy, that all things ought to be common, and wives also, which could not be the doctrine of Clement, being the most pestilent error of the Nicolaites, whom the Holy Ghost doth hate, as he testifieth in the Apocalypse.
Now, all these things considered, who, having either wit or good opinion of the apostles and their disciples, can think that they should write any such epistles?
But the epistle of St Clement, say you, speaketh not of bread. What was it then, I pray you, that he meant, when he spake of the broken pieces in the Lord’s supper? If it were not bread, it must be some other thing which Christ did eat at that supper. Peradventure you will say, as some stick not to say now-a-days, that Christ had some other meat at that supper than bread, as, if he fared daintily, (which we never read,) you might imagine he had capon, partridge, or pheasant; or, if he fared hardly, at the least you would say he had cheese to eat with his bread, because you will defend that he did not eat dry bread alone. Such vain phantasies men may have, that will speak without God’s word, which maketh mention in that holy supper of nothing but of bread and wine. But let it be that Christ had as many dishes as you can devise, yet I trust you will not say, that he called all those his body, but only the bread. And so St Clement, speaking of the broken pieces of the Lord’s body, of the residue and fragments of the Lord’s body, of the portion and leaving of the Lord’s body, must needs speak all this of bread. And thus is it manifest false that you say, that the epistle of Clement speaketh nothing of bread,
And then, forasmuch as he calleth the leavings of the same the broken pieces of the Lord’s body, and the fragments and portion thereof he calleth the fragments and portion of the Lord’s body, he sheweth that the bread remaineth, and that the calling thereof the Lord’s body is a figurative speech. The body of Christ hath no fragments nor broken pieces, and therefore the calling here is so material, that it proveth fully the matter, that to call bread Christ’s body is a figurative speech. And although to avoid the matter you devise subtle cavillations, saying that calling is not material, because it signifieth that was; yet they that have understanding, may soon discern what a vain shift this is, imagined only to blind the ignorant readers eyes. But if that which is bread before the consecration be after no bread, and if it be against the christian faith to think that it is still bread, what occasion of error should this be, to call it still bread after consecration? Is not this a great occasion of error to call it bread still, if it be not bread still?
And yet in this place of Clement the calling can in no wise signify that was before consecration, but must needs signify that is after consecration. For this place speaketh of fragments, broken pieces, and leavings, which can have no true understanding before consecration, at what time there be yet no broken pieces, fragments, nor leavings, but be all done after consecration. [? Item Ttinerarium nomine Petri Apostoli, quod Tom. 1. col. 57. Lugd. 1618.] appellatur sancti Clementis, Lib. v1rr. apocryphum, ( In all manner and fashion, 1551.] —Corpus Juris Canonici, Gratian. Decreti Prima [5 As who should say, 1551.] pars. Dist. xv. cap.3. Sancta Romana Ecclesia.” [9 As the histories tell, 1551.] [crANMER.] 10
But you wrangle so much in this matter to avoid absurdities, that you snarl yourself into so many and heinous absurdities, as you shall never be able to wind yourself out. For you say that Christ’s body, (which in all the hosts and in all the parts of the — hosts is but one, not broken, nor distributed.) is called the leaving pieces of the body, portion of the body, residue of the body, and yet every piece is Christ’s whole body; which things to be spoken of Christ’s body christian ears abhor for to hear. And if you will say that your book is false, that you meant all these leaving pieces, portion, and residue, to be understand of the hosts, and not of Christ’s body, then you confess the hosts, which be broken, to be called by name the leavings or pieces of Christ’s body, the portion of his body, the residue of his body, by a figurative speech, which is as much as I speak in my first note. And so appeareth how vainly you have travailed for the confutation of my first. note.
Now as touching the second note: Clement declareth expressly, that nothing might be reserved. For where he saith, that “if any thing remain, it must not be kept until the morning, but be spent and consumed of the clerks;” how could he declare more plainly that nothing might be reserved, than by those words?
And as for Justin, he speaketh not one word of sick persons, as you report of him.
And concerning Cyril ad Calosyrium!, would to God that work of Cyril might come abroad! for I doubt not but it would clearly discuss this matter; but I fear that some papists will suppress it, that it shall never come to light. And where you say, that Linehood found fault with his own country of England, and blamed this realm because they hanged up the sacrament, contrary to the use of other countries; you have well excused me that I am not the first finder of this fault, but many years ago that fault was found, and that it was not the use of other countries to hang it up. And yet the use of other countries was fond enough, even as they had charge and commandment from Innocentius III. and Honorius I1I.
And as for the receiving of the sacrament with fear and trembling, ought not they ad that be baptized in their old age, or in years of discretion, come to the water of baptism with fear and trembling, as well as to the Lord’s supper? Think you that Simon Magus was not in as great dammation for the unworthy receiving of baptism, as Judas was for the unworthy receiving of the Lord’s supper? And yet you will not say that Christ is really and corporally in the water, but that the washing in the water is an outward signification and figure, declaring what God worketh inwardly in them that truly be baptized. And likewise speaketh this epistle of the holy communion. For every good christian man ought to come to Christ’s sacraments with great fear, humility, faith, love, and charity. ὁ And St Augustine saith that the gospel is to be received or heard with no less fear and reverence than the body of Christ. Whose words be these: Z/nferrogo vos, fratres et sorores, dicite mihi: Quid? wobis plus esse videtur verbum Dei an corpus Christi? Si were wvultis vespondere, hoc wtique dicere debetis, quod nom sit minus verbum Dei quam corpus Christi. Et ideo quanta solicitudine observamus, quando nobis corpus Christi ministratur, ut nihil ex ipso de nostris manibus in terram. cadat, tanta solicitudine observemus, ne verbum Dei quod nobis erogatur, dum aliquid aut cogitamus aut loquimur, de corde mostro pereat: quia mon minus reus erit qui verbum Dei negligenter audierit, quam ille qui corpus Christi in terram. cadere sua negligentia. permiserit. “1 ask this question of you, brethren and sistern,” saith St Augustine, answer me, Whether you think greater, the word of God, or the body of Christ? If you will answer the truth, verily, you ought to say thus: That the word of God is no less than the body of Christ. And therefore with what carefulness we take heed, when the body of Christ is ministered unto us, that no part thereof fall out of our hands on the earth, with as great carefulness let us take heed, that the word of God which is ministered unto us, when we think or speak of vain matters, perish not out of our hearts. For he that heareth the word of God negligently shall be guilty of no less fault than he that suffereth the body of Christ to fall upon the ground through his [’ This Treatise was published in 1605, with a [? Decretal. Greg. Lugd. 1618. Lib. 111. Tit. translation in Latin by Bonavent. Vulcanius.— Vid. xliv. cap. i. and Tit. xli. cap. x.]
[Io. Geo, Walch, Biblioth, Patrist. p. 446.]]
negligence.” This is the mind of St Augustine. And as much we have in scripture for the reverent hearing and reading of God’s holy word, or the neglecting thereof, as we have for the sacraments.
But it seemeth by your pen and utterance of this matter, that you understand not the ground and cause, whereupon should arise the great fear and trembling in their hearts, that come to receive the sacraments; for you shew another consideration thereof than the scripture doth. For you seem to drive all the cause of fear to the dignity of the body of Christ, there corporally present and received; but the scripture declareth the fear to rise of the indignity and unworthiness of the receivers. He that eateth and drinketh unworthily,” threateneth God’s word, eateth and drinketh his own damnation.” And Centurio, considering his own unworthiness, was abashed to receive Christ into his house, saying: Lord, I am not worthy that thou shouldest come under the covering of my house.” And the same thing made Peter afraid to be near unto Christ, and to say: “Go from me, O Lord, for I am a sinner.” And all christian men ought not to fear and tremble only, when they receive the sacraments, but whensoever they hear God’s word, and threatenings pronounced against sinners.
Now as concerning the third note, thou shalt see plainly, good reader, that here^ is nothing here answered directly, but mere cavillations sought, and shift to avoid. For if all the old prayers and ceremonies sound, as the people did communicate with the priest, (as you say they do, and so they do indeed, and that as well in the communion of drinking as eating,) then either the people did communicate with them in deed, and received the sacrament under both the kinds, or else the prayers had been false, and the ceremonies frustrate and in vain. And is it like, that the priests in that time would have used unto God such untrue prayers, as should declare that the people did communicate with them, if in deed none did communicate with them? as it should have been by your imagined chances and cases.
