11. CHAP. X. A. Of the Question touching the Sacrament of the Eucharist.

11. CHAP. X. A. Of the Question touching the Sacrament of the Eucharist.

CHAP. X. A. Of the Question touching the Sacrament of the Eucharist.

T he contentions that be sprung up as touching the Sacrament of the Eucharist, tend doubtless to this purpose, that we may understand the manner of the conjunction of the body and blood of the Lord, with the signs of bread and wine, or (as others name them, with the sacramental forms.

Because it is manifest unto all men that this Sacrament is called the Sacrament of the body and blood of the Lord, therefore it behooveth that these things be after some manner contained in the sacrament. But we in the searching out of them will not rehearse all things which are alleged on both parts, least that which otherwise is obscure of itself, should be more entangled, and least the treatise grow to be infinite. But the order and disposing of the doctrine shall be reduced into four principal points. First we will treat of that conjunction, whereby they say commonly that the bread and wine is transubstantiated into the body and blood of Christ, which seemeth to be a full coupling together of the sacrament with the substance.

Secondly we will examine the other opinion, which is, that bread and wine, as touching their perfect and true natures, are retained in the sacrament: and

so retained, as they may have the true body and blood of Christ joined unto them (as they speak) naturally, corporally, and really. Thirdly shall be considered that which others say, that these things are not any other way joined one with another, than sacramentally, that is, by a significancy and representation. Lastly shall be declared out of the opinions pertaining to the second and third point so much as may most seem to belong unto godliness in this treatise of the sacrament.

2. Wherefore we will begin with the opinion of transubstantiation, partly because it is the grosser, further because it is the newer, and because the other two opinions do jointly and without drift confute the same. Of that the Master of the Sentences writeth in the 4th Book in the 8th, 9th, 10th, and 11th distinction. And to show it briefly, it is on this wise. The Minister ordained hereunto, when he uttereth the words instituted by the Lord over due and meet matter, that is bread and wine, so he have an intent (as they speak) to do it, the substance of the bread and wine is turned into the substance of the body and blood of Christ, and is so converted as the accidents of that substance which is changed or destroyed, remaineth without a subject: which nevertheless some would to cleave to the body of Christ which succeeded. But this is false, because in very deed the body of Christ hath no such accidents. Others have endeavored to make the air a subject for them as a natural foundation. Which also seeing it cannot possibly be proved, well near all the patrons of this opinion, agree, that they hang in the air, and remain without a subject. Further they will that these accidents which be seen and felt, do signify unto us the true body of Christ, which they have covered and hidden in them. Afterward they proceed further and say, that this body of Christ lying hidden under these accidents, is a sign, as well of the very body of Christ, which did hang upon the cross,

as also of the mystical body, that is of the fellowship of the elect and of men predestinate. Wherefore the Master of the sentences saith, that here is something, which is but only a sign (and that he appointeth to be the visible forms:) and that there is another thing, that is both the substance and the sign: namely the body of Christ, which is hidden under the accidents: for that is a substance, if it be referred unto the visible forms, and a sign, if thou have respect to the mystical body. Another thing (saith he) there is which thou mayest in no wise call a sign, but a substance only, to wit, the mystical body: because it is so signified, as it is no more a sign of anything. Those things which are afterward mingled in the action of these mysteries, are not (saith he) matters of necessity, but only thanksgiving and prayers interlaced.

And if thou demand of them how so great a body may be contained in that little cake, they say, that this is not by the manner of quantity, or locally, or as they speak definitely, but by the manner of substance, and as they say, sacramentally. Neither count they for absurd things, that in this sacrament are contained two bodies in one and the self-same place, because they are constrained thus to say: for between the accidents of bread there is a quantity and that doubtless a corporal quantity. Also they do not mislike, that one and the self-same body is truly in many places, and that a man of a just largeness and stature, as Christ was upon the cross, and as he shall come to judgment, is truly, but invisibly contained not only in a small cake, but also in the least part thereof. Many things else might be rehearsed as touching this opinion: but I mind that these shall be sufficient unto our

Treatise. He that desireth more, may read the Master of the sentences in the place which we cited, together with a great many of interpreters of him.

And of the change or transubstantiation, these Arguments they bring.

3. First, the holy scripture persuadeth it. For in the 6th of John the Lord promised that he would give his flesh, not only for the life of the world, but also to be eaten: And he added: Unless a man shall eat my flesh and drink my blood, he shall not have life. He said moreover, that He is the bread from heaven, and that the lively bread, whom the father had given. Where he manifestly promised, that he would give himself to be eaten after the manner of bread: and that which he promised, he in good earnest performed, as the Evangelists testified was done in the last supper. And that the same which is given is the Lord's body, Paul declareth, when he saith:

He that eateth and drinketh unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord. Again, He eateth and drinketh his own damnation, because he discerneth not the Lord's body. But they say, that the whole strength of the argument consisteth, in those words wherein it is said: This is my body. Which they affirm to be manifest, and needeth no expositions.

And it behooveth (say they) that we should believe them, for the reverence that we owe unto the word of God. For the Evangelists as touching those words have conspired together in one: namely, Matthew, Mark, and Luke: also Paul the Apostle, in the first Epistle to the Corinthians: and unless the thing were of great importance, and so to be taken absolutely as it soundeth, the Apostles would not with so great unity have consented one with another.

But and if it be lawful to shift off by tropes or figures, nothing (say they,) will be now safe from heretics. Furthermore the Propositions of such a kind, as is this, This is my body, must be understood, as that the subject and the predicate do represent and signify all one thing, and be, as it is said in the schools, a proposition of one and the self-same signification, unless there be found anything before or after in the joining together of the speech which may drive us to a trope or allegory, which in this place is not found. Nay

rather if thou rightly look upon the words which follow, they revoke us to the plainness of the proposition: For it is said: Which is given for you. But it is manifest, that the very body itself of Christ was given for us. Moreover those things which differ in nature and form, and by the Logicians are commonly called Disparata, as a man, a horse, and a stone, be in that case as they can never be mutually verified one of another. For it will never be true, that a man is a stone, or else contrariwise. But that in this sense the body of Christ and bread are to be understood, no man doubteth. Wherefore it will never be true to say of bread, that it is the body of Christ. So that when the Lord pronounced, This is my body, it must of necessity be that the substance of bread went away. It is added, that Christ did not without consideration use the verb substantive of the present tense, so as he said:

This is my body. Doubtless he might have said: This signifieth my body, This representeth my body, This is the figure of my body, or the sign of my body: Or else thus: This bread is my body. All these things, seeing he refused, the saying is absolutely to be understood, as he pronounced it.

Besides, if the substance of bread should remain, there should be two substances together at once, yea and those corporal substances: and they should one pierce another, which by the doctrine of transubstantiation is removed. Again there would be an imminent danger least the people should fall into Idolatry. For seeing the body of Christ must be worshipped, if bread remain there, that also should be worshipped. Neither doeth it appear meet for the dignity of Christ his body, that it should after this manner be joined either unto bread or unto wine. They argue also from the manner of a sacrifice. For if the body of Christ be offered by the minister, it behooveth that he have the same, and that he there stand in the sight of God, unless we will say, that he only offereth a thing signified and shadowed.

4. Afterward they cry out that the fathers are wholly on their side. First thy cite Irenaeus, who saith in the fifth book: When the cup tempered and the bread broken, receive the word of God, it is become the Eucharist of the blood and body of Christ. In the 4th book he spake in a manner the same thing. Also Tertullian in the 4th book saith, that Christ taking bread and distributing the same to his Disciples, made it his body. And Origen upon Matthew the 26th Chapter saith: This bread which God being the word confesseth to be his body, and the rest that followeth. Cyprian in his Sermon de Coena Domini: This common bread, being changed into flesh and blood, procureth life. And again in the same Sermon: This bread, which the Lord delivered unto his Disciples being changed not in form but in nature, is by the omnipotency of the word made flesh. Ambrose in the 4th book de

Sacramentis: It is bread before the words of the Sacraments; after consecration, is of bread become the flesh of Christ. And many other like sayings he hath in his books of the sacraments. And to the same purpose

Chrysostom in his 60th Homily de Eucharistia, which is in the 6th Tome, saith: This Sacrament is like unto wax put unto the fire, where nothing of the substance remaineth but wholly becometh like the fire: so saith he, the bread and wine is spent with the substance of Christ his body. Augustine upon the Prologue of the 23rd Psalm, saith that Christ bare himself in his own hands, whenas in the supper he instituted the Sacrament. And in the 98th Psalm expounding that sentence, Fal ye down before his footstool, affirmeth that the flesh of Christ must be worshipped in the sacrament: which would not be meet, if bread were yet remaining. And in his third book de Trinitate, A sacrament (saith he) cannot be made, but by the power of the holy Ghost working together with us. And Hilarius in his eighth book de Trinitate, saith, that Christ is in us by the truth of nature, and not by an

argument of the will only: and he saith, that in the Lord's meat, we truly receive the word being flesh. Leo the Bishop of Rome in the tenth Epistle to the Clergy and people of Constantinople. We receiving the virtue of the heavenly meat, let us pass into his flesh which was made our flesh. They add that Damascenus is altogether on their side. Also Theophilact is brought in by them, who most plainly made mention of the changing of elements.

But as touching Anselm and Hugo de Sancto victor, which were in the latter age, there is no doubt but that they warrant Transubstantiation: And that therefore the fathers as well old as new, they say make of their side. And they bring in Councils: namely the Council of Ephesus against Nestorius, where Cyril was president: and he hath many things of this matter and especially he saith, that we being made partakers of the holy body and precious blood of Christ, receive not common flesh, nor as it were the flesh of a man sanctified, but that which is the true sanctifying flesh, and that which is become proper to the word itself. And they cite the Council of Vercellensis under Leo the 9th wherein Berengarius was condemned, of whose recantation there is mention in the decrees De Consecrat distinct. 2, and in the fourth book of Sentences. They cite also the Lateran Council at Rome, under Innocentius 3rd who mentioned Transubstantiation in the decretalles De summa trinitate, in the chapter Firmiter: And De celebratione Missarum in the chapter Cum Martha. Also in the Council of Constance, where Wycliffe was condemned, who denied this transubstantiation. Further they cite for themselves, (as they say) the consent of the whole Church, wherewith Scotus was so greatly moved in his

4th book, as when transubstantiation might not firmly be showed by the scriptures and by reasons, yet he yieldeth unto it, least he should be against the consent of the Church.

5. Furthermore they draw a most large and far-fetched argument from the power of God, because he can do far greater things than these be. And they bring in many miracles which were done for the testimony of the truth: as that this sacrament in the hands of Gregory, was by his prayer turned into a finger of flesh. Sometime appeared therein a little child: and the sacrament being pierced with small spears yielded blood.