But it appeareth by the words of the epistle, that the whole multitude of the people that was present did communicate at those days, so that the priest could not communicate alone, except he would communicate when no man was in the church. But by the answer of this sophister here in this place, thou mayest see an experience, good reader, whether he be as ready to see those things that make against him, as he is painful and studious to draw (as it were) by force all things to his purpose, to make them, at the least, to seem to make for him, although they be never so much against him. As appeareth by all these his suppositions, that all the people which were prepared for should in those days withdraw themselves from the communion, and not one of them come unto it; that the clerks should receive all that was provided for the people; that one clerk should receive that which many clerks ought to have received. Ἀπά so in conclusion by only his feigned suppositions he would persuade, that the priest. should receive all alone. By such pretty cases, of the people disappointing the priests, and of lack of store of clerks, you might daily find cavillations with all godly ordinances. For whereas God ordained the paschal lamb to be eaten up clean in every house; and where there were mot enough in one house to eat up the lamb, they should call of their neighbours so many as should suffice to eat up the whole lamb, so that nothing should remain: here you might bring in your “upon a chance,” that they that lacked company to eat up a whole lamb, dwelt alone far from other houses, and could not come together; or could not get any such lamb as was appointed for the feast, or if their neighbours lacked company also. And what if they had no spit to roast the lamb? And whereas it was commanded, that they should be shoed, what if perchance they had no shoes? And if perchance a man’s wife were not at home, and all his servants falled sick of the sweat or plague, and no man durst come to his house, then must he turn the spit himself, and eat the lamb all alone. Such chances you purposely devise, to establish your private mass, that the priest may eat all alone. But by such a like reason as you make here,. ἃ man might prove, that the priest should preach or say matins to himself alone, in case, as you say, that the people, which should come, would disappoint him. For what E ite - 15 That there is nothing, 1561.] [ Dayly, and find, 1551.] r 10—2
if the people disappoint the priest, say you, and come not to the communion? What if the people disappoint the priest, say I, and come not to matins nor sermon? shall he therefore say matins and preach, when no man is present but himself alone? But your imagined case hath such an absurdity in it, as is not tolerable to be thought to have been in christian people in that time, when Clement’s epistles were written, that when all the people should receive the communion with the priest, yet not one would come, but all would disappoint him. And yet in that case I doubt not but the priest would have abstained from ministration unto more opportunity, and more access of christian people, as he would have done likewise in saying of matins and preaching. — Wherefore in your case I might well answer you, as St Jerome answered the argument made in the name of the heretic Jovinian, which might be brought against the commendation of virginity, What if all men would live virgins, and no man marry? how should then the world be maintained?” What if heaven fall,” said St Jerome? What if no man will come to the church? is your argument; for all that came in those days received the communion. What if heaven fall? say I. For I have not so evil opinion of the holy church in those days, to think that any such thing could chance among them, that no one would come, when all ought to have come.
Now when you come to your issue, you make your case too strait for me to,,.. “i q^. join an issue with you, binding me to the bare and only words of Clement, and refusing utterly his mind. But take the words and the mind together, and I dare adventure an issue to pass by any indifferent readers, that I have proved all my three notes.
And where you say, that upon occasion of this epistle I speak more reverently of the sacrament than I do in other places: if you were not given altogether to calumniate and deprave my words, you should perceive in all my book through, even from the beginning to the end thereof, a constant and perpetual reverence given unto the sacraments of Christ, such as of duty all christian men ought to give.
Nevertheless you interpret this word wherein” far from my meaning. For I mean not that Christ is spiritually either in the table, or in the bread and wine that be set upon the table; but I mean that he is present in the ministration and receiving of that holy supper, according to his own institution and ordinance: like as in baptism, Christ and the Holy Ghost be not in the water, or font, but be given in the ministration, or to them that be truly baptized in the water.
And although the sacramental tokens be only significations and figures, yet doth Almighty God effectually work, in them that duly receive his sacraments, those divine and celestial operations which he hath promised, and by the sacraments be signified. For else they were vain and unfruitful sacraments, as well to the godly as to the ungodly. And therefore I never said of the whole supper, that it is but a signification or a bare memory of Christs death; but I teach that it is a spiritual refreshing, wherein our souls be fed and nourished with Christ’s very flesh and blood to eternal life. And therefore bring you forth some place in my book, where I say that the Lord’s supper is but a bare signification without any effect or operation of God in the same; or else eat your words again, and knowledge that you untruly report me. But hear what followeth further in my book. in Here I pass over Ignatius and Irensus, which make nothing for the papists’ opinions, but stand in the commendation of the holy communion, and in exhortation of all men to the often and godly receiving thereof. And yet neither they, nor no man else, can extol and commend the same sufficiently, according to the dignity thereof, if it be godly used as it ought to be. —
Winchester
This author saith he passeth over Ignatius and Irenceus; and why? Because they make nothing, he saith, for the papists purpose. With the word papist” the author playeth at his pleasure. But it shall be evident that Irene doth plainly confound this author’s purpose, in the denial of the true presence of Christ’s very flesh in the sacrament; who, although he use not the words “real and substantial,” yet he doth effectually comprehend in his speech of the sacrament the virtue and strength of those words. And for the truth of the sacrament is
Hh Ef 1 OF THE PRESENCE OF CHRIST. 149 Irencus specially alleged, insomuch as Melancthon, when he writeth to (Ecolampadius, that he will allege none but such as speak plainly!, he allegeth Irencus for one, as appeareth by his said epistle to QZcolampadius. And GZcolampadius himself is not troubled so much with answering any other to shape amy manner of evasion, as to answer Iremcus, in whom he notably stumbleth. And Peter Martyr, in his work, granteth Irenee to be specially alleged, to whom when he goeth about to answer, a man may evidently see how he masketh himself. And this author bringeth in Clement’s epistle, of which no great count is made, although it be not contemned, and passeth over Irencus, that speaketh evidently in the matter, and was as old as Clement, or not much younger. And because Ignatius was of that age, and is alleged by Theodoret to have written in his epistle ad Smyrnenses, whereof may appear his faith. of the mystery of the sacrament, it shall serve to good purpose to write in the words of the same Ignatius here upon the credit of the said Theodoret?, whom this author so much commendeth: the words of Ignatius be these: Eucharistias et oblationes non admittunt, quod non eonfiteantur eucharistiam esse carnem servatoris nostri Jesu Christi, quze pro peccatis nostris passa est, quam Pater sua benignitate suscitavit. Which words be thus much in English; “They do not admit eucharistias and oblations, because they do mot confess eucharistiam to be the flesh of our Saviour Jesu Christ: which flesh suffered for owr sins, which flesh the Father by his benignity hath stirred wp.” These be Ignatius’ words, which I have not throughly Englished, because the word eucharistia cannot be well Englished, being a word of mystery, and signifieth (as Irenceus openeth) both the parts of the sacrament, heavenly amd earthly, visible and invisible. But in that Ignatius openeth his faith thus, he taketh? eucharistia to be the flesh of our Saviour Christ that suffered for us, he declareth the sense of Christ’s words, “This is my body,” not to be figurative only, but to express the truth of the very flesh there given; and therefore (Ignatius saith) eucharistia is the flesh of our Saviour Christ, the same that suffered and the same that rose again. Which words of Ignatius so pithily open the matter, as they declare therewith the faith also of Theodoret that doth allege him, so as if ἐμοῦ author would make so absolute a work as to peruse all the fathers sayings, he should vot thus leap over Ignatius, nor Irene neither, as I have before declared. But this is a colour of rhetoric called rejection” of that is hard to answer, and is here a pretty shift or sleight, whereby thou, reader, mayest consider how this matter is handled.
Canterbury
It shall not need to make any further answer to you here as concerning Irenzus, but only to note one thing, that if any place of Irenzus had served for your purpose, you would not have failed here to allege it. But because you have nothing that maketh for you in deed, therefore you allege nothing in especial, (lest in the answer it should evidently appear to be nothing,) and so slide you from the matter, as though all men should believe you, because you say it is so.
And as for the place of Irenee alleged by Melancthon in an epistle, CEcolampadius (without any such troubling of himself as you imagine) maketh a plain and easy answer thereto; although Melancthon wrote not his said epistle to CEcolampadius, (as you, negligently looking upon their works, be deceived,) but to Fridericus Myconius. And 3 [’ Nonnulli sine delectu maximum numerum thon are from the 4th and 5th books contra Valenti-testimoniorum congesserunt, in quibus pleraque num: Irenzus dicit, Calicem eucharistizz commusunt ambigua et obscura: nos tantum ea recitavi- nicationem sanguinis Domini, et panem quem j mus, qua videbantur esse quam maxime perspicua. frangimus communicationem corporis ejus. Item Melancth, Epist. Frid. Myconio. This Epistle dicit: Calicem, qui est creatura, suum corpus conis inserted in (Ecolampadius’s Dialogue referred firmavit, ex quo auget corpora nostra. Quando toabove, p. 137. The above quotation will be found ergo et mistus calix et factus panis percipit verbum in p. 33 of the edition there described. ] Dei, fit eucharistia sanguinis et corporis Christi, ex [ Εὐχαριστίας καὶ προσφορὰς οὐκ ἀποδέχον- quibus augetur et subsistit carnis nostra substantia. ται”, διὰ τὸ py ὁμολογεῖν τὴν εὐχαριστίαν σάρκα.Idem et alio loco dicit: Quomodo dicunt carnem εἶναι τοῦ Σωτῆρος ἡμῶν Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ, τὴν ὑπὲρ in corruptionem devenire, et non percipere vitam, τῶν ἁμαρτιῶν ἡμῶν παθοῦσαν, ἵν τῇ χρηστότητι qui a corpore Domini et sanguine alitur? The ὁ Πατὴρ ἤγειρεν. Theodoretus. Dialog. iii. Tom. plain and easy answer” of (Ecolampadius begins
[IV. p. 231. Hale. 1769-94.) thus: At si ego essem Valentinus vel Manichaus,]
[i [? Thus as he taketh, 1551.] nihil terrerer, si sic argueres: Panis est corpus]
[1 [ Therewith that faith, Orig. ed. Winch.] Christi, vel, Christi corpus edimus carnaliter;]
[Ἢ [^ So as if this author, 1551.] igitur resurrecturi sumus. Inutilis enim esset conse-]
[7 [5 The passages of Irenzus quoted by Melanc- quentia. (Ecolampad. Dialog. pp. 51, 52,188, seqq.] ’ Ed. Patrum Apostol. Opera Tubingz, 1842. (Hefele.) Ignatii Epist, ad Smyrnzos, p. 172, for προσφορὰς οὐκ]
the words of Irenee alleged by Melancthon mean in effect no more, but to prove that our bodies shall rise again, and be joined unto our souls, and reign with them in the eternal life to come. Kor he wrote against Valentine, Marcion, and other heretics, which denied the resurrection of our bodies, from whom it seemeth you do not much dissent, when you say that our bodies shall rise spiritually’, if you mean that they shall rise without the form and fashion of men’s bodies, without distinction and proportion of members. For those shall be marvellous bodies, that shall have no shape nor fashion of bodies, as you say Christs body is in the sacrament, to whose body ours shall be like after the resurrection.
But to return to answer lrenee clearly and at large, his meaning was this, that as the water in baptism is called aqua regenerans, “the water that doth regenerate,” and yet it doth mot regenerate in deed, but is the sacrament of regeneration wrought by the Holy Ghost, and called so to make it to be esteemed above other common waters: so Christ confessed the creatures of bread and wine, joined unto his words in his holy supper, and there truly ministered, to be his body and blood; meaning thereby, that they ought not to be taken as common bread, or as bakers’ bread, and wine drunken in the tavern, (as Smith untruly jesteth of me throughout his book;) but that they ought to be taken for bread and wine wherein we give thanks to Godand therefore be called eucharistim corporis et sanguinis Domini, the thanking of Christ’s body and blood,” as Irenee termeth them; or mysteria corporis et sanguinis Domini, “the mysteries of Christs flesh and blood,” as Dionysius calleth them; or sacramenta corporis et sanguinis Domini, the sacraments of Christ’s flesh and blood,” as divers other authors use to call them. And when Christ called bread and wine his body and blood, why do the old authors change, in many places, that speech of Christ, and call them eucharistia, mysteria, et sacramenta corporis et sanguinis Domini, “the thanksgiving, the mysteries, and the sacraments of his flesh and blood,” but because they would clearly expound the meaning of Christ’s speech, that when he called the bread and wine his flesh and blood, he meant to ordain them to be the sacraments of his flesh and blood?—according to such a speech as St Augustine expresseth, how the sacraments of Christ’s flesh and blood be called his flesh and blood, and yet in deed they be not his flesh and blood, but the sacraments thereof, signifying unto the godly receivers, that as they corporally feed of the bread and wine; (which comfort their hearts and continue this corruptible life for a season,) so spiritually they feed of Christ’s very flesh, and drink his very blood. And we be in such sort united unto him, that his flesh is made our flesh, his holy Spirit uniting him and us so together, that we be flesh of his flesh, and bone of his bones, and make all ^ one mystical body, whereof he is the head, and we the members. And as feeding, nourishing, and life, cometh from the head, and runneth into all parts of the body; 80 doth eternal nourishment and life come from Christ unto us completely and fully, as well into our bodies as souls. And therefore if Christ our head be risen again, then shall we that be the members of his body surely rise also; forasmuch as the Members cannot be separated from the head, but seeing that as he is our head and eternal food, we must needs by him live with him for ever. This is the argument of Irence against those heretics which denied the resurrection of our bodies. And these things the sacraments of bread and wine declare unto us: but neither the carnal presence, nor the carnal eating of Christ’s flesh, maketh the things so to be, nor lrenee meant no such thing. For then should all manner of persons that receive the sacraments, have everlasting life, and none but they.
Thus have I answered to lrenee plainly and shortly, and CEcolampadius needed not to trouble himself greatly with answering this matter. For by the corporal eating and drinking of Christ’s flesh and blood, Irenee could never have proved the resurrection of our bodies to eternal life. And Peter Martyr maketh the matter so plain, that he concludeth Irenzus’ words to make directly against the doctrine of the papists.
[[! Spiritual, 1551.] af d [? Comforteth their hearts, and continueth, 1551.]]
[[^ His, 1651] [ Irengus adversus hareticos Valentinianos,]
~The answer also is easily made to the place which you allege out of Ignatius, where he calleth eucharistia the flesh of our Saviour Jesus Christ. For he meaneth no more but that it is the sacrament of his flesh, or the mystery of his flesh, or, as Irenee said, eucharistia of his flesh, as even now I declared in mine answer to Irenee. And your long process here may have a short answer gathered of your own words. This word eucharistia, say you, “cannot be well Englished:” but the body of Christ is good and plain English; and then if eucharistia be such a thing as cannot be well Englished, it cannot be called the body of Christ, but by a figurative speech. And how can you then conclude of Ignatius words, that “This is my body,” is no figurative speech? It seemeth rather that the clean contrary may be concluded. For if these two speeches be like and of one sense, (eucharistia is Christ’s body,” and This is my body,” and the first be a declaration of the second, is this a good argument, The first is a figure, ergo, the second is none? Is it not rather to be gathered upon the other side thus, The first is a declaration of the second, and yet the first is a figure, ergo, the second is also a figure? And that rather than the first; because the declaration should be a more plain speech than that which is declared by it.
And as for your “colour of rhetoric,” which you call “rejection,” it is so familiar with yourself, that you use it commonly in your book, when I allege any author, or speak any thing that you cannot answer unto.
And yet one thing is necessary to admonish the reader, that Ignatius in this epistle entreateth not of the manner of the presence of Christ in the sacrament, but of the manner of his very body, as he was born of his mother, crucified, and rose again, appeared unto his apostles, and ascended into heaven: which things divers heretics said were not done verily in deed, but apparently to men’s sights, and that in deed he had no such carnal and corporal body, as he appeared to have. And against such errors speaketh that epistle, and not of the real and corporal presence of Christ in the sacrament; although eucharistia, or the sacrament, be ordained for a remembrance of that very body, and so hath the name of it, as the sacraments have the names of the things which they signify. But by this so manifest writhing of the mind of Ignatius from that true sense” and purpose that was meant, to another sense and purpose that was not meant, may appear the truth of the papists, who wrast and misconstrue all old ancient writers and holy doctors to their wicked and ungodly purposes.
Next in my book followeth mine answer to Dionysius.
Dionysius also, whom they allege to praise and extol this sacrament, (as indeed it is most worthy, being a sacrament of most high dignity and perfection, representing unto us our most perfect spiritual conjunction unto Christ, and our continual nourishing, feeding, comfort, and spiritual life in him,) yet he never said that the flesh and blood of Christ was in the bread and wine, really, corporally, sensibly and naturally, (as the papists would bear us in hand;) but he calleth ever the bread and wine signs, pledges, and tokens, declaring unto the faithful receivers of the same, that they receive Christ spiritually, and that they spiritually eat his flesh and drink his blood. And although the bread and wine be figures, signs, and tokens of Christ’s flesh and blood, (as S. Dionyse calleth them, both before the consecration and after,) yet the Greek annotations upon the same Dionyse do say, that the very things themselves be above in heaven. And as the same Dionyse maketh nothing for the papists’ opinions in this point Panis terrenus,’ inquit, accepta vocatione à verbo militudinem, ita corpora nostra illam sumentia, non Dei, non amplius est communis panis, sed efficitur sunt amplius corruptibilia. — Peter Martyr. De eucharistia, quz constat ex duabus rebus, nimirum sacramento Eucharistis, p. 94, 5. Tiguri. 1552.] terrena et coelesti In primis non negat eucharis- [^ As sacraments, 1551.] tam panem esse, nisi illum communem feceris. [$ Writing, 1551.] Postea dicit, ex duabus rebus constare, quarum [^ From the true sense, 1551. ] una terrestris est, ut panis, altera celestis, ut corpus [8 This treatise is spurious; for proof of which Ohristi. Atque ut ex una parte retinetur veritas, see “James’ Corruptions of Seripture,” &c. p. 7, Scilicet quoad corpus Domini, ita in altera est con- Ed. London. 1843.] i servanda, videlicet quoad panem. Et addit per si-
[eu]
of Christ’s real and corporal presence, so in divers other things he maketh quite and clean against them, and that specially in three points; in transubstantiation, in reservation of the sacrament, and in the receiving of the same by the priest alone.