They speak many things also as touching the body of Christ glorified, (which Paul in the Epistle to the Corinthians calleth spiritual) to the intent they might show, that it was very lawful for Christ to deliver his body shadowed and covered with accidents. And they persuade that it is not simply put in the Greek, This is my body, but the article is added, so as it is not said σῶμα body, but τό σῶμα μου This my body. And the Grecians are then wont to ad articles, when they will make the speech very proper and significant. To these things they add: Christ promised to his Apostles: I will be with you until the end of the world, which must not only be understood as touching the divinity, because this also they knew well enough: but insomuch as they were sad for his corporal departure, he putteth them in comfort that he would also be with them in body. Furthermore if transubstantiation should be taken away, and bread remain, seeing that cannot be the body of Christ, there will be left only a signification, and then the new sacraments should not have anything which would not be found in the old sacraments. For those also did signify Christ: yea rather if thou have respect to the outward show they did more express him than bread and wine. For there brute beasts were slain, and their bloodshed, which in bread and wine happeneth not. And it seemeth a marvel unto them, that seeing

Christ promised in Peter, that the faith of the Church should not fail, and that the same is the most dear spouse of Christ, how it happeneth that he

hath so long forsaken it in this idolatry, and hath not showed the truth of the thing against so great an abuse. They argue also, that if the substance of bread and wine being preserved, the truth of things cannot be present, as it is concluded, nothing shall be had more in the sacrament than in common meats and banquets. For there also the faithful will understand a signification of bread and wine, and so the dignity of sacraments shall perish. Lastly they say, that the word of God must still retain his power and force which remaineth not, if transubstantiation be taken away. Ambrose in his Treatise De Sacramentis saith, that by the operation of the word of God the bread and wine remain as they be, and yet be changed into another thing. Which words Algerius a late writer, in the first book which he made of this sacrament, the 7th chapter: expoundeth that bread and wine remain as touching the accidents, but are changed into another or into a better thing as touching the substance.

6. But now let us see by what arguments on the other part this opinion is overthrown. First the holy scripture teacheth that there is bread, therefore it is not true that the substance thereof is converted into another thing. The Evangelists say, that Christ took bread, brake it, and gave it to his disciples.

And Paul five times made mention of bread: Is not the bread which we break, the participation of the body of Christ? And, We be all one bread and one body, which do participate of one bread. Also, how often soever ye eat of this bread, ye shall show the Lord's death until his coming. Again,

Whosoever shall eat this bread and drink this cup unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord. Lastly: Let a man try himself, and so let him eat of that bread, and drink of that cup. These things seeing they be plain and manifest, therefore if an Angel from heaven shall preach otherwise, let him be accursed. Verily I might allege that which is

oftentimes said as touching the breaking of bread, but because I see that it may be otherwise understood (as though it should be spoken of the unclean and common meat: as in Isaiah the 58th chapter: Break thy bread unto him that is hungry. And Jeremiah in his Lamentations the 4th chapter. The little children desired their bread, and there was no man that would break unto them.) therefore I omit it and will bring nothing but that which is firm. And now seeing the places before cited be very plain, they ought simply to be taken. But some cavil that it is called bread by reason of the natures which be converted, and to speak after their manner, this name is given of the end from which they have [their nature] and they bring the like places. When a serpent was made of the rod of Aaron, it devoured the serpents of the Sorcerers, which they also made of their rods. It is said that the rod of Aaron devoured the serpents of the Sorcerers. Further in the holy Scriptures man is sundry times called earth, because his body was made thereof.

Woman also was by Adam called bone of his bones, and flesh of his flesh, because she was framed thereof by God. But these things are vainly objected, because in the holy scriptures there is plain mention made of these changes: So then the necessity of the history and words drive us unto these figures, and therefore we admit them. Let these men in like manner show unto us in the holy scriptures, that this change was made: namely of bread and wine into the body and blood of Christ, and we will also grant them these figures, to wit, that the bread should not be called the same which it is now, but which it was before. And thereunto belongeth that which they say:

If a man would give me wine, which straight way would turn to vinegar, and I having that vinegar in a pot, I might fitly say: This is thy wine: not that it is then wine, but because it was wine before. But here the sense judgeth of changing the wine into vinegar, which happeneth not in the

Eucharist, whereas neither the sense nor reason, nor yet the holy Scripture driveth us to confess such a changing as the other is.

7. They object a place out of John in the second chap. When the governor of the feast had tasted the water which was made wine: whereby they will show, that the wine newly brought forth by the miracle of Christ, doth still retain the name of water. But Christ said not simply, Water, but, Water which was made wine. But this declaration shall they not find in the holy

Scriptures, that bread is said to be turned into the body of Christ. They fly also sometimes to the 6th chapter of John, so as they say, that the Apostle calleth bread in this place: not bread, that is, of wheat, or common bread, but the body of the Lord, which in the 6th chapter of John is called bread, where Christ said: I am the bread of life. But against them maketh that which Paul saith: The bread which we break is it not the Communion of the body of Christ? Because it cannot agree with the body of Christ that it should be broken, seeing it is written: Thou shalt not break a bone of him.

But these so sharp witted men, although they have found in the 6th chapter of John, that Christ called himself bread, where I pray you shall they find that he called himself wine? For so much as in this supper, the other sign is called wine: namely in those words of the Evangelist: I will not hereafter drink of the fruit of this vine. But there is no doubt but that vines bring not forth accidents, but wine. Further it is to no purpose which is spoken of the fathers with great consent, that the mystical body is betokened by the signs of this sacrament, because bread is made of many grains, and wine runneth together of many grapes, which things in accidents have no truth. And of these men we marvel very much, who if at any time they hear us bring similitudes, as for example: The rock, was Christ, The Lamb or beast for sacrifice, is the Passover, Circumcision is the covenant: they cry that these

Allegories serve not for this place. And now these men heap up everywhere tropes and figures. They say also, that bread is here taken for all that which may be eaten, as Lehem in the Hebrew tongue, is taken for all kind of meat.

But against them make the Evangelist which restrain this kind of meat unto bread. Others fain that bread signifieth accidents, and the form of bread, who as the Logicians term it, do Petere prrincipium, and take as it were already granted that which is in controversy: namely that accidents be there without a subject: which thing they ought first to prove. Neither must miracles be heaped together without necessity.

8. Another Argument is: that the old Fathers had the same sacraments which we have: and yet there was no need of Transubstantiation, that the Rock, or the water flowing out of the Rock, or Manna should be transubstantiated, which might not then be done: wherefor neither is this to be required unto our Sacraments. The former proposition we have read in Paul, to wit, That the old fathers and we had one and the self-same meat.

Our adversaries deny it, and would have that our Sacraments should altogether and many manner of ways be distinguished from the mysteries of the old fathers: which we also grant, as well in respect of diverse signs, as also for the difference of times and certain other properties. But as touching the matter of the Sacraments, which was received by the holy Patriarchs, we say that the meat was altogether the self-same, and the drink the self-same with the substance of our Sacraments. Augustine unto Marcellinus writeth of the difference of these Sacraments, that unto a prudent man it may suffice that by some Sacraments it was foreshowed when Christ should come, and that by others it ought to be showed when he was come: where

Augustine seemeth to have only a regard to the difference of the time. And in his little book De utilitate verae poenitentiae agendae, he very plainly

writeth, that the old fathers when they had Manna did eat the very same thing that we do eat. For (saith he) they did eat the very same spiritual meat.

What else is the very same, but because they did eat even it that we do? And because unto some man it might have seemed an unworthy thing, that we have no more than the Jews had, he urgeth the testimony of Paul, unto whom (saith he) it was not enough to say that the old fathers had spiritual meat, but he would add, that they had The very same: whereby we may understand, that they in their Manna did eat the very same thing that we do eat, therefore he added, The very same. Neither is it a let which some do say: that he spake of spiritual eating, to wit, that the Patriarchs believed in Christ to come. First, because these men are not able to confirm their fleshly eating of Christ: Secondly, because the old fathers not only believed with their mind, but received a token of the thing believed, that is Manna or water, therefore the thing did not stand only in faith: and the saying of Augustine standeth fast: that the meat of the fathers was not only spiritual, but the self-same.

9. It little also availeth if thou object, out of the same Augustine upon the Psalm 73, in the prologue, the differences between the new and the old sacraments: which (as it seemeth) he maketh to be three. First, that the savior is there promised, but here given. Afterward he saith, that our sacraments be easier, fewer, nobler and happier: And lastly, that those were as things to play with in the hands of children: but that in ours there is something more profitable and substantial. These things as touching the first, must be understood of the promise of Christ that should come: but notwithstanding that he in very deed had not as yet taken flesh upon him, yet was he spiritually given for a meat unto the fathers believing in the promise. But ours are said to give Christ: namely, because they testify that

he is come, so as he must be looked for no more. Further it is certain that ours be fewer, and have a greater facility, and they signify with greater magnificence, because the words which are declared are more plain than they were in the Old Testament. Moreover the felicity is greater, for we be free from the yoke of ceremonies, and we live in the last hour, being undoubtedly more nigh unto the kingdom of Christ. The spirit also is now more plentiful: and the Church extendeth more largely than it did at that time: Wherefore Many kings and Prophets desired to see those things which you see. And the Sacraments of the law were as things for pastime in the hands of children, because it behooved the age of the old fathers to be exercised like children under many ceremonies, sundry elements, and diverse sorts of instructions. But it is not proved by all these things that the Sacraments of the old fathers had not as touching the substance of a mystery, those things which our Sacraments have. For Cyprian hath in the 2nd book and 3rd Epistle. Our Lord Jesus Christ offered the self-same thing which Melchizedek offered, that is to say, bread and wine: to wit, his own body and blood. Augustine against Faustus the 19th book chap. the 16th In what a doting error be they which think, that the signs and Sacraments being changed, the things also be diverse. And in the same Treatise in the 20th book the 21st chapter: The flesh and blood of this Sacrifice, before the coming of Christ was promised under oblations of likenesses. In the passion of Christ it was given according to the truth itself: after the ascension of Christ, it is celebrated by a sacrament of remembrance. The same father in the 26th Treatise upon John: Those Sacraments were in signs differing

[from ours] but in the matter which is signified they be equal. Straightway he saith: therefore there was the self-same meat, and the self-same drink, howbeit to them that understood and believed: but to them which

understood it not, it was but only Manna, and the other but only water, but to him that believed, it was the self-same thing that it is now. For then

Christ was to come, now he is come: was to come, and is come be diverse words, but one and the same Christ. And Bertramus among the later men thus writeth: But that our fathers did eat the self-same spiritual meat, and drink the self-same spiritual drink Saint Paul affirmeth. Perhaps thou demandest, which self-same? Even the very same which at this day, the faithful people do eat and drink in the Church. For we must not think that there is a difference seeing that he is one and the very same Christ, which with his flesh fed the people, and with his blood gave them drink when they were in the desert, in the cloud, and were baptized in the sea, and which now in the Church feedeth and giveth drink unto the believing people with the bread of his body and water of his blood. And straightway again the same father: A marvel doubtless incomprehensible and inestimable: he had not as yet taken the manhood upon him: he had not as yet tasted of death, for the salvation of the world: he had not as yet redeemed us with his blood, and yet even now, our fathers in the desert did eat his body and drink his blood by a spiritual food and an invisible drink, as the Apostle beareth witness saying: The self-same spiritual meat. And again: For even he also which by his omnipotent power in the Church spiritually converteth the bread and wine into the flesh of his own body and into the water of his own blood: even he then invisibly wrought the Manna which was given from heaven to be his own body, and the water which was poured from heaven to be his own blood.

10. We see moreover in the sacrament of Baptism, that the holy Ghost and remission of sins is given: yet do we not say that these things lie hidden in the waters: yea and we put on Christ, yet doeth not any man say, that water

is transubstantiated. Christ (they say) is after one sort in the Eucharist, and after another sort in Baptism. As touching the manner, I confess that in Baptism Christ is given as a mediator, as a reconciler, and to speak more properly, as a regenerator: but in this he is distributed unto us as a meat and nourishment. Furthermore with this their Transubstantiation, they come near unto a figure of the Marcionites: for they say: It seems to be bread and is not: The very which thing Marcion affirmed of the flesh and body of Christ, that it was not true flesh, but that it only appeareth [to be flesh].