Winchester
As touching Dionysius, a wise reader may, without any note of mine, see how this author is troubled in him, amd calleth for aid the help of him that made the Greek commentaries upon Dionysius, and pleadeth therewith the form of the words “really,” corporally,” sensibly,” and “naturally,” whereof two, that is to say, “really” and “sensibly,” the old authors in syllables used not, for so much as I have read, but corporally” and “naturally” they used speaking of this sacrament. This Dionyse spake of this mystery after the dignity of it, not contending with any other for the truth of it as we do mow, but extolling it as a marvellous high mystery, which, if the bread be never the holier, and were only a signification, (as this author teacheth,) were no high mystery at all. As for the things of the sacrament to be in heaven, the church teacheth so, and yet the same things be in deed present in the sacrament also, which is ὦ mystery so deep and dark from man’s natural capacity, as is only to be believed supernaturally, without asking of the question how,” whereof St Chrysostom maketh an exclamation in this wise: Q great benevolence of God towards us! He that sitteth above with the Father, at the same hour is holden here with the hands of all men, and giveth himself to them that will clasp and embrace him 1.” Thus saith Chrysostom, confessing to be above amd here the same things at once, and not only? in men’s breasts but hands also, to declare the inward work of God, in the substance of the visible sacrament, whereby Christ is present in the midst of our senses, and so may be called sensibly present, although man’s senses cannot comprehend and Jeel, or taste of him in their proper mature. But as for this Dionyse, he doth3, without argument, declare his faith in the adoration he maketh of this sacrament, which is openly testified in his works, so as we need not to doubt what his faith was. As for this author’s notes, they bed descant voluntary9, without the tenor part, being belike ashamed to allege the text itself, lest his three motes might seem feigned without ground, as before in St Clement’s epistle, and therefore I will not trouble the reader with them.
Canterbury
I ask no more of the reader, but to read my book, and then to judge how much I am troubled with this author. And why may I not cite the Greek commentaries for testimony of the truth? Is this to be termed a “calling for aid?” Why is not then the allegation of all authors a calling for aid? Is not your doing rather a calling for aid, when you be fain to fly for succour to Martin Luther, Bucer, Melancthon, Epinus, Jonas, Peter Martyr, and such other, whom all the world knoweth you never favoured, but ever abhorred their names? May not this be termed a “calling for aid,” when you be driven to such a strait and need, that you be glad to cry to such men for help, whom ever you have hindered and defamed as much as lay in you to do?
And as for pleading of those words, “really,” “corporally,” “sensibly,” and “naturally,” they be your own terms, and the terms wherein resteth the whole contention between you and me: and should you be offended because I speak of those terms? It appeareth mow that you be loth to hear of those words, and would very gladly have them put in silence, and so should the variance between you and me be clearly ended. For if you will confess, that the body of Christ is not in the sacrament really, corporally, sensibly, and naturally, then you and I shall shake hands, and be both earnest friends of the truth.
And yet one thing you do here confess, (which is worthy to be noted and had in in memory,) that you read not in any old author, that the body of Christ is really and sensibly in the sacrament. And hereunto I add, that none of them say, that
! “Q τῆς Θεοῦ φιλανθρωπίας” ὁ μετὰ Tov πα- [? For this, Dionyse doth, 1551.
[πρὸς ἄνω καθήμενος, κατὰ τῆν ὥραν ἐκείνην τῶν [^ We need not doubt, 1551. ]]
[ἁπάντων κατέχεται χερσὶ, καὶ δίδωσιν αὑτὸν τοῖς [5 Notes be descant, 1551.]]
[βουλομένοις περιπτύξασθαι καὶ περιλαβεῖν.---- [$ Descant voluntary: i.e. a song or tune com-]
[Chrysostom. de Sacerdotio. Lib. xix. Tom. I. posed in parts, played at will without any settled]
[p. 382. Ed. Bened.] rule or rhythm. ] [? At once, not only, &c. 1551.]]
he is in the bread and wine corporally nor naturally. No, never no papist said, that Christ’s body is in the sacrament naturally nor carnally, but you alone, (who be the first author of this gross error, which Smith himself condemneth, and denieth that ever” Christian man so taught,) although some say that it is there “really,” some “substantially,” and some “sensibly.”
Now as concerning the high mystery which St Denys speaketh of, he declareth the same to be in the marvellous and secret working of God in his reasonable creatures, (being made after his image, and being his lively temples, and Christ’s mystical body,) and not in the unreasonable and unsensible and unlively creatures of bread and wine, wherein you say the deep and dark mystery standeth. But notwithstanding any holiness or godliness wrought in the receivers of them, yet they be not the more holy or godly in themselves, but be only tokens, significations, and sacraments of that holiness, which Almighty God by his omnipotent power worketh in us. And for their holy significations they have the name of holiness”, as the water in baptism is called aqua sanctificans, unda regenerans, ^hallowing or regenerating water,” because it is the sacrament of regeneration and sanctification.
Now as concerning Chrysostom’s saying, that Christ is in our hands, Chrysostom Saith, (as I have rehearsed in my book,) not only that he is in our hands, but also that we see him with our eyes, touch him, feel him, and grope him, fix our teeth in his flesh, taste it, break it, eat it, and digest it, make red our tongues, and dye them with his blood, &c.; which things cannot be understand of the body and blood of Christ but by a figurative speech, as I have more at large declared in my fourth book, the eighth chapter. And therefore St Augustine, De Verbis Domini sermone xxxiii. saith clean contrary to Chrysostom, that we touch not Christ with our hands: Non tangimus Dominum,” saith he. This speech therefore of Chrysostom declareth not the inward work of God in the substance of the visible sacrament, but signifieth what God worketh inwardly in true believers.
And whereas you say, that my notes “be descant voluntary without the tenor part,” I have named both the book and chapter where St Dionyse telleth, how the priest, when he cometh to the receiving of the sacraments, he divideth the bread in pieces, and distributeth the same to all that be present; which one sentence containeth sufficiently all my three notes. So that if you be disposed to call my notes descant, there you may find the plain song or tenor part of them. And it is no marvel that you cannot judge well of my descant, when you see not, or will not see, the plain song, whereupon the descant was made.
Now followeth Tertullian, of whom I write thus:
Furthermore they do allege Tertullian, that he constantly affirmeth that in the sacrament of the altar we do eat the body and drink the blood of our Saviour Christ To whom we grant, that our flesh eateth and drinketh the bread and wine, which be called the body and blood of Christ, because, as Tertullian saith, they do represent his body and blood, although they be not really the same in very deed. And we grant also, that our souls by faith do eat his very body and blood ’, but that is spiritually, sucking out of the same everlasting life. But we deny that unto this spiritual feeding is requiring” any real and corporal presence.
And therefore this Tertullian speaketh nothing against the truth of our
[7 Ever any, 1551. opera conjungit. — Tertullian. De Resurrectione car- [ The words between asterisks are printed twice nis, cap. 8, p. 330. Lutetize Paris. 1664. Acceptum]
[over by mistake in edit. 1580.] panem et distributum discipulis, corpus suum illum [? Denique, cum anima Deo allegitur, ipsa est fecit, Hoc est corpus meum” dicendo, id est, figura T.]
[qua efficit, ut anima allegi possit. Scilicet caro corporis mei.Cur autem panem corpus suum]
[abluitur, ut anima emaculetur. Caro ungitur, ut appellat, et non magis peponem, quem Marcion]
[anima consecretur. Caro signatur, ut et anima cordis loco habuit, non intelligens veterem fuisse]
[muniatur. Caro manus impositione adumbratur, istam figuram corporis Christi. Adv. Marcion. Lib.]
[ut et anima spiritu illuminetur. Caro corpore et rv. cap. 40.]]
[netur, Non possunt ergo seperari in mercede, quas [” Required, 1551, and Orig. ed.] ἢ]
[sanguine Christi vescitur, ut et anima de Deo sagi- [’?^ And drink his blood, 1551, and Orig. ed.]]
catholic doctrine, but he speaketh many things most plainly for us, and against the papists, and specially in three points:
First, in that he saith that Christ called bread his body.
“The second, that Christ called it so, because it representeth his body.. The third, in that he saith, that by these words of Christ, This is my body,” is meant, “This is a figure of my body.”
Winchester
Of Tertullian I have spoken before, and so hath this author also!forgotten here ome notable thing in Tertullian, where Tertullian saith, that Christ made the bread his body,” not only called it so, as appear? by Tertullian’s words, reported by this author before. This note that I make now of Tertullian maketh against this author’s purpose, but yet it maketh with the truth, which this author should mot impugn. The second mote gathered of Tertullian, by this author, is mot true; for Christ called it his body, and made it his body, as Tertullian saith. And the third note of this author is in controversy of reading, and must be so wnderstanded, as may agree with the vest of Tertullian’s sayings, which, after my reading, doth evidently prove, and at the least doth mot improve, the catholic doctrine of Christ’s church universally received, although it improveth that which this author calleth here our catholic doctrine, most imprudently3 and untruly reporting the same.
Canterbury
I desire no more but that the reader will look upon the place of Tertullian before mentioned, and see what you speak there, and what is mine answer thereto, and so confer them together and judge.
And that the reader will note also, that here covertly you have granted my first note, that Christ called bread his body, but so slyly, that the reader should not by your will perceive it. And where you deny my second note upon Tertullian, that Christ called it his body, because it represented his body, the words of Tertullian be these: “That Christ reproveth not bread, wherein he representeth his own body.” As for my third note, yet once again, reader, I beseech thee turn back and look upon the place, how this lawyer hath expounded Tertullian, if thou canst with patience abide to hear of so foolish a gloss.
And where he saith that this author Tertullian “must be so understand as may agree with the rest of his sayings,” would to God you would so do not only in Tertullian, but also in all other authors! for then our controversy should be soon at a point. And is a most shameless impudency of you, to affirm that the catholic church universally téacheth that Christ is really, sensibly, corporally, naturally, carnally, and substantially, present in the visible forms of bread and wine, seeing that you cannot prove any one of these your sayings, either by scripture, or by the consent of the catholic church, but only by the papistical church, which now many years hath borne the whole swing.
Now followeth Origen, to whom I answer thus.
Moreover they allege for them Origen, (because they would seem to have many ancient authors favourers of their erroneous doctrine) which Origen is most clearly against them. For although he do say, as they allege, that those things which before were signified by obscure figures, be now truly, in deed, and in their very nature and kind, accomplished and fulfilled; and for the declaration thereof he bringeth forth three examples, one of the stone that floweth water, another of the sea and cloud, and the third of manna, which in the old testament did signify Christ to come, who is now come in deed, and is manifested and exhibited unto us, as it were face to face and sensibly, in his word, in the sacrament of regeneration, and the sacraments of bread and wine: [ Also, and forgotten here, 1551.] bavit Creatoris,.nec panem, quo ipsum corpus [5 Impudently, 1551.] egens mendicitatibus Creatoris. Adv. Marcion. [? May appear, 1551.] suum repraesentat, etiam in sacramentis propriis [^ Sed ille quidem usque nunc nec aquam repro- Lib. 1. cap. 14.]
yet Origen meant not that Christ is corporally either in his word, or in the water of baptism, or in the bread and wine; nor that we carnally and corporally be regenerated and born again, or eat Christ’s flesh and blood. For our regeneration in Christ is spiritual, and our eating and drinking is a spiritual feeding; which kind of regeneration and feeding requireth no real and corporal presence of Christ, but only his presence in spirit, grace, and effectual operation. And that Origen thus meant that Christ’s flesh is a spiritual meat, and his blood a spiritual drink, and that the eating and drinking of his flesh and blood may not be understand literally, but spiritually, it is manifested by Origen’s own words, in his seventh homily upon the book called Leviticus; where he sheweth that those words must be understand figuratively, and whosoever understandeth them otherwise, they be deceived, and take harm by their own gross understanding.
WINCHESTER. Origen’s words be very plain, and meaning also, which speak of manifestation and exhibition, which be two things to be verified three ways in our religion, that is to say, in the word, and regeneration, and the sacrament of bread and wine, as this author termeth it; which Origen saith mot so, but thus, “the flesh of the word of God,” not meaning in every of these after one sort, but after the truth of the scripture in each of them. Christ in his word is manifested and exhibited unto us, and by faith, that is, of hearing, dwelleth in us spiritually; for so we have his Spirit. Of baptism St Paul saith, “as many as be baptized be clad in Christ.” Now, in the sacrament of bread and wine, by Origen’s rule, Christ should be manifested and exhibited unto us after the scriptures, so as the sacrament of bread and wine should mot only signify Christ, that is to say, preach him, but also exhibit him sensibly, as Origen’s words be reported here to be. So as Christ’s words, This is my body,” should be words not of figure or shewing, but of exhibiting Christ’s body unto us, and sensibly, as this author allegeth him, which should signify, to be received with our mouth, as Christ commanded, when he said, “Take, eat, &c.” diversely from the other two ways, in which by Christ’s Spirit we be made participant of the benefit of his passion wrought in his manhood. But in this sacrament we be made participant of his Godhead, by his humanity exhibit unto us for food: and so, im this mystery, we receive him man and God; and in the other, by mean of his Godhead, be participant of the effect of his passion suffered in his manhood. In this sacrament Christ’s manhood is represented and truly present, whereunto the Godhead is most certainly wnited, whereby we receive a pledge of the regeneration of our flesh, to be in the general resurrection spiritual with our soul, as we have been in baptism made spiritual by regeneration of the soul: which in the full redemption of owr bodies shall be made perfect. And therefore this author may mot compare baptism with the sacrament throughly; in which baptism Christ’s manhood is not really present, although the virtue and effect of his most precious blood be there: but the truth of the mystery of this sacrament is to have Christ’s body, his flesh and blood, exhibited, whereunto eating and drinking is, by Christ in his supper, appropriate. In which supper Christ said, This is my body,” which Bucer noteth; and that Christ said not, This is my spirit” This is my virtue.” Wherefore, after Origen’s teaching, if Christ be not only manifested, but also exhibited “sensibly” in the sacrament, then is he in the sacrament in deed, that is to say, “really;” and then is he there “substantially,” because the substance of the body is there; and is there corporally” also, because the very body is there; and “naturally,” because the natural body is there; not understanding corporally and naturally in the manner of presence, nor sensibly neither. For then were the manner of presence within man’s capacity, and that is false: and therefore the catholic teaching is, that the manner of Christ’s presence in the sacrament is spiritual and Supernatural, not corporal, not carnal, not natural, not sensible, not perceptible, but only Spiritual, the how” and manner whereof God knoweth; and we, assured by his word, know only the truth to be so, that it is there in deed, and therefore really to be also received with our hands and mouths; and so sensibly there, the body that suffered, and therefore his natural body there, the body of very flesh, and therefore his carnal body, the body truly, and therefore his corporal body there. But as for the manner of presence, that is only spiritual, as 4 said before, and here in the inculcation of these words. I am tedious to a learned reader, but. yet this author enforceth me thereunto, who with these words, “carnally,” corporally,” “grossly,”
“sensibly,” “naturally,” applying them to the manner of presence, doth maliciously and craftily carry away the reader from the simplicity of his faith; and by such absurdities, as these words grossly understanded import, astonisheth the simple reader in consideration of the matter, and useth these words, as dust afore their eyes, which to wipe away, I am enforced to repeat the understanding of these words oftener tham elsewhere necessary. These things well considered, no man doth more plainly confound this author than this saying of Origen, as he allegeth it, whatsoever other sentences he would pick out of Origen, when he wseth liberty of allegories to make him seem to say otherwise. And as I have declared afore, to understand Christ’s words spiritually, is to understand them as the Spirit of God hath taught the church, and to esteem God’s mysteries most true in the substance of the thing so to be, although the manner exceedeth our capacities, which is a spiritual understanding of the same. And here also this author putteth in for figuratively,” spiritually 2,” to deceive the reader.
Canterbury
You observe my words here concerning Origen so captiously, as though I had gone about scrupulously to translate his sayings word by word, which I did not; but because they were very long, I went about only to rehearse the effect of his mind briefly and plainly, which I have done faithfully and truly, although you captiously carp and reprehend the same.
And whereas, craftily to alter the sayings of Origen, you go about to put a diversity of the exhibition of Christ in these three things, in his word, in baptism, and in his holy supper, as though in his word and in baptism he were exhibited spiritually, and in his holy supper sensibly to be eaten with our mouths: this distinction you have dreamed in your sleep, or imagined of purpose. For Christ after one sort is exhibited
160. in all these three, in his word, in baptism, and in the Lord’s supper; that is to say, spiritually, and for so much in one sort, as before you have confessed yourself. And Origen putteth no such diversity as you here imagine, but declareth one manner of giving of Christ unto us in his word, in baptism, and in the Lord’s supper; that is to say, in all these three secundum. speciem; that as unto the Jews Christ was given in figures, so to us he is given in specie, that is to say, im rei veritate, in his very nature: meaning nothing else but that unto the Jews he was promised in figures, and to us, after his incarnation, he is married and joined in his proper kind, and in his words and sacraments as it were sensibly given.