Christ is no juggler, neither doeth he delude our senses, but by the senses he proved the Resurrection. Feel (saith he) and see, for a spirit hath no flesh and bones. The Apostles might have said: we feel and we see, it appeareth to be flesh and body, but it is not: and in vain had that proof been, whereby

Christ proved that he was not a fantastical body, but that he had a true body.

And that he had received his own proper body, and not another, he showed by the wounds of the nails, and by the gap that was in his side. Which Argument of his, if place should be given to these juggling knacks, it would be of no force. Yea and the Fathers argue from the properties and accidents of man's nature: to wit, that Christ was very man, because he hungered, slept, wondered and sorrowed, and wept, and suffered: which Arguments are of none effect, if by these accidents the substance be not truly showed, so as it should not be lawful to say: it is of the self-same fashion, it hath the same taste, the same color which bread is wont to have, therefore it is very bread. For Heretics will confess, that Christ hungered, slept, wondered, wept, and suffered, but when thou shalt thereof infer: therefore he was very man, they will deny the consequence. For they will say, that these properties might have place in Christ although the substance of them, namely, the nature of man be not present. They say, as touching the Argument of

Marcion, that it may be, he took the occasion of his error out of the Gospel, where it is written of Christ that he walked dry foot upon the water, that he was lifted up into heaven, and that he escaped out of the hands of the Jews, so as they saw him not, and yet that these things ought not to be taken out of the Gospel by reason of the danger of the Marcionites. Whereunto we answer, that in the Gospels it is described, that Christ once or twice did these miracles, but ye appoint that these things be perpetual. And that which is in the Scriptures, we ourselves have not feigned, therefore we ought not to be accused of giving occasion. Howbeit in those things which we have devised, which we do expound and teach as doctrine without the express word of God, we must beware least we set open a window to Heretics.

11. Furthermore, the nature of a sacrament is corrupted, of which Augustine upon John saith, The word cometh unto the element, and it is made a sacrament. The nature thereof is, that it should be made of these two things: but as these men appoint the elements, that is, the bread and wine are taken away: And then Augustine ought not to have said: The word cometh unto the element, but, It taketh away the element. And while they remove the natures of the elements, the proportion of the signification perisheth. Wherefore the bread signifieth the body of Christ, because it nourisheth, strengtheneth, and sustaineth: which we cannot attribute unto accidents. It is also a signification of many grains gathered in one, which representeth the mystical body, and that cannot be attributed unto accidents.

Wherefore Paul said: We that are many, are one bread and one body, because we are partakers of one bread. In baptism, water is said to be the fountain of regeneration, and because the substance thereof is preserved, that doeth very well agree, for the accidents of water would not be convenient. And in taking away of the substance of bread and wine in the

proposition, This is my body, they abuse the verb substantive Is, for it is transubstantiated, turned or changed from one to another. For while they utter those words of the Lord, the bread is not yet the body of Christ.

Wherefore if they would understand Is in his own true signification, they should utter that which is false. Therefore among the schoolmen, some grant that the verb Is should be taken for, To be made, To be changed, or turned. Moreover they attribute this power or efficacy unto those few words of the Lord, that so often as they be repeated, this changing is made, and yet have they not in the holy Scriptures any word thereof. And if a man should speak those words which Paul, Matthew, Mark, or Luke hath, they would think that there is no consecration: for they ascribe all the virtue unto the words of their own Canon. But we know that then the sacrament is, when we do those things which Christ did and commanded to be done: but he not only spake those words, but he also gave thanks, he brake the bread, he did eat, and he reached it unto others to eat. And where as there be many things here, all do concur with the truth of the sacrament, neither must any of these things be intermitted. I pass over that they be ignorant whether consecration be had in the words of Christ or in prayers. Further they set themselves in great peril. For it may be that an ill sacrificer or false worker doeth not speak the words, doth change or invert them. Moreover, seeing an intent (as they speak) of him that consecrateth is required: it might be, that he in doing of these things thinketh nothing at all of consecration, and perhaps that he is minded not to have it done.

12. They fall into many absurdities, and those inexplicable: for therein they affirm that there may be a body, and that in infinite places together and at one very time. But they say, that this is no hinderance unto them, because though the body of Christ be there, yet is it not by the way of quantity. And

this is to be wondered at how they place a body and a quantity, and to be truly present: and yet not by the way of quantity. And seeing they affirm him to be truly present, and corporally, and carnally as they say, but not locally, who perceiveth not that these be arguments invented to deceive?

They object that this was given to the human body of Saint Ambrose, who being at Millaine was present at Turon in the funerals of Saint Martin, and there was seen: Why (say they) shall not this which Ambrose had, be rather granted to the body of Christ? But they take as granted, which we grant not.

For it might be, that it was revealed unto Ambrose, and that it seemed unto him he was present at those funerals, and by the help of Angels he was perhaps represented in them and unto the sight of the people, but that his body was verily in both places together, we will not grant. Further we might leave it to the author of the miracle recited, to consider whether it be true or no. They oppose again as touching souls, that whereas they be creatures, yet each one of them is in the head, and in all the members of our body. But they deal very unwisely, which compare a spirit with a body, and that they would have to be given unto bodies which they may lawfully do unto a spirit. Christ said plainly: A spirit hath no flesh and bones, whereby he put no small difference between them. Further if we should grant, that that is to be given unto the body which our soul hath, it followeth not that the body of Christ can be in diverse places, because our soul and the Angels cannot be in diverse places at one and the self-same time: For they be creatures, and therefore of a power limited and definite.

13. There follow also many other inconveniences: because if the mice have gnawen these sacred hosts, they will say, that they eat accidents. And if they be filled and satisfied, this also shall be a work of Accidents. And if it happen that a sacrificing Priest, do utter those words over a great vessel of

wine, and over a great chest full of bread, and that thou demand what filleth the vessel, what the chest, or what also filled the bellies of them which did eat and drink thereof: they would answer, Accidents. And because those that eat, are sustained, some of them dare to say, that God createth in the bellies of the eaters and drinkers, either phlegm or some other humor, which may be converted into blood whereby they should be nourished. But and if that that sacrament be burned, as it was done in the time of Hesychius (which thing he himself testifieth upon Leviticus, and the very same hath Origen upon the same book,) undoubtedly ashes will remain, and by that means shall a substance be procreated out of accidents. In like manner worms may arise of the bread consecrated, and there also they will say that substance is brought forth of accidents. Albeit, (as they be bold fellows,) some of them fain that the former matter is by miracle brought again, by reason whereof these things may happen. But if it be lawful after this manner to breed and feign miracles, every divine may escape as he will. For to every intricate matter he will apply a miracle, and so will he unwind himself out of all

Arguments which shall be objected against him. These things they affirm not only by miracles, but also by subtle sophistical arguments. As Scotus when he is urged in the uttering of those words: This is my body, that he should tell us what is showed in the subject of the proposition, at length answereth, that there is demonstration made of some singular or particular thing of a more general substance, which together with that which is affirmed thereof doeth show the self-same thing or (as the schoolmen said) is of the self-same supposition: neither do those things differ one from another which are signified by the subject and that which thereof is affirmed, except it be by a diverse manner of conceiving. See whereinto they rush and yet for all that they escape not. For it is not yet answered by

them what is showed, when it is said, This is my body. The Bishop of Rochester saith in these propositions, that when anything is changed into another thing, it is not absurd that that which was before should be showed:

And so he admitteth, that in This is my body should be showed the bread which was before, and is changed into the body of Christ while those words be spoken. But then (say I) the proposition is not well framed: For it should have been said: This is made my body, or, This is turned into my body: otherwise, being said, This is my body, the speech is improper.

14. They which say, that the body of Christ is really joined with the signs, the natures I mean of bread and wine being preserved, do thus argue against Transubstantiation: What dignity or privilege have Accidents, that they can be joined with the body of Christ, which ought to be denied to the substance and nature of bread? And if the Accidents can remain, why shall not also the substance of bread be retained? Yea rather, many of the fathers suppose, that this may be done. And thence they take a similitude, that the human and divine natures in Christ do verily remain, and so remain, as one passeth not into another: whose opinions we will bring in when time shall serve. They fall also into another absurdity: for while they break the Sacrament, we demand of them what they break there. Here they stagger and some have said, as testifieth the master of the sentences in the 4th book, that the essence or substance of the body of Christ is broken: but this opinion is by him confuted: because the body of Christ is immortal, and therefore it is not subject to these things, and to new chances. There were others which said that the same is no true breaking, but that it only appeareth to be, and so seemeth unto our senses. And this is also rejected, least we should establish here a perpetual illusion. At length they say, that they be accidents which be broken. And when as they after a sort appoint a Mathematical quantity, that

is, a quantity separated from matter, which if it be divided, it is only done by the power of the mind and by the promptness of the understanding.

These men also divide in very deed, so as the parts divided may most manifestly be seen. In Jeremiah we read, Let us cast wood upon his bread: which place is cited by Tertullian and Lactantius, and they interpret that this was spoken of putting the wood of the cross into the body of Christ: and they will that mention was made of bread, because through bread Christ was to give himself unto us. And that which the Prophet speaketh, they will have to be a figure of the bread of the Sacrament: which seeing these men take away, and only leave a figure unto us, they affirm a figure of a figure, so as no sound thing remaineth. The very which may be gathered by that which is oftentimes alleged by the fathers as concerning Melchizedek, who brought the bread and the wine, the figure whereof is not by these men observed, when they remove away the bread and the wine. And the selfsame thing followeth as touching the Showbread.

15. Again we will bring a reason taken from baptism. A little before we argued from thence, that for the truth of that Sacrament it was not requisite that water should be transubstantiated: now we reason from the men themselves which be baptized, of whom the Scripture plainly saith that they lay away the old man, and are again begotten: and yet is there no Transubstantiation imagined in them, nevertheless generation is described to be a motion whereby a new substance is gotten. Wherefore it is no marvel that Nicodemus took offense at the words of the Lord, wherein it was showed him that he should be born again. For while he thought with himself that a new generation was preached unto man already brought forth and well in years, he stood in a doubt. But and if we interpret that generation to be new, and the nativity to be spiritual, why do we not

vouchsafe to do the same in the Eucharist? And why do we not transfer all things unto spiritual eating? I gladly join together these two Sacraments,

Baptism and the Eucharist, because Paul in the 1st Epistle to the Corinthians the 12th chap. knitteth them together, when he saith: All we by one spirit are baptized into one body, and have been all made to drink with one spirit. Neither is it of any force, if thou shalt say, that we be baptized into one body, to wit, the mystical body, because from the mystical body

Christ is not absent, seeing he is the head thereof. And elsewhere Paul most plainly saith, that We in baptism put on Christ. We see moreover, that the holy writers bring out of the 6th chapter of John many things as touching the Sacrament of the Eucharist. Yea rather, there is none of the fathers which in the interpreting of that chapter, writeth not plentifully of the Eucharist. Whereupon we conclude a reason after this manner: The things which be there spoken, either serve unto this sacrament or they serve not: if they belong not unto this, what need is there to rite them, or by those places to dispute of the Eucharist? But if they have respect unto this, seeing there is only a spiritual eating, that is by faith, whereby is received the true body and blood of Christ, what need is there to bring in another new receiving, and to imagine a carnal eating, whereby the same thing should be received again? For if we grant that there cometh some godly and faithful man, then these men shall be constrained to admit, that twice he doth receive the body of Christ: First by a spiritual eating through faith, afterward by their carnal eating which they have never proved. And thus thou seest that these men do stop up their own way, so as they cannot truly cite those testimonies which are upon the 6th chapter of John. And while they affirm Transubstantiation, they are found to be in the same error that the Capernaites were. Even they also revolved in their mind I know not what corporal eating of the flesh of

Christ, from which cogitation, Christ straight way revoked them, when he said: that his words were spirit and life: and that the flesh profiteth nothing.