But howsoever I report Origen, you captiously and very untruly, do report me. For whereas I say, that in God’s word, and in the sacraments of baptism and of the Lord’s supper, Christ is manifested and exhibited unto us, as it were face to face and Asit were. sensibly, you, leaving out these words, “as it were,” make a quarrel to this word “sensibly;” or rather, you make that word sensibly” the foundation of all your weak building, as though there were no difference between sensibly,” and “as it were sensibly;” and as it were all one thing a man to lie sleeping, and as he were sleeping; or dead, and as he were dead. Do not I write thus in my first book, that the washing in the water of baptism is as it were a shewing of Christ before our eyes, and a sensible touching, feeling, and groping of him?” And do these words import that we see him and grope him in deed? And further I say, that the eating and drinking of the sacramental bread and wine is as it were a shewing of Christ before our eyes, a smelling of him with our noses, and a feeling and groping of him with our hands.” And do we therefore see him in deed with our corporal eyes, smell him with our noses, and put our hands in his side and feel his wounds? If it were so in deed, I would not add these words, “as it were.” For what speech were this, of a thing that is in deed to say, “as it were?” For these words, “as it were,” signify that it is not so in deed. So now likewise in this place of Origen, where it is said, that Christ in his words and sacraments is manifested and exhibited unto us, as it were face to face and sensibly,” it is not meant that Christ is so exhibited in deed face to face and sensibly, but the sense is clean contrary, that he is
[[! Orig. ed. Winch. omits the words. ma- [? For spiritually,” figuratively,” Orig. ed.]
[liciously and.”] Winch.]]
not there given sensibly, nor face to face. Thus it appeareth how uprightly you handle this matter, and how truly you report my words. But the further you proceed in your answer, the more you shew crafty juggling, legerdemain, pass a God’s name to blind men’s eyes, strange speeches, new inventions, not without much impiety as the words sound, but what the meaning is no man can tell but the maker himself. But as the words be placed, it seemeth you mean, that in the Lord’s supper we be not made by Christ’s Spirit participant of the benefit of his passion;” nor by baptism or God’s word we be not “made participant of his Godhead by his humanity:” and furthermore by this distinction, (which you feign without any ground of Origen,) we receive not “man and God” in baptism; nor in the Lord’s supper we be not “by means of his Godhead made participant of the effect of his passion.” In baptism also, by your distinction, we receive not “a pledge of the resurrection of our flesh,” but in the Lord’s supper; nor Christ is not truly present in baptism. Which your said differences do not only derogate and diminish the effect and dignity of Christ’s sacraments, but be also blasphemous against the ineffable unity of Christ’s person, separating his divinity from his humanity. Here may all men of judgment see by experience, how divinity is handled when it cometh to the discussion of ignorant lawyers.
And in all these your sayings (if you mean as the words be), I make an issue with you for the price of a fagot. And where you say, that “our flesh in the general resurrection shall be spiritual,” here I offer a like issue, except you understand a spiritual body to be a sensible and palpable body, that hath all perfect members distinct; which thing in sundry places of your book you seem utterly to deny. And where you make this difference between baptism and this sacrament, that in baptism Christ is not really present, expounding really present” to signify no more but to be in deed present, yet after a spiritual manner, if you deny that presence to be in baptism; yet the third fagot I will adventure with you, for your strange and ungodly doctrine within twenty lines together; who may in equality of error contend with the Valentines, Arians, or Anabaptists.
But when you come here to your “lies” (declaring the words, “sensibly,” “really,” “substantially,” corporally,” and fnaturally”), you speak so fondly, unlearnedly, and ignorantly, as they that know you not might think that you understood neither grammar, English, nor reason. For who is so ignorant but he knoweth that adverbs that end in “ly” be adverbs of quality, and being added to the verb they express the manner, form, and fashion how a thing is, and not the substance of it? As speaking wisely, learnedly, and plainly, is to speak after such a form and manner as wise men, learned, and plain men, do speak: and to do wisely and godly is to do in such sort and fashion as wise and godly men do. And sometime the adverb “ly” signifieth the manner of a thing that is in deed, and sometime the manner of a thing that is not. As when a man speaketh wisely, that is wise indeed: and yet sometimes we say, “fools speak wisely;’ which although they be not wise, yet they utter some speeches in such sort as though they were wise. The king, we say, useth himself princely in all his doings, (who is a prince in deed,) but we say also of an arrogant, wilful, and proud man, that he useth himself princely and imperiously, although he be neither prince nor emperor: and yet we use so to speak of him, because of the manner, form, and fashion of using himself. And if you answer foolishly and unlearnedly, be you therefore a fool and unlearned? Nay, but then your answers be made in such wise, manner, sort, and fashion, as you were neither learned nor wise. Or if you send to Rome or receive private letters from thence, be you therefore a papist? God is judge thereof; but yet do you popishly, that is to say, use such manner and fashion as the papists do. But where the form and manner lacketh, there the adverbs of quality in “ly” have no place, although the thing be there in deed. As when a wise man speaketh not in such a sort, in such a fashion and wise, as a wise man should speak, notwithstanding that he is wise in deed, yet we say not that he speaketh wisely, but foolishly. And the godly king David did ungodly when he took Bersabe, and slew Urie her husband, because that manner of doing was not godly. So do all Englishmen E understand by these words, “sensibly,” “substantially,” “corporally,” “naturally,” carnally,” “spiritually,” and such like, the manner and form of being, and not the thing itself
without the said forms and manners. For when Christ was born, and rose from death, and wrought miracles, we say not that he did these things naturally, because the mean and manner was not after a natural sort, although it was the selfsame Christ in nature. But we say that he did eat, drink, sleep, labour, and sweat, talk, and speak naturally, not because only of his nature, but because the manner and fashion ΟΥ̓ doing was such as we use to do. Likewise when Jesus passed through the people, and they saw him not, he was not then sensibly and visibly among them; their eyes being letted in such sort that they could not see and perceive him. And so in all the rest of your adverbs, the speech admitteth not to say that Christ is there substantially, corporally, carnally, and sensibly, where he is not after a substantial, corporal, carnal, and sensual form and manner. This the husbandman at his plough, and his wife at her rock’, is able to judge, and to condemn you in this point, and so can the boys in the grammar-school, that you speak neither according to the English tongue, grammar, nor reason, when you say that these words and adverbs, “sensibly,” “corporally,” and “naturally,” do not signify a corporal, sensible, and natural manner. I have been here somewhat long and tedious, but the reader must pardon me; for this subtile and evil device of your own brain, without ground or authority, containeth such absurdities, and may cast such mists before men’s eyes to blind them that they should not see, that I am constrained to speak thus much in this matter, and yet more shall do, if this suffice not. But this one thing I wonder much at, that you being so much used and accustomed to lie, do not yet know what “ly” meaneth.
But at length in this matter, (when you see none other shift) you be fain to fly to the church for your shot-anchor. And yet it is but the Romish church. For the old and first church of Christ is clearly against you. And Origen saith not as you do, that “to understand the said words of Christ spiritually is to understand them as the Spirit of God hath taught the church;” but to understand them spiritually is io understand them otherwise than the words sound: “for he that understandeth them after the letter,” saith Origen, understandeth them carnally, and that understanding hurteth and destroyeth. For in plain understanding of eating and drinking without trope or figure, Christ’s flesh cannot be eaten, nor his blood drunken.”
Next followeth in order St Cyprian, of whom I write thus: And likewise meant Cyprian, in those places which the adversaries of the Epis truth allege of him, concerning the true eating of Christ’s very flesh and ” drinking of his blood. For Cyprian spake of no gross and carnal eating with the mouth, but of an inward spiritual and pure eating with heart and mind: which is to believe in our hearts that his flesh was rent and torn for us upon the cross, and his blood shed for our redemption; and that the same flesh and blood now sitteth at the right hand of the Father, making continual intercession for us: and to imprint and digest this in our minds, putting our whole affiance and trust in him, as touching our salvation, and offering ourselves clearly unto him, to love and serve him all the days of our life; this is truly, sincerely, and spiritually to eat his flesh, and to drink his blood.
And this sacrifice of Christ upon the cross was that oblation, which Cyprian saith was figured and signified before it was done, by the wine which Noe drank, and by the bread and wine which Melchisedech gave to Abraham, and by many other figures whieh St Cyprian there rehearseth. And now when Christ is come, and hath accomplished that sacrifice, the same is figured, signified, and represented unto us by that bread and wine, which faithful people receive daily in the holy communion. Wherein like as with their mouths carnally they eat the bread and drink the wine, so by their faith
[[! Rock: i.e. a distaff, or staff, held in the hand, twirling a spindle below.]