And he objected unto them the memory of his ascension into heaven, saying: What if ye see the son of man ascend into heaven where he was at the first? But these men say, that they are not of the same mind that the Capernaites were: for say they: they thought that the flesh of Christ should be cut into pieces, and should be torn with the teeth, and therefore they have utterly misliked thereof: but as touching the special imagination of the Capernaites, whatsoever it was they know not, but very like it is, that they thought carnally, therefore they were troubled with the mention made of ascending into heaven. Why do not these men teach themselves thereby, who are bound to say that they eat Christ both carnally and corporally?

What difference is there whether thou receive him by parts, or if thou swallow him all at once?

16. Hereunto it serveth, that Christ said unto his Apostles about the end of his life, that he would leave the world and would depart from them: which should not be true, if he were with us by transubstantiation as these men would. They have used to answer that Christ left the world as touching mortal conditions, and as touching familiarity and bodily conversation.

These indeed are subtle shifts, but they serve not to the purpose. For when Christ spake these words, Philip answered: Behold now thou speakest plainly, and without parables. Howbeit if it were so to be understood, the speech had been obscure and like a parable. Further if Christ remain with us so corporally in the Eucharist, he might by the same reason remain both in our hearts, and also in ourselves. Therefore he might still after his ascension rule the Church by his own self, and be present with his Apostles. But he saith, that he would leave a vicar in his stead: namely the holy Ghost, who

had not been necessary, if whole Christ as touching divinity and humanity (as these men will) were present. For seeing the flesh and body of him is by participation in each one of us (according to their doctrine) and that his godhead is present, he might deal by his own self without the holy Ghost to be the prompter. Mary the mother of the Lord, the most blessed virgin, when she had heard of the Angel, that the word of God should take flesh upon him, and that she was chosen to conceive and bring forth the son of God, she judged these to be strange and wonderful things, and demanded how these things should be, and so forth. But this translation of the bread into the body of Christ, seeing it is no less matter than is that mystery of his incarnation and nativity of the Virgin, it is a wonder that in the holy scriptures there is found neither admiration nor question demanded of that matter: and that in none of the writings of the Evangelists or Apostles, this belief of Transubstantiation is commended unto us, being a thing of so great importance. Neither do we hearken unto some that say, in the 6th chapter of John there went a question before: because the answer that was there given of spiritual eating, they will now transfer unto this sacramental eating, which nevertheless they assign to be another than that was. For us therefore doeth that question and answer serve, but it nothing at all profiteth these men, who fain another eating differing from that spiritual eating, to wit, this eating which we now have in hand.

17. Other inconveniences and absurdities do follow the feigning of these things. For Christ said: I will that where I am, there also my minister should be: and he spake the same often times to his Apostles. And in the Apocalypse we read of certain Martyrs: They follow him wheresoever he shall go. Whereupon would be concluded, that in the Eucharist, not only should be affirmed Transubstantiation into the body of Christ, but into all

the Saints. Which if it displease them, let them leave Christ in heaven with his saints, otherwise they shall follow him together for company. But they say: We suffer him also to be in heaven, visible and in his Majesty and glory, but yet herein the sacrament we affirm him to be invisible: and those things which be objected as touching the fellowship of the Saints and Martyrs, they be true as touching Christ, according as he is visible in heaven in his glory and Majesty. This answer leaneth upon a false ground: for it admitteth that one and the same body of Christ is in many places at once: which the fathers deny. It admitteth that Christ is with us as touching his body and flesh; whereas he said, that as touching these things, he would send another in his place, namely, the holy Ghost. Neither can they avoid it that Christ had two bodies, seeing in the supper when he had taken bread into his hands, if it had been transubstantiated into his body, yet he himself had borne his own body with his body, and it should be necessary to grant both the body bearing and the body borne to be both one, when as nevertheless one and the same agent and patient in respect of one and the self-same thing in one very time cannot be. And thus we see into what absurdities they cast themselves. They are wont to bring Augustine upon the Psalms, who said that Christ bare himself in his own hands. But if the place which is written upon the 73rd Psalm be considered, that he, After a sort, bare himself in his own hands: that also do we grant, because he bare in his own hands the sacrament of his own body, and not properly and really his own body. Add that because Christ communicated with his Apostles, it followeth that he did eat his own self. But they have been accustomed to answer, that these things be exercises of our faith. But we reply, that we have sentences of the scripture, in which our faith may exercise itself far otherwise than in these which men have devised. We believe that the son of

God, is incarnate of the virgin, that he was born, that he died for us, that he was raised up from the dead, and that he was taken up into heaven, and many of these kind of things, wherein our faith doth abundantly enough exercise itself. And seeing the sense toucheth not, the reason understandeth not, nor experience teacheth this Transubstantiation, how shall it be known?

I know, thou wilt say, by faith: but if we are to deal by faith, that without the word of God cannot be had, and thereof ye be utterly destitute.

18. Furthermore, seeing Christ made this sacrament of two parts, namely, of the body and blood, thereby it sufficiently appeareth, that the thing cannot be received by this transubstantiation, because these things in the real and carnal body of Christ are not divided: But they have a shift, and they say that it is contained in one of these parts alone or in two. Indeed we hear them affirm this, but the words of the Scripture teach it not: but about the bread only there is mention made of the body and about the cup only is the blood specified. They answer as touching the bread, that by the power of the words transubstantiation is made into the body of Christ or into the flesh of Christ properly and by itself, and that the blood and the soul and divinity followeth by concomitancy. And in like manner do they speak of the cup, that by an efficacy of the words, first and properly there is a transubstantiation made into the blood, but by a concomitancy or a kind of conjunction there is had both the body and the soul and the divinity. And by this their subtle reason, they make Christ less provident, as he that hath given no more unto the two parts than is severally contained in one of them.

And of this their fancy hath grown, that afterward they divided the sacrament, and in giving only one part unto the Laity, they have persuaded them, that they have even as much as if they received both parts. Add that by this their feigned devise, they set open a window unto many counterfeit

opinions: because there is no opinion whereunto they by their concomitancy may not tie infinite things. And it would follow as we above said, that all the Saints are present in this sacrament, seeing they always follow Christ.

But the only reason whereby we refell them, is this, that they teach, out the scripture doeth not speak.

19. There hath another false and absurd opinion followed this transubstantiation: in that they have thought that after receiving of the sacraments, there remaineth still a sacrament, and that the bread or show of bread doth really and verily contain in it the body of Christ. That this is false we will show by other sacraments, where the whole consisteth in action, which being taken away, it is no more a sacrament. It appeareth in baptism that when a man is dipped or sprinkled with water by the words of the Lord, then it ceaseth to be a sacrament, The very which thing was in circumcision: for that sacrament also consisted in action. Neither will I disdain to take those which be called sacraments by them, as is confirmation, extreme unction, penance, and other such like: all which we see have place in action only. But they are wont to say, that this sacrament of the Eucharist must be excepted. But how logically our adversaries speak this, it may be easily perceived. When as all the parts of the induction are granted, and that there is only an instance put of the thing in controversy, who seeth not that it is lewdly done, and only to dally with the argument, for that is after a sort to grant the premises, and to deny the conclusion?

And by reason of these strange wonders of this Metamorphosis, we are hindered from the end, which is chiefest, and is commended unto us by Christ in the holy scriptures: namely the remembrance of Christ and his death. For here all the mind and meaning of these men is occupied in believing of transubstantiation, yea thou mayest see some sacrificers, who

when they are come to the Communion only urge and thrust this upon us, to be believed, passing over other things more necessary. And by the means of this feigned devise, the Communion is the less frequented, because men being persuaded in that, began to think with themselves: If Christ be there corporally and carnally covered with accidents, surly we will go unto the Temple: we will see, we will worship, we will call upon, we will light candles, and such other like things, whereby they thought they might gratify

Christ. Which if they had not thought, but had judged, as true it is, that it is only a sacrament, they would thereby have understood that they should have no commodity unless they had communicated, and their minds would have been more stirred up unto the Communion, which is, truly to satisfy the institution of Christ.

20. Over this we ought to call to mind, that the time of humility and submission of Christ is passed away, and that he now reigneth in heaven, and that he hath a name which is above every name. Wherefore then should it be requisite by transubstantiation to send him down again communicated as touching the body into our jaws and bellies? I know that they say he is not hurt, he draweth no uncleanness. I will grant it, but yet it is not very decent, that, as they say, he should be detained under those accidents so long as they remain sound: which things when they shall be dissolved, they say that the body of Christ flieth away. Whereby it cometh to pass that they daily and especially until noontide constrain him perpetually to depart and fly away. But they say, that we must let these cogitations pass, and yet they themselves by their carnal Transubstantiation do suggest the same. If they might be brought that we should do all things there spiritually, there would be no such cogitation. And while they appoint this his natural and carnal body to be present, do they it to the intent that he should penetrate our soul?

Or else that he may convey himself into our body? Into the soul they cannot say; because nothing is there taken carnally or corporally. But and if they would that the body should be penetrated by him, we demand why he will do this unto it? They will answer, to the intent that man may be sanctified.

But it is meet that sanctification should begin at the soul, not at the body.

They say that a certain power and efficacy is imprinted by the water, and that the soul is made the better, and the body also confirmed. But if we speak of the power, it is not of necessity that this should be by transubstantiation, seeing it may have it without the same. And the ancient

Fathers, when they taught the nature of this Sacrament, said, that an unbloody sacrifice is here sacrificed, which will not well agree, if we should determine that there is true and corporal blood. Neither doeth it suffice that they say: it is an unbloody sacrifice, because Christ is not here slain, nor yet his blood violently drawn forth. For although that these things be not done, yet without blood (according to the gross imagination of these men) the thing is not done. Wherefore it appeareth that the fathers so spake, because they would only have a memory here of the true sacrifice, and a spiritual receiving thereof, which is done by faith. Moreover they are wont to say that the body and blood of Christ is shadowed and covered with the accidents of bread and wine, least we should seem to eat raw flesh and to drink blood. But I do not think that these men will say, howsoever they paint and color the matter, if their Transubstantiation be true, but that we do eat raw flesh: insomuch as no reason is brought either by them or by the scriptures that it should be sodden. And yet it is written of the Paschal lamb, which was a figure of this sacrament, that nothing thereof should be eaten raw.