[from which, in spinning, the wool was spun by [3 Shot-anchor, the same as sheet-anchor.]]
spiritually they eat Christ’s very flesh and drink his very blood. And hereby it appeareth, that St Cyprian clearly affirmeth the most true doctrine, and is wholly upon our side..And against the papists he teacheth most plainly, that the communion ought to be received of all men under both kinds: and that Christ called bread his body, and wine his blood: and that there is not transubstantiation, but that bread remaineth there as a figure to represent Christ’s body, and wine to represent his blood, and that those which be not the lively members of Christ do eat the bread and drink the wine, and be not nourished? by them; but the very flesh and blood of Christ they neither eat nor drink.
Thus have you declared the mind of St Cyprian. WINCHESTER.; As touching Cyprian, this author maketh an exposition of his own device, which he would have taken for an answer unto him. Whereas Cyprian of all other, like as he is ancient within two hundred and fifty years of Christ, so did he write very openly in the matter; and. therefore Melancthon, in his epistle to GZcolampadius, did choose him for one whose words in the affirmation of Christ’s true presence in the sacrament had no ambiguity. And like Judgment doth Hippinus, in his book before alleged, give of Cyprianus’ faith in the sacrament: which two I allege to countervail the judgment of this author, who speaketh of his own head as it liketh him, playing with the words “gross” and “carnal,” and using the word “represent,” as though it expressed a figure only. Hippinus, in the said book, allegeth Cyprian to say, (Lib. iii. ad Quirinum4) “that the body of owr Lord is owr sacrifice in flesh,” meaning, as Hippinus saith, eucharistiam,” wherein St Augustine, (as Hippinus saith further,) in the prayer for his mother, speaking of the bread and wine of eucharistia, saith, “that in it is dispensed the holy host and sacrifice, whereby was cancelled the bill obligatory that was against us.” And further, Hippinus saith, that “the old men called the bread and wine of our Lord’s supper a, sacrifice, an host, and oblation, for that specially, because they believed and taught the true body of Christ and his true blood to be distribute in the bread and wine of eucharistia;” and, as St Augustin saith, ad Januarium, “to enter in, and be received with the mouth of them that eat.” These be Hippinus’ very words, who, because he is, I think, in this author’s opinion, taken for mo papist, I rather speak in his words than in mine own, whom in another part of this work this author doth, as it were for charity, by name slander to be a papist. Wherefore the said Hippinus words shall be, as I think, more weighty to oppress this author’s talk than mine bes and therefore, howsoever this author handleth before the words of St Cyprian (de Unctione Chrismatis), and the word shewing” out of his epistles, yet the same Cypriaws faith appeareth so certain otherwise, as those places shall need no further answer of me here, having brought forth the judgment of Hippinus and Melancthon how they understand St Cypriaws faith, which thow, reader, oughtest to regard more than the assertion of this author, specially when thow hast read how he hath handled Hilary, Cyril, Theophylact, and Damascene, as I shall hereafter touch.: CANTERBURY. I - Whether I “make an exposition of Cyprian by mine own device,” I leave to the P. judgment of the indifferent reader. And if I so do, why do not you prove the same substantially against me? For your own bare words, without any proof, I trust the 1 indifferent reader will not allow, having such experience of you as he hath. And Af Cyprian of all other had writ most plainly against me, as you say without proof, who thinketh that you would have omitted here Cyprian’s words, and have fled to Melancthon and Epinus for succour?
[5 And be nourished, 1551, and Orig. ed.] thios prima: Quicunque ederit panem, aut biberit [ Cum timore et honore Eucharistiam accipien- calicem Domini indigne, reus erit corporis et san-]
[.. dam In Levitico: Anima autem quacunque man- guinis Domini, — Cyprian. “ad Quirinum,” Lib. ται.]
[Qucaverit ex carne sacrificii salutaris, quod est cap.94. p. 390. Paris. 174. ]]
[” Domini, et immunditia ipsius super ipsum est, [^ Had written, 1551.]]
[. peribit anima illa de populo suo. Item ad Corin-]
And why do you allege their authority for you, which in no wise you admit when they be brought against you? But it seemeth that you be faint-hearted in this matter, and begin to shrink; and like one that refuseth the combat, and findeth the shift to put another in his place, even so it seemeth you would draw back yourself from the danger, and set me to fight with other men, that in the mean time you might be an idle looker on. And if you as grand captain take them but as mean soldiers to fight in your quarrel, you shall have little aid at their hands; for their writings declare openly that they be against you more than me, although in this place you bring them for your part, and report them to say more and otherwise than they say indeed.
And as for Cyprian and St Augustine, here by you alleged, they serve nothing for your purpose, nor speak nothing against me, by Epinus own judgment. For Epinus saith, “That eucharistia is called a sacrifice, because it is a remembrance of the true sacrifice which was offered upon the cross, and that in it is dispensed the very body and blood, yea, the very death of Christ, (as he allegeth of St Augustine in that place,) the holy sacrifice whereby he blotted out and cancelled the obligation of death, which was against us, nailing it upon the cross, and in his own person won the victory, and triumphed against the princes and powers of darkness.” This passion, death, and victory of Christ is dispensed and distributed in the Lord’s holy supper, and daily among Christ’s holy people. And yet all this requireth no corporal presence of Christ in the sacrament, nor the words of Cyprian ad Quirinum neither. For if they did, then was Christ’s flesh corporally present in the sacrifice of the old testament fifteen hundred years before he was born; for of those sacrifices speaketh ad that text alleged by Cyprian ad Quirinum, whereof Epinus and you gather these words, “that the body of our Lord is our sacrifice in flesh.” And howsoever you wrest Melancthon or Epinus, they condemn clearly your doctrine, that Christ’s body is corporally contained under the forms or accidents of bread and wine.”
Next in my book is Hilarius.
But Hilarius, think they, is plainest for them in this matter, whose words they translate thus’:
“If the word were made very flesh?, and we verily receive the word being hi flesh, in our Lord’s meat, how shall not Christ be thought to dwell naturally in us? who being born man, hath taken unto him the nature of our flesh, that cannot be severed, and hath put together the nature of his flesh to the nature of his eternity under the sacrament of the communion of his flesh unto us. For so we be all one, because the Father is in Christ, and Christ in us. Wherefore whosoever will deny the Father to be naturally in Christ, he must deny first either himself to be naturally in Christ, or Christ to be naturally in him. For the being of the Father in Christ, and the being of Christ in us, maketh us to be one in them. And therefore if Christ have taken verily the flesh of our body, and the man that was verily born of the virgin Mary is Christ, and also we receive under the true mystery the flesh of his body, by means whereof we shall be one, (for the Father is in Christ, and Christ in us,) how shall that be called the unity of will, when the natural property, brought to pass by the sacrament, is the sacrament of unity 2
[[! Si enim vere Verbum caro factum est, et nos in his esse nos faciunt. Si vere igitur carnem cor-]
[vere Verbum carnem cibo dominico sumimus, quo- poris nostri Christus assumpsit, et vere homo ille,]
[modo non naturaliter manere in nobis existimandus qui ex Maria natus fuit, Christus est, nosque vere]
[est, qui et naturam carnis nostre jam inseparabilem sub mysterio carnem corporis sui sumimus, et per]
[sibi homo natus assumpsit, et naturam carnis suz hoc unum erimus, quia Pater in eo est, et ille in]
[ad naturam eternitatis sub sacramento nobis com- nobis, quomodo voluntatis unitas aperitur, cum]
[municandz carnis admiscuit? Ita enim omnes naturalis per sacramentum proprietas perfect sa-]
[unum sumus, quia et in Christo Pater est, et cramentum sit unitatis? — Hilarius De “Trinitate.]
[Christus in nobis est. Quisquis ergo naturaliter Lib. virr. pp. 133, 134. Ed. Basil. 1535.]]
[Patrem in Christo negabit, neget prius non natu- [2 If the word was made verily flesh, 158, and]
[raliter vel se in Christo, vel Christum sibi inesse; Orig. ed.]]
[quia in Christo Pater, et Christus in nobis, unum]
Thus doth the papists, (the adversaries of God’s word and of his truth,) allege the authority of Hilarius, either perversely and purposely, as it seemeth, untruly reciting him and wresting his words to their purpose, or else not truly understanding him. —.
For although he saith that Christ is naturally in us, yet he saith also that we be naturally in him. And nevertheless, in so saying he meant not of the natural and corporal presence of the substance of Christ’s body and of ours, (for as our bodies be not after that sort within his body, so is not his body after that sort within our bodies;) but he meant, that Christ in his incarnation received of us a mortal nature, and united the same unto his divinity, and so be we naturally in him.