21. Besides forth we see, that Christ in the Eucharist instituted a sacrament, whereby it cometh to pass that all things be done there sacramentally. Neither is it required, that in Sacraments more should be given or desired than the reason of a Sacrament shall require. Further, if we weigh what Christ did in that last supper, we may easily perceive the thing, it is proved, that he gave his own body. If we demand further, what manner of one he gave, they cannot determine with themselves. Some seem to say, that he gave such as he had, namely a passable and mortal body. Howbeit such a body with those conditions which it then had, might not carnally, as these men dream, be contained in small pieces of bread. But others which think themselves wiser, say that Christ in himself had a body mortal and passable: but that in bread he gave a glorified and spiritual body. Then doth that make against them, which we read in the words of the Lord: This is my body which is given for you, and my blood which shall be shed for you:

Where he plainly extendeth his speech both unto the body which he then had, and unto the blood which he at the same hour possessed. For these glorified and impassible things he received not until the resurrection was past. But admit it as they say: We argue, the conditions of the body passable and glorified are contrary one to another, so as they cannot both together at one time be in one subject. Whereupon it followeth that if ye will have them put into the body of Christ at one very time, ye make Christ's body to be twain. Experience and the histories teach us, that we must not allow of Transubstantiation, because they write that Victor the Pope of Rome died by drinking of poison out of the chalice. And Henry the Emperor was poisoned by taking of bread in the Eucharist. If all things be there transubstantiated, and that only accidents are remaining, how may these things be? We know that every of the Sacraments (as the adversaries themselves speak) consist

of matter and form. The matter, they say, is the signs or elements, but the form they say is that which is added by the word. But that which is compounded of the two, must not cast away the one, so as nothing thereof should remain but accidents: otherwise the nature of composition and conjunction would not be kept. Therefore it is concluded that the substances of bread and wine do remain. And before they be aware, the body of Christ is by them deprived of quantity, place, and distance of parts, so as his whole body is constrained to be in the least piece thereof.

22. This Sacrament is not only called the Sacrament of the body of Christ our savior, but also of the mystical body: wherefore Paul in the first Epistle to the Corinthians said: Ye be the body of Christ: and again, We that are many, be one bread and one body, which be partakers of one bread. And Augustine in his 22nd book De Civitate Dei, the 10th chapter, saith that Christians do not offer sacrifice unto Martyrs. The sacrifice undoubtedly is the body of Christ, which is not offered unto Martyrs, because they themselves be the same, to wit, the body of Christ. Wherefore seeing this

Sacrament is of both the bodies, even as they appoint not that the bread should be transubstantiated into the body mystical: so it may not be required that it should be truly and properly converted into the body of the Lord, seeing it is declared to be the Sacrament as well of the one as of the other. And of this opinion it would follow, that as well the faithful as the unfaithful do receive the body of the Lord, which I have elsewhere disproved by two reasons. First, that seeing the body of Christ is not plucked away from the spirit of Christ, it would follow that the wicked should receive the spirit of Christ. Secondly, seeing infidels be dead as touching the inward man, they altogether want the instrument whereby they should receive spiritual things. And Augustine plainly said: that none do eat

the body of Christ, but they which be of his body. And Jerome in the 4th book upon Jeremiah the 22nd Chapter: And whereas he inferreth: They shall not eat and drink, he understandeth the body and blood of our Savior.

And he spake of the Heretics. And the same Father upon Isaiah the 66th chapter: While they be not holy in body and in spirit, neither do they eat the flesh of Jesus nor do drink his blood. And many such like places are had out of the Fathers. And whereas here they so very often pretend unto us many miracles, we must not so easily give credit, because miracles are not wont to be brought in, unless it be in respect that they be strange and wonderful things, by whose unaccustomed happening, a weight may be added unto the word of God. For then men be stricken with admiration, and may be easily led to embrace the doctrine of Christ. But here is no visible thing changed, and there is nothing that can stir up men to admiration, wherefore they seem in vain to crave help of miracles. The virgin in deed conceived of the holy

Ghost, but this she sensibly perceived to be done. And if any at any time have been converted unto Christ, they perceived that their mind and their life was changed from the former conversation. But here is nothing perceived of these miracles which they imagine. Only they be talked of, but can be proved by no reason, or experience, or scripture. Unto these things that have been already said, add, that the breaking of bread is after the same manner unto the death and passion of Christ, as bread is unto the body. But breaking, as they themselves also affirm, is a Sacrament and sign of the passion of Christ, and yet for all that it is not so to be transubstantiated, as it maketh the same to be truly and really present: therefore neither shall the bread be so changed into the body, as it may make the same to be present really. And then forasmuch as this opinion hath naught else but contention of words and inexplicable difficulties, it furthereth not unto godliness.

23. But now let us consider of the Fathers whether they so judge or no.

Irenaeus against the Valentinian heretics: The earthly bread (saith he) when it hath received that faculty from the word of God, it is no more common bread, but is made the Eucharist, which consisteth of two things, to wit, earthly and heavenly. First of all he denieth not the Eucharist to be bread, except thou make it common bread. Afterward he saith that it consisteth of two things, whereof the one is terrestrial as bread, the other celestial, as the body of Christ. And as on the one part is retained the truth, to wit, as touching the body of the Lord: so in the other part it is to be preserved, namely as touching bread. And he addeth by a similitude: even so our bodies receiving the same be no more corruptible. Tertullian in his first book against Marcion saith, that God cast not away bread being his creature, seeing in it he represented his body. And in the 4th book against the same Marcion, He receiving bread and distributing to his disciples made the same to be his body, saying, This is my body, that is, a figure of my body. But a figure it should not be, unless it were a body of the truth.

Origen upon the book of Numbers, Homily 16, We are said to drink the blood of Christ, not only by the rite of the Sacraments, but also when we receive his word. The very which thing Jerome also wrote sometimes upon Eccles. the 3rd chapter. The same Origen upon Matthew the 26th chapter:

This bread which God, being the word, confesseth to be his body, is a nourishing word of souls. Upon Leviticus the 7th Homily: For there is in the Gospel also a letter that killeth, and not in the Old Testament only. For if according to the letter, thou follow that which is said: Unless ye shall eat my flesh, and so forth. And in the same book, Homily the 9th. Do not thou stand in a doubt in the blood of the flesh, but learn rather the blood of the word, and hear him speaking unto thee. For this is my blood which is shed

for you. Origen upon Matthew the 15th chapter: The bread sanctified as touching that which it hath material passeth into the belly and is cast out into the draught. And straightway after: Not the matter of the bread but the word spoken over the same is it that profiteth, yet not him that unworthily eateth it unto the Lord. The same father against Celsus the 8th book: When as we have given thanks for the benefits bestowed upon us, we eat the loaves that be offered.

24. Cyprian in the sixth Epistle of the first book unto Magnus saith: The Lord calleth his body, bread, which is kneaded together by the uniting of many grains, and he calleth his blood wine that is pressed out of clusters and many grapes. And when he interpreteth the Lord's prayer, he calleth the body of the Lord, bread. And in his sermon de coena Domini, he saith, that we do not sharpen the teeth, but only we break and eat that bread with a sincere faith. And in his sermon de Chrismate, he saith manifestly, that Sacraments have names of those things which they signify. Which two sayings it seemeth that Augustine borrowed of him. The later in his epistle to Boniface. But when he saith the other, Why preparest thou thy teeth or belly? Believe and thou hast eaten: that he hath in the 25th treatise upon John. But the same Cyprian in the third epistle and second book unto

Coecilius: In wine he saith is showed the blood of the Lord. And against the Aquarii he saith, that the blood of Christ cannot seem to be present in the cup, if the wine cease to be therein, which by these men's transubstantiation doth come to pass. And in his sermon de coena Domini, he writeth, that the signs are changed into the body of Christ, but so as he taketh a similitude of Christ himself in whom the human nature appeared, and the divine nature lay hidden. By which similitude thou seest that he would that as in Christ remained the two natures, so they are preserved in this sacrament. And

Cyprian in his third Epistle and second book: By this reason, neither can the body of the Lord be in meal alone or in water alone, unless both of them shall be united and coupled together, and made firm into a lump of one loaf, whereby also in the sacrament itself our people is said to be united. And Athanasius expounding those words, If any man shall speak a word against the Son of man, it is forgiven him: but he that shall speak against the holy

Ghost, it shall not be forgiven him neither in this world nor yet in the world to come: he writeth: And how great a body should be needful unto this, that the world should eat of it? But he inferreth that the thing must be understood spiritually, and that therefore the Lord in that place against the Capernaites made mention of his ascension. Basil in his Liturgy calleth bread ἀντίτυπον, that is, an example of the like form of the body of Christ, and that after the words of consecration. Dionysius de Hierarchia

Ecclesiastica the third chapter: The Bishop openeth the bread hidden and undivided, and cutteth it into morsels.

25. Ambrose in his exposition of the first Epistle to the Corinthians, when he speaketh of doing this in remembrance of Christ and his death, saith that we in eating and drinking of the flesh and blood of Christ, do signify the things that be offered. And again, about the self-same place he saith: that we take it into the mystical cup for a figure of Christ his blood. And in the fourth book the fourth chapter, where he putteth a changing of the signs, he entreateth also of our changing into Christ: and yet it is not affirmed that they which receive the Sacrament be transubstantiated. And the same Father in the same fourth book de Sacramentis the fourth chapter: This we add moreover: How can it be that which is bread should by consecration be the body of Christ? And straight way: If there be so great a strength in the word of the Lord, as things should begin to be which were not, how much rather

is the word so effectuous, that the things which were may remain, and yet be changed into another thing? Jerome upon Matthew saith plainly, that in bread and wine are represented the body and blood of the Lord. Chrysostom upon the later Epistle unto the Corinthians saith, that not alonely that which is set before us upon the table is the body of Christ, but also the poor people unto whom we are bound to do good: because even he that saith, This is my body, said also by his word, that he receiveth alms and is needy in the poor.

In his eleventh homily upon Matthew in his work which is called imperfect: he saith that in the holy vessels there is not the body of Christ and the blood of Christ, but a mystery of the body and blood of Christ. Also upon the twelfth chapter of the second Epistle to the Corinthians the 27th Homily:

Even as Christ, both in the bread and in the cup said, Do this in the remembrance of me. The same father upon the 22nd Psalm, upon these words, Thou hast prepared a table in my sight. As it is showed unto us that there is every day in the sacrament bread and wine according to the order of Melchizedek, unto them similitude of the body and blood of Christ.

Emisenus whom they cite de Consecratione distinct. 2. And he seemeth to put a change of the signs: even the selfsame man maketh mention of our changing into Christ.

26. Augustine hath many testimonies of this matter upon the 82nd Psalm:

This that ye see, ye shall not eat, neither shall ye drink this blood which they will pour out: it is a mystery that I speak unto you, which if it be spiritually understood, it will quicken you. De Trinitate the third book and tenth chapter: The bread for this purpose made, is eaten up in receiving of the sacrament. Neither is there any cause why the Bishop of Rochester should go about to draw this saying unto the Showbread: for we have showed elsewhere by diverse arguments that his interpretation is not right.

First because, if thou follow the plain sense, and that sense, which at the first view offereth itself unto thee, and which the words make show of, thou shalt manifestly perceive that the speech is of the Eucharist. And Erasmus in the books of Augustine which he mended, wrote in the margin Eucharist.

Further a little after in the same chapter, and while he treateth of the same thing, he maketh so evident mention of the Eucharist, as even the adversary cannot deny it. And of the same Eucharist, he had written before in the fourth chapter of that book, when he began the same treatise. Add here withal: that expressly in these words which we have in hand, it is plainly called a sacrament, which if he had meant, that it should be understood in common, it had been no less agreeable unto those things that he had reckoned before, namely unto the brazen serpent, and to the stone erected by Jacob, than unto the Showbread. But in those words he expressed not this word Sacrament, which afterward (that we may understand he speaketh of the Eucharist,) he would not suppress. Lastly he saith: The bread made for this purpose is eaten up in the sacrament, which agreeth not with the Showbread: for that was not made to this end, that it should be eaten, but that they being set upon the table, should remain before the Lord: wherefor they be called in the Hebrew Panim. Afterward it came to pass, that without regard or by hap, they were eaten, least happily it should putrefy before the Lord. For therefore it was changed every week. And when it had been once dedicated unto God, he would have this honor to be given unto it, that it should be eaten of the Priests. But the bread of our Eucharist was verily made to this purpose, that in receiving of the sacrament it should be eaten.

And unto the arguments already said, I add one more strong than the rest.

For Augustine saith in the present tense: It is eaten, and not, It was eaten: which it behooved to have been, if he had spoken of a figure and ceremony

of the Old Testament. De Fide ad Petrum the 19th chapter, he calleth it a sacrament of bread and wine. As touching the memory and death of Christ he abundantly instructed the same Peter in the faith: but of this transubstantiation which these men so greatly urge at this day, he speaketh not one word. Against Faustus in the 20th book and the 21st chapter he saith, that the flesh and blood of Christ was promised to us in the Old

Testament, under the similitude of sacrificed beasts: upon the cross it was given in very deed: but he saith, that in the sacrament it was celebrated by a memorial. And in the 21st book De Civitate dei the 25th chapter he plainly affirmeth, that the wicked do not eat the matter of the sacrament, that is, the body of Christ. For he is not to be accounted (saith he) to eat the body of Christ, which is not in the body of Christ. And he, in whom Christ abideth not, neither doeth he abide in Christ. And the like words he hath, in the 20th treatise upon John: but in the 30th treatise he saith: that the body of Christ is in some certain place in heaven, but that his truth is everywhere spread, which he therefore speaketh, because truth is spiritual, and is always present with the faithful. And communicants wheresoever they be, do confess

Christ, and believe that he had a true body, and no feigned body as the heretics thought.

27. Against Adamantus the Maniche the 12th Chapter he writeth: The Lord doubted not to say, This is my body, when as yet he gave a sign of his body. Neither maketh it any matter if thou say: he gave both the sign and the thing signified: for Augustine had not respect unto this, but he would show that the saying is figurative, and like unto another which he allegeth out of Deuteronomy, The blood is the life. Therefore he said: the Lord doubted not, because in tropes or figures we dare do something. In his 3rd

Book of Christian doctrine the 16th Chapter, he showed that it was a

figurative kind of speech which we have in the 6th of John, to wit: Unless ye shall eat the flesh of the son of man, &c. because a wicked thing seemeth to be commanded. For it is more heinous to eat the flesh of man, than to kill him: and to drink blood, than to shed it. Therefore (faith he) it is a commanding figure, namely, that we should sweetly and profitably lay up in memory the flesh of Christ, that was crucified and wounded for us. In an Epistle unto Boniface he said most plainly, that sacraments take their name of those things whereof they should be sacraments: and he expressed by name the sacrament of the body of Christ. And he addeth that the sacrament of the blood of Christ, is the blood of Christ. And all this he wrote to show that baptism is the Sacrament of faith, and that therefore it may be said that it is faith, and that young children being baptized have faith, because they receive this sacrament. And least that any should say, that these be signs substantially (as these men speak) of the thing present, let them consider of the similitudes which these men have alleged: to wit, that we say, when we be near unto Easter, that tomorrow or the next day after shall be the Passion of the Lord, and upon Sunday the Lord rose again, when as yet these things are not now present but were done long before. Further, he here affirmeth, that the baptism of young children is faith; which nevertheless young children presently have not. Yea and the same father, as we have it De

Consecratione distinct. 2, in the chapter Interrogo vos, saith, that it is as sinful a negligence, to suffer the word which is preached, to slip out of our minds, as it is for a part of the sacrament to fall upon the earth. Which if it were granted, this Transubstantiation would take but small place. For it would seem to be far more absurd, that the body itself of Christ should fall or be trodden under foot, than if any part of the holy words should be heard with small regard. Moreover upon the 8th Psalm he saith, that Christ

admitted Judas in the supper, when he commended unto us the figure of his body. They are accustomed to say, that the figure or sign in this sacrament, which is the body of Christ, being hidden with accidents, is his own dead and unbloody body as he hung upon the Cross, and that the blood hidden under the accidents of wine is the figure of the blood shed upon the Altar of the Cross. But who perceiveth not that the devises of these men be vain?

For there ought to be put a sign and figure, which is sensible and more known than the thing signified. Therefore the Master of the Sentences out of Augustine defined a sacrament to be a visible sign of an invisible grace.

But the body of Christ being hidden under accidents, as themselves affirm is no less obscure than is that which hung upon the Cross: yea and if I may say the truth, more unknown and obscure than the thing signified. Which is against the nature of a sign and figure. For more easily is the body known and considered of us how it hung upon the Cross, than as they make it in the Eucharist.

28. Leo the Pope in an Epistle unto the Clergy and people of Constantinople, wrote, that this is a mystical distribution, a spiritual food, and a heavenly virtue: That here we receive it, to the intent we may be made the flesh of Christ, who for our sakes took our flesh upon him. Cyrillus in the 4th Book and 14th chapter upon John: On this wise he gave unto the believing Disciples pieces of bread, saying: Take ye. The same Father in an Epistle to Calosyrius: Wherefore it became him after a sort to be united unto our bodies, by his holy flesh, and by his precious blood, which we receive in the lively blessing in bread and wine. Now will we allege

Theodoritus, Bishop of Cyrus: he lived in the time of Cyrillus, and was in the Synod of Ephesus, and Chalcedon: and he was accounted most learned and eloquent. And when in the Synod of Ephesus, there had happened a

dissension between John the Patriarch of Antioch, and Cyrillus the Patriarch of Alexandria, it seemed good to Theodoritus to cleave unto the Patriarch of Antioch: howbeit the matter came to an agreement, and in the Synod of Chalcedon Theodoritus was known for a very learned man, and holy member of the Church of Christ, yea and in the books which he wrote, he purposely withstandeth Nestor, and by express words dealeth against him.

The Book was printed at Rome. And the Papists perceived that he is most manifestly against Transubstantiation, and they have excused him for two causes. First for that the Church had not as yet pronounced as concerning that matter: as though we should seek what the Pope with his Cardinals decreed either at Constance, or in the Synod where Berengarius was condemned, and not rather what hath been preached and believed in the old

Church. Further they said, that this man in writing against Heretics, when he entreated of those mysteries, did overmuch lean unto the other part, and so was against Transubstantiation, to the intent the adversaries might be the easilier confuted. But how vain an excuse this is, it may appear by the discourse of the writer, where thou mayest perceive that not one word hath escaped him, but that the whole Argument and strength thereof is drawn from the nature of a sacrament; so as if thou mingle therewithal

Transubstantiation, there can be nothing concluded. Yea rather the Heretics will carry away the victory. They add, that he in the self-same book speaketh sometime more reverently of the Eucharist: but all things being considered, he speaketh nowhere so reverently that he is against our opinion, which we have now affirmed. He disputeth against them which denied that Christ had a true body, and said that his body at the time of his

Ascension was wholly turned into the divine nature. First he allegeth the

prophesy of the Patriarch Jacob that he may prepare himself a way to derive an argument from the sacraments. The words be these:

29. ORTH. Doest thou know that God called bread his own body? SOD. I know it. ORTH. And again that at another time his flesh was called Corn?

SOD. This also I know: for I have heard him say that The hour cometh wherein the son of man shall be glorified: and unless the grain of Corn be cast into the earth and die, it remaineth alone, but if it be dead, it will bring forth much fruit. ORTH. He undoubtedly in the delivery of the mysteries, called bread, his body, and the Cup mixed, his blood. SOD. So in deed he named it. ORTH. But it might also according to nature be called a body, yea even his own body and blood. SOD. It is granted. ORTH. Yea verily our

Savior himself changed the names; and to the body, he gave the name of the sign, and to the sign the name of the body. After the same manner also, when he said that he himself is the vine, he called his blood, the sign. SOD.

This in deed is true: but I would also learn the cause of the changing of the names. ORTH. The end why it is so called is manifest unto them which be instructed in Religion. For he would that they which be partakers of those divine mysteries, should not have regard unto the nature of those things which be seen, but that by the changing of names they should believe that transmutation which is done by grace. For he that called his own natural body Corn, and bread, and also called himself a vine; even he himself also honored those things, which seem to be signs, with the name of his body and blood: not forsooth changing nature itself, but unto nature adding grace.

SOD. Truly the mystical things are spoken mystically, and those things which are not known unto all men are made clear and manifest. ORTH.

Wherefore seeing he confesseth that the robe and garment is by the Patriarch called the Lord's body, and that we be entered into the talk of

divine mysteries, tell me in very deed, whose singe and figure thou thinkest that most holy meat to be? Was it the sign of the very divinity of Christ, or else of his own body and blood? SOD. Doubtless even of those things whereof also they received their names. ORTH. Doest thou mean, of the body and blood? SOD. So I mean. ORTH. Thou hast truly spoken: For the Lord taking the sign saith not: This is my divinity: but, This is my body:

And again, This is my blood. And in another place: But the bread which I will give for the life of the world. SOD. In very deed all these things be true, for they be the words of GOD. ORTH. Certainly if these things be true, the Lord had a body in deed. SOD. But I say that he is without body. ORTH.

But thou confessest that he had a body, &c.

30. Out of the second Dialogue we have these words. SOD. We must doubtless (according to the proverb) remove every stone that we may attain unto the truth, especially in setting forth the doctrine of God. ORTH Show me then: whereof the signs (which be offered unto God by the ministers of holy things) be mystical signs. SOD. Of the body and blood of the Lord.

ORTH. Of the true body or not? SOD. Of the true body. ORTH. Very well said: for they must be a principal pattern of the Image. For the painters do follow nature, and they paint the Images of those things that be seen. SOD.

Thou sayst true. ORTH. If then those divine mysteries be examples of a body being, then is the Lord's body now also a body, and is not changed into the nature of divinity, but is replenished with divine glory. SOD. In good time hast thou moved this speech of divine mysteries: for thereby will

I show thee a changing of the Lord's body into another nature: answer therefore unto my questions. ORTH. I will answer. SOD. What callest thou that gift which is offered before the priests invocation? ORTH. We must not speak openly: For it is very likely that some here present be not yet

thoroughly instructed. SOD. This is a diffuse answer. ORTH. Look what seed it was, such meat it is. SOD. But how do we name the other sign?

ORTH. This name also is common betokening a figure of the cup. SOD.

How dost thou call those things after sanctification? ORTH. The body of Christ, and the blood of Christ. SOD. And doest thou believe, that thou receivest the body and blood of Christ? ORTH. Yea verily I believe it. SOD.

Therefore even as the signs of the body and blood of the Lord, be one thing undoubtedly before the invocation of the priest, but after the very invocation be changed from one to another, and become other things: so likewise the body of the Lord, after it is received, is changed into divine substance. ORTH. Thou art caught in the same nets which thou hast laid.

For those mystical signs, after sanctification do not change their own proper nature: for they in very deed remain in their former substance, both in figure and form, and are even so seen and handled as before: and the things that are done, are understood and believed and honored, as though they were such as they are believed to be. Compare therefore the Image with the principal figure, and thou shalt see the similitude. For a figure must agree with the truth. For that very body itself hath his first figure, and form, and circumscription, and (to speak plainly) the very substance also of a body.

But after the resurrection it became immortal, and it is accounted worthy of the seat which is at the right hand of God, and is worshipped of all creatures, as a body being of the Lord's own nature. SOD. Howbeit that mystical sign changeth his first name, and is not afterward named by that name which it was first called, but is called a body. Wherefore the truth itself, must now be called God, and not anymore a body. ORTH. Thou appearest ignorant unto me: it is not only called a body, but also the bread of life: for so the Lord called it. Yea and we also call this a divine body and

a quickening body, and the master's body, and the Lord's body, teaching, that it is no common body of every man, but the body of our Lord Jesus

Christ, who is God and man: even Jesus Christ, yesterday and today, and the same forever.

31. There is extant an Epistle in the Library of Florence (albeit not imprinted) of Chrysostom to Caesarius the Monk in the time of his second banishment, written against Appolinaris and others which confounded the divinity and humanity of Christ. Christ is both God and man: God because he cannot suffer; Man, because of his passion and suffering: One son, one

Lord, one and the self-same doubtless possessing one dominion, and one power of the natures united (although they be not together of one substance) and each one of them being unmingled keepeth an acknowledgement of his own property: for this cause that they be two things not confounded. For like as before the bread be sanctified, we name it bread, and the same being sanctified, by the divine grace by means of the priest is undoubtedly delivered from the name of bread, and is accounted worthy to be called the Lord's body, although the nature of bread have remained in it, and is declared not to be two bodies but one body of the son: even so this divine ἐνιδρυσάσης, that is to say, the nature of an overflowing body, hath made both these one son and one person. Hesychius in the 20th book upon Leviticus the 8th chapter: Therefore he commandeth that the flesh should be eaten with bread, to the intent we might understand the same to be called a mystery of him, because it is flesh and bread together. Gelasius against Eutyches wrote that in the Sacrament of the Eucharist the substance and nature of bread and wine do not cease to be: and he maketh a comparison of this Sacrament with Christ, in whom both the natures as well divine as human remain whole, even as in this Sacrament doth the nature of bread

and of the body of Christ. Gregory in the register: while we take as well the sweet bread as the leavened bread, we are made one body of the Lord our

Savior. Bertram in his little book De Corpore & Sanguine Domini, saith as touching the natures of the signs, that according to the substance of the creatures look what they were before consecration, the same they remain afterward. Bernard in his Sermon De Coena Domini, manifestly setteth forth a similitude of a King, whereby any man receiveth either the faith of wedlock or the possession of some dignity: as it cometh to pass in the consecration of Bishops, where the King, or the Crosiers staff, or the labels of the Miter, be signs of things given and granted, and yet no vain signs. For the things which they signify are most certainly given. The very which I have showed to be done in Sacraments.

32. Now let us confute the Arguments of these men whereby they endeavor to prove their Transubstantiation. As touching the first, we answer that Christ promised his flesh or his body or blood for to be meat and drink, and that in the 6th of John: which he performeth so often as we believe that he truly died for us. He also performed it when in the supper he instituted this Sacrament: For unto that spiritual eating, he added signs. But specially they objected, This is my body: about the truth of which saying standeth the Controversy: howbeit only as touching the manner: for both as well they as we affirm the proposition to be true, and we contend only about the sense.

They affirm the proposition to be plain, and we on the other side say, that Augustine De doctrina Christiana teacheth, that we must not so interpret one place as it should be against many other, but so as it may agree with the rest. Neither must they always object a plainness of the sense, otherwise when it is said: Let us make man to our own Image and likeness [the heretics named] Anthropomorphitae arise and infer, that God hath a body

and a soul and other members as we see them to be framed in man. Thou sayest that this Similitude must be referred unto the soul, because through it man beareth rule over other creatures as God doth: but they say, that these things be there written of man, and that thou vainly goest about to attribute to a part, namely to the soul, that which is pronounced of the whole. Thou again objectest, That God is a spirit, and that a spirit hath not flesh and bones, and so by other places of the Scriptures, thou gatherest the sense of this one place. So said the Arians that they had a plain sense of that place:

The father is greater than I. Thou restrainest this unto the nature of man, because in other places, the divinity of Christ is declared unto thee: as in the first of John and in the Epistle to the Romans the 9th chapter: and in the 5th chapter of John's Epistle Christ saith: He that hath not a sword let him buy himself one. Whereby he seemeth to stir up unto revenge: but and if thou have respect unto other places, thou shalt perceive it is spoken figuratively.

Paul saith: Pray you without intermission. Up rose the [heretics called] εὔχηται, who thought that we should apply ourselves to perpetual and close whispering prayers, when as nevertheless it is said elsewhere: He that provideth not for his own, and especially for his household, renounceth his faith, and is worse than an infidel. And again: Let all things be done by order: And again: He that laboreth not let him not eat. The [heretics called]

Chiliastae, that is the Millenarij, thought that they had a most plain word in the Apocalypse the 20th Chapter as touching a thousand years, wherein

Christ shall reign with his Saints. And the Sabellian heretics said: There is no difference between the father and the son, by reason of that place: I and the father be one, Also Philip: He that seeth me, seeth also the father: and as I am in the father, so likewise the father abideth in me. These things the heretics said were plain, and made for them. The Ebionites affirmed Christ

to be a mere creature, and they said that these words, My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me, might not otherwise be understood, seeing that God never forsaketh himself. And because that it is written in the 6th of John: He that shall eat my flesh, and drink my blood shall not die at any time: some have said, that it followeth that they which have lawfully communicated once cannot perish everlastingly. Which error Augustine De

Civitate Dei doth manifestly reprove. And the words of the Canticles of Solomon: if thou receive them as they appear at the first show, be no other than verses of love or a wedding song. It is not meet therefore to pretend always a perspicuity of words. Christ said: He that hath ears to hear, let him hear, and he that readeth, let him understand. Neither is it convenient forthwith to take quick hold of the first sense, neglecting and not considering other places. Christ said unto the Apostles, Beware ye of the Leaven of the Pharisees. They straightway thought that he spake of bread, when he spake as concerning doctrine. He said also, Lazarus our friend sleepeth. There likewise the Apostles misunderstood him: If he sleep he shall be safe, when as he spake of death. Again, the Lord said: Destroy this

Temple, and in three days I will raise it up again: Neither understood they, that he meant as touching his body. He that shall keep my commandments, shall not die forever. Here also the Jews thought that he spake of the common death. Grossly did Nicodemus understand the new birth. No less did that woman of Samaria err, as concerning that water which Christ promised her. And the Hebrews erred when Christ said unto them: That Abraham saw his day, and rejoiced. Wherefore, let them not always say unto us, that this scripture, This is my body, is plain: for we will answer them: it is plain, as touching the signification of the words. But the sense of them is not plain, as in the like sentences it doth appear: Christ is the Rock,

Christ is the Lamb, Ye be the body of Christ, We that be many are one bread. All these be the words of God, and we may pronounce of them that they be plain, that they be manifest: yet for all that, none of them infer

Transubstantiation.

33. Wherefore there is no cause why perspicuity should be so much pretended. It behooveth by other places and circumstances of the scripture to regard well what is here meant. Wherefore we will expound this proposition in scanning of it more deeply. God meant to draw man unto him by ample promises, because he would bless him and make him happy: and because we have unbelieving hearts, he would have many benefits to appear towards mankind, whereby he might allure the same unto him. Wherefore, he not only gave us freely all creatures, but also in the time of the flood, delivered mankind (which otherwise had ill deserved) from the destruction of the waters. He declared himself very merciful unto Abraham: also he gave good success unto the stock of Isaac and to his seed Jacob, that it should be increased in Egypt. And when they were there oppressed, he delivered them, he gave them a very happy land, and he exalted them to the dignity of a kingdom and Priesthood: but yet they were always unbelieving men, and smally persuaded themselves of the good will of God towards them. Wherefore because of their infidelity he cast them into diverse captivities, and afterward he delivered them. Finally that there should be no place left to doubt of his goodness, he bestowed the chiefest of all benefits upon us, namely his own son endued with man's flesh, that he should die upon the Cross for our salvation. Which benefit was such, that (as Paul said unto the Romans) how could it be, but that he gave all things together with him? And least it should be forgotten he would have it renewed in the memory by the sacrament of the Eucharist, that we should revolve in our

mind by faith, that Christ by him was delivered unto death for us: and that in believing we should eat his flesh, and drink his blood. Which that it might the more effectually be done, the tokens both of bread and wine were added, which might move us more earnestly than bare words could do.

34. Therefore when he saith: This is my body, he meant no otherwise than he promised in the 6th of John: I am the bread of life. He spake of himself, as touching the body and flesh delivered unto death, or rather to be delivered, as by his words it is manifest. Neither would he any other thing but that these things should be unto us bread and meat, whereby our minds should be confirmed and cherished: and by the mind, the body; and finally the whole man. Wherefore in the Supper Christ did nothing else, but that he transposed the proposition, and as before he had said that his body and flesh is bread, so now on the other side he saith (in showing bread) that the very same is his body: and while he pronounced, This is my body, it was even as if he had said: My body being received by faith, shall be unto you in the stead of bread, or as it were bread, whereby you shall be spiritually fed.

Wherefore let the sense be: I give unto you bread to eat, and in the meantime, I set forth unto you my body which shall be fastened unto the Cross, that with a faithful memory, and attentive mind, ye may eat it spiritually with yourselves: and as ye with the body eat bread, so with the mind, ye may feed upon my flesh. What is more easy and plain than this interpretation? And that doeth more better agree with the promise which the Lord maketh unto us in the 6th chapter of John? But and if any man will contend, that that first saying of Christ: I am the lively bread, is taken for the divine nature, as Chrysostom seemeth to take it: first we say that this doeth not well agree, because Christ had ordered his speech concerning the eating of his body, and in the stead of earthly bread, he offered to the

Capernaites his flesh to be eaten, which thing by the course of his speech doeth plainly appear, although he say that the bread came down from heaven: because oftentimes that which is of the Godhead, is also communicated with the humanity. But if this exposition of Chrysostom be of so great force with them, let that also prevail with them when he saith afterward, that the saying of Christ: The bread which I will give is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world, doeth belong unto the Eucharist.

Neither hath he alone affirmed this, but the rest of the Interpreters do also consent unto him. Therefore when as the Lord saith there, that The bread is his flesh, he now testifieth the same in the supper: for the bread being showed, he said, This is my body. He pronounceth both in the one place, and the other, that his body or his flesh is bread, namely, of the soul, and of our regenerated substance, which [bread] is spiritually eaten. And so there shall be no conversion of the proposition, but it shall be understood after the self-same manner both in the one place and in the other. But if thou understand the whole together, to wit the bread and the thing offered by the bread, that is, the body of Christ, we admit the figure Synecdoche: for it is spoken of the whole or of the one part which is understood of the other. But if thou refer the saying unto bread, which both signifieth, and offereth unto us the body of Christ to be eaten, it shall be the figure of Denomination, to wit, when the name of the thing signified is attributed unto the sign. In this interpretation also all things are easy, absurdities are shamed, and one place of the scripture is not contrary to the other scriptures.

35. They said, if place be thus given unto figures, the Heretics will pervert all things. I on the other part say, that unless we use figures, as it appeareth in those things which we have cited a little before, the Heretics have the over hand. For they also will urge the proper sense, that sense I mean which

straightway offereth itself. Only this remaineth to show that such a phrase and figurative speech is very often in the holy scriptures: and this will easily be done. We read that The seed is the word of God: The rock was Christ.

Albeit I know some do cavil, and would no figure to be here also, because Paul tended his speech unto the spiritual rock, which they say is Christ verily, and not figuratively. Howbeit Augustine and Origen be on our side, who plainly say that the same outward Rock signified Christ. But least we might seem to shift off that which is objected, we say, that if they will understand, The spiritual Rock, let them also in this place understand spiritual and allegorical bread: and as touching the same we shall truly and without figure confess it to be Christ. Moreover the Lord said: I have chosen you twelve, and one of you is a Devil, yet was not Judas therefore transubstantiated into a devil. Of Circumcision it is written: My Covenant shall be in your flesh: whereas the Circumcision is not the covenant, but only a sign of the Covenant. In the 33rd Chapter of Genesis, it is showed that Jacob built an Altar, which he called the mighty God of Israel. And Moses in Exodus, after the victory against Amalek, called the Altar which he built Jehovah Nesi, God my banner: and Jeremiah maketh mention of a City that was called Jehovah Zidkenu, God our righteousness, because these should be Monuments of those things which they expressed in names. Of John the Baptist it is written, that he was a burning and a shining Candle: also, he is Helias, if ye will receive him. Christ saith of himself: I am the vine and ye be the branches. I am the door. Of himself also it is written, that He is a stone set for a ruin and resurrection. In Deuteronomy The blood is the life. Whereas it is that wherewith the life is preserved and signified. Of Joseph, his brother Judas said: Let him not be slain, he is our flesh. By which phrase of speech was signified, the natural conjunction of kindred.

Paul saith That many be one bread, which we must understand figuratively.

And Christ breathed upon his Disciples and said: Receive ye the holy Ghost. Yet is not the breathing transubstantiated into the holy Ghost. In Genesis: My spirit shall not abide in man because he is flesh. And in John:

The word became flesh, wherein is the figure Synecdoche: for the whole man is understood under the name of flesh. And the Lord upon the Cross said: Woman, behold thy son: and to the Disciple, Behold thy mother: yet were they not transubstantiated: they remained the same that they were before: but there was appointed a new order, a new relation and respect to be had between them. Of Christ it is said: That he is our peace, whereas he is only the cause of our peace. Again, My words be spirit and life, whereas they only signified or brought these things unto the believers. John said of Christ, Behold the lamb of God, yet was not his nature changed into the nature of a Lamb.

36. We read everywhere in the holy scriptures, that the words of the Lord are judgment, truth, and righteousness: whereas these things be therein only signified and expressed. And this similitude doeth excellently well agree with the sacraments which are said to be visible words. We have in the Apocalypse: I am Alpha and Omega, that is, the beginning and end of all things. And Paul saith of his Gospel which he preached: It is the power of God to salvation unto everyone that believeth: whereas it is only the instrument whereby the power of God declareth itself unto men that shall be saved. And as touching the Gospel of the cross, he saith, That unto the ungodly it is foolishness, that is, it signifieth a foolish thing unto that kind of men. But he addeth, That unto the godly it is the power and wisdom of God, because it representeth these things unto them. And as touching the law it is said, that He set before the Hebrews life and death, blessing and

cursing, that is, by signification of the law, by the promises and threatening's which were expressed in the same. In the Book of Genesis the 7 kine and the 7 ears of corn are said to be the 7 years, and this was as touching the signification. Ahia the Prophet of Silo gave unto Jeroboam ten pieces of his torn mantel, and said that he gave him the kingdom of the 10

Tribes. In the first Epistle to the Corinthians the 11th Chapter Paul wrote that the woman ought to have on her head power, τήν ἐξουσίαν, that is, a cover, whereby the power of the husband is signified. And in the second

Epistle to the Corinthians it is written, That God made Christ to be sin, namely as touching the similitude and representation of the flesh. Yea and the sacrifice which was offered for sins, is called sin. And the Priests were said to eat the sins of the people, that is, the sacrifices which were offered for the sins of the people. In Ezekiel it is written, I will pour upon you pure water: and by water, he signifieth the holy Ghost. The very which thing we read of Christ when he saith: He that shall drink of this water, and the rest that followeth: where the Evangelist calleth to mind, that he spake of the spirit which they were to receive. Of the Lamb, we read that it was called the Passover, although some endeavor to deny it. But in the Hebrew it is,

Zebah pesah hu: The sacrifice is the Passover. By sacrifice cannot otherwise be understood, but either the beast slain for sacrifice, or else the same action of offering the slain beast. Even so we have the body of Christ, expressed both in the bread, and in the wine, and in the action as well of eating as of drinking. The Lamb was not that Passover of the Angel, but only a monument and signification thereof. Christ sought a place where he might eat the Passover with his Apostles. And by the Passover he understood those meats, and those things consecrated which did betoken the passing over.

Paul also said: Christ our Passover is offered. In which place he called

Christ himself our solemnity and our passing over. Which words cannot otherwise be understood than by a figure. And that Lamb was not that passing over of the Angel which then should be, but was already done of old, the memory whereof was represented by those outward signs. Here also we have the body of Christ, which before time suffered; not that it is now delivered to be crucified, or whose blood is now to be shed.

37. And if they would expound these words of Christ rigorously, when he saith, This is my body which is given for you, it should be needful for them to say that the bread was to be crucified, or at the leastwise Christ hidden under accidents, as they appoint in the Sacrament. For Christ showing that which he had in his hands, said that the same should be delivered and shed for them. But if they shall say: it was in deed the same that was delivered, but not after the self-same manner, or in that form, then they seek interpretations and shifts, and take not the proposition simply. The very which thou mayest perceive in these words, Is delivered and is shed. The which, if (while we utter the words of consecration, they be understood of us as they sound, the body of Christ will be signified, that it is presently crucified, and his blood presently shed, or within a while to be shed. But they would have these words to be converted into the preter-perfect-tense, that we may understand that the body is delivered, and that the blood is shed: and this is to deal figuratively when as one tense is taken for another.

And whereas Paul said, That they which eat unworthily, are guilty of the body and blood of the Lord: also they eat their own condemnation, because they put no difference of the Lord's body: it is nothing. For Ambrose answereth, as touching the first, while he interpreteth that place: They shall be punished for the Lord's death, because he was slain for them, who make no account at all of his benefit. Wherefore (as we have heard) he

interpreteth them to be guilty of the Lord's body: yet is not Transubstantiation required hereunto. And they which receive unworthily are said not to put a difference, that is, to have the Lord's body in no estimation: because so great is the conjunction between the signs and the things signified, as the reproach of the one redoundeth unto the other. On this wise spake Paul, when he said: A man praying or prophesying with his head covered dishonoreth Christ: where plainly he would have that redound unto Christ which was done about the head of the man, because it should be the sign of Christ. It is also to be considered that Paul wrote unto the Corinthians, who were not altogether void of faith, but men troubled with some infirmities. And we said not that this kind of men only do receive the signs, and have not the body of Christ, but this we affirm of the Infidels,

Epicures, Atheists, and strangers from the Church. Wherefore it might rightly be said unto them, not only as touching the signs, but also as touching the matter of the sacrament, that they were guilty of the body and blood, because they made no difference of the Lord's body, seeing they received them without faith, and expressed them not in life. And in this place this also is to be considered, that Paul when he entreateth of the sacramental action, that is to wit, of the eating and drinking, maketh mention of bread, and saith: He that eateth this bread. But afterward when he would exaggerate the fault, he maketh mention of the Lord's body: and if we make an account and just reckoning, [we shall find] that in the whole

Treatise of this Sacrament, the Apostle more often expressed bread, than he made mention of the body of the Lord. For thou mayest very well find that he mentioned bread five times and only four times, the body of the Lord.

38. But now must we see, what those things be that move us to understand this speech This is my body, figuratively. First let us consider, that Christ

was present at the supper, wherefore there was no need that he should show his body unto his Apostles: For they saw him. Further how might it be that he could eat himself really and corporally? That he in very deed communicated with his Apostles, not only the fathers affirm, but Christ himself saith it, as thou hast in Matthew: I will not hereafter drink of this fruit of the vine. Moreover we have regard to that which is here spoken, of Remembrance, wherein the figure is showed. And we see, that these men change the tenses; and that which is pronounced by the future or by the present tense, as touching the delivery of the body and shedding of the blood, they interpret it by the preter-perfect-tense. We consider afterward, that they cannot be without signs in their consecration, because they understand this verb Is, for, It is changed, it is transubstantiated, or it is made. And Christ seeing he instituted a Sacrament, it is meet that by significations, and figuratively the signs should be understood, according to the nature of a Sacrament, which is that it should be a sign. We have also respect unto the ascension of Christ into heaven, unto the truth of the human nature which he took upon him: and also unto that which is written in John, when it is said unto the Capernaites: My words be spirit and life, the flesh profiteth nothing, namely being carnally eaten: it is the spirit which quickeneth. And again we do consider Paul who here most manifestly nameth it bread: where notwithstanding these men would have it to be a figure, who are so greatly against our figure. Also we hear Paul testify, that the forefathers had the selfsame Sacrament that we have. For by the judgment of Augustine, it was not sufficient for him to say, that they had spiritual meat and drink, but he added, The self-same. And again least thou shouldest doubt, the Apostle also expressed, Baptism: which he saith, that they obtained in the sea, and in the cloud, whereby it appeareth, that they

not only among themselves, but even with us also had the self-same Sacraments. We see likewise that the speeches adjoining are understood figuratively. For in these it is said: The bread which we break, is the communion of the body of Christ. And again: This cup is the New

Testament. The which things we have oftentimes rehearsed. Moreover it doth not well agree with the body of Christ, to be eaten. And by these things it appeareth at large what ought to be said to the second Argument, in the which they objected, that the sentence must not be understood by a figure, unless that there were some other thing before or after, which should move us to the same. And they urged that particle: Which shall be given for you, that we rather retain it in the proper sense: but this is manifestly false, seeing we there change the tenses. Neither do we take it to be the body that was delivered, forsomuch as that was visible and passable. Neither can both the conditions of a corruptible body, and the qualities of a glorified body, be in one and the self-same substance or subject, so as one and the same body may be passable and impassible, together at one time. Further we have showed what other places lead us to admit these kind of figures, I mean

Synecdoche, or Denomination.

39. We will answer to another Argument as touching things distinct, or as the schoolmen call them Disparata, different, among which no mutual predication can be. Those things which be so several or different, if an Analogy or signification do happen, may now be so joined together, as they shall be of strength to make a proposition. And this we perceive to be done, not only when it is said by the Lord: The seed is the word of God. Again: I am the vine: but also even of Paul, when he pronounceth that we be one bread. And again he saith: The bread which we break is the communion of the body of Christ. And again: This cup is the New Testament in my blood.

Neither do we much pass that some say that Matthew and Mark did plainly and manifestly utter: This is my blood of the New Testament. For we deny not, but that these Evangelists thus wrote, but in the mean time we say that the words also which Luke and Paul have must be received: And we say that those, even as other sentences, which we did now cite, consist of words that do much differ and that after the manner of the Logicians may be called

Disparata, that is, differing one from another. But by Analogy and signification, they be very well and fitly joined together.

40. In another Argument it was said: that Christ when he uttered This is my body, said not, this signifieth my body, or representeth my body, this bread is a figure or sign of my body. Against these we reply that Christ said not that his body lieth hidden in those accidents without a subject, neither affirmed, that the substance of bread ceaseth to be, or is changed or transubstantiated