And the sacraments of baptism and of his holy supper, (if we rightly use the same,) do most assuredly certify us, that we be partakers of his godly mature, having given unto us by him immortality and life everlasting; and so is Christ naturally in us. And so be we one with Christ, and Christ with us, not only in will and mind, but also in very natural properties.
And so concludeth Hilarius against Arius, that Christ is one with his Father, not in purpose and will only, but also in very nature.
And as the union between Christ and us in baptism is spiritual, and requireth no real and corporal presence; so likewise our union with Christ in his holy supper is spiritual, and therefore requireth no real and corporal presence.
And therefore Hilarius, speaking there of both the sacraments, maketh no difference between our union with Christ in baptism, and our union with him in his holy supper: and saith further, that as Christ is in us, so be we in him; whieh the papists cannot understand corporally and really, except they will say, that all our bodies be eorporally within Christ’s body. Thus is Hilarius answered unto, both plainly and shortly.
Winchester
This answer to Hilary, in the seventy-eighth leaf, requireth a plain, precise issue, worthy to be tried? apparent at hand. The allegation of Hilary toucheth specially me, who do say and maintain that I cited Hilary truly (as the copy did serve), and9 translate him truly in English after the same words in Latin. This is one issue which I qualify with the? copy, because I have Hilary now better correct, which better correction setteth forth more lively the truth than the other did, and therefore that I did translate was not so much to the advantage of that I alleged Hilary for, as is that in the book that I have mow better correct. Hilary’s words in the book mewly corrected be these: Si enim vere Verbum caro factum est, et nos vere Verbum carnem cibo dominieo sumimus, quomodo non naturaliter manere in nobis existimandus est: qui et naturam carnis nostre jam inseparabilem sibi homo natus asi sumpserit 8, et naturam carnis sus ad naturam seternitatis sub sacramento nobis communi- eands carnis admiscuit? Ita enim omnes unum sumus, quia et in Christo pater est, et Christus in nobis est. Quisquis ergo naturaliter Patrem in Christo negabit, neget prius mon naturaliter vel se in Christo vel Christum sibi inesse, quia in Christo Pater et Christus ἴῃ nobis unum in iis? esse nos faciunt. Si vere igitur carnem corporis nostri Christus sumpsit!?, et vere homo ille qui ex Maria natus fuit Christus est, nosque vere sub mysterio carnem corporis sui sumimus, et per hoc unum erimus, quia Pater in eo est et ille 3n nobis, quomodo voluntatis unitas asseritur, cum naturalis per sacramentum proprietas. perfect! sacramentum sit unitatis? My translation is this: “If the word was made verily Jesh, and we verily receive the word, being flesh, in our Lord’s meat, how shall not Christ be [craNMER. ] thought to dwell naturally in us, who, being born man, hath taken unto him the nature of
[[? Citing, 1551, and Orig. ed.] [ In Hilary, and in Orig. ed. Winch. “as. [ i. e. of the original cdition.] sumpsit.”’] [^ and apparent, 1551.] [? Tn Hilary, “his.”]]
[b [ Did, 1551.] [10 Assumpsit,” 1551, as in Hilary.]]
[E [7 A copy, 1551.] [^ In Hilary, perfecta.”]]
our flesh that cannot be severed, and hath put together the nature of his flesh to the nature of his eternity, under the sacrament of the communion of his flesh unto us? for so we be all one, because the Father is in Christ, and Christ in us. Wherefore, whosoever will deny the Father to be naturally in Christ, must deny, first, either himself to be naturally in Christ, or Christ not to be naturally in him; for the being of the Father in Christ, and the being of Christ in us, maketh us to be one in them. And therefore, if Christ hath taken verily the Sesh of our body, and the man that was born of the virgin Mary is verily Christ, and also we verily receive under a mystery the flesh of his body, by means whereof we shall be one, for the Father is in Christ, and Christ in us; how shall that be called the unity of will, when the natural propriety brought to pass by the sacrament is the sacrament of perfect unity?’
This translation differeth from mine other, whereat this author findeth fault; but wherein? The word vero was in the other copy «n adjective, and I joined it with mysterio, and therefore said the true mystery:” which word “mystery” needed no such adjective true,” for every mystery is true of itself. But to say, as Hilary truly correct saith, “that we receive under the mystery, truly, the flesh of Christ’s body,” that word “truly,” so placed, setteth forth lively the real presence and substantial presence of that is received, and repeateth again the same that was before said, to the more vehemency of it. So as this correction is better than my first copy, and according to this correction is Hilarius alleged by Melancthon to (Ecolampadius for the same purpose I allege him. Another alteration in the translation thow seest, reader, in the word perfecto, which in my copy was perfecta, and so was joined to proprietas, which now in the genitive case, joined to unitatis, giveth an excellent sense to the dignity of the sacrament, how the natural propriety by the sacrament is a sacrament of perfect unity, so as the perfect unity of us with Christ is to have his flesh in us, and to have Christ bodily and naturally dwelling in us by his manhood, as he dwelleth in us spiritually by his Godhead: and now I speak in such phrase as Hilary and Cyril speak, and use the words [as they use them,]! whatsoever this author saith, as I will justify by their plain words.
And so I join now with this author an issue, that I have not perversely used the allegation of Hilary, but alleged him as one that speaketh most clearly of this matter; which Hilary, in his eighth book de Trinitate, entreateth how many divers ways we be ome in — Christ, among which he accompteth faith for one: then he cometh to the umity in baptism, τὴν e 3 in where he handleth the matter above some capacities; and because there is but one baptism, and all that be baptized be so regenerate in one dispensation, and do the same thing, and be one in one, they that be one by the same thing be, as he saith, im mature one. From that unity in baptism he cometh to declare our wnity with Christ in flesh, which he calleth the sacrament of perfect unity, declaring how it is when Christ, who took truly our flesh mortal in the virgin’s womb, delivereth ws the same flesh glorified truly to be communicate with our Sesh, whereby as we be naturally in Christ, so Christ is naturally in us: and when this is brought to pass, then the unity between Christ and us is perfected. For as Christ is naturally in the Father of the same essence by the divine nature, [and God the Father naturally in Christ his Son, very God of the same essence in the divine nature:]? so we be naturally in Christ by our natural flesh which he took in the virgin’s womb, and he naturally in us by the same flesh in him glorified, and given to us, and received of us in the sacrament. For Hilary saith in plain words, how Christ’s very flesh and Christ’s very blood, received and drunken (accepta et hausta), bring this to pass. And it is notable, how Hilary compareth together the “truly” in Christ’s taking of our flesh in the virgin’s womb, with the “truly” of our taking of his flesh (in cibo dominico) in our Lords meat: by which words he expresseth the sacrament, and after reproveth those that said, we were only united by obedience and will of religion to Christ, and by him so to the Father, as though by the sacrament of flesh and blood no propriety of natural communion were given wnto ws: whereas both by the honour given unto us we be the sons of God, and by the Son dwelling carnally in ws, and we being corporally and inseparably unite in him, the mystery of true and natural unity is to be preached. These be Hilary’s words. For this latter part, where thou hearest, reader, the Son of God to dwell carnally in us, not after man’s gross imagination, for we may not so think of godly mysteries, but carnally” is referred to the truth of Christ’s flesh, given to us in this sacrament; and so is “naturally” to be wnderstanded, that we receive Christ’s natural flesh for the truth of it, as Christ received our maiural flesh of the virgin, although we receive Christ’s flesh glorified incorruptible, very spiritual, and in a spiritual manner delivered unto us. Here is mention made of the word “corporal;” but Ishall speak of that
[[! These words are omitted in the 1580. ed.] [3 This clause is found only in the Orig. ed. Winch.]
4n the discussion of Cyril. This Hilary was before St Augustine, and was known both of him. and St Jerome, who called him ‘Tubam Latini eloquii against the Arians. Never man. found fault at this notable place of Hilary. Now let us consider how the author of this book jforgetteth himself, to call Christ in us naturally by his Godhead, which were then to make us all gods by nature, which is over-great an absurdity, and Christ in his divine nature dwelleth only in his Father naturally, and in us by grace. But as we receive him in the sacrament of his flesh and blood, if we receive him worthily, so dwelleth he in us naturally, for the natural communication of our nature and his. And therefore, where this author reporteth Hilary to make no difference between our union to Christ in baptism, and in the supper, let him trust in him no more that told him so: or if this author will take upon him as of his own knowledge, then I must say, and (if he were another) would say, an answer in French, that I will not express. And hereupon will I join in9 the issue, that in Hilary the matter is so plain otherwise than this author rehearseth, as it hath no colour of defence to the contrary. And what Hilary speaketh of baptism and our unity therein, I have before touched; and this unity in flesh is after treated apart.
← 8. Book III. Of the Presence of Christ · Contents · 10. Book III. Of the Presence of Christ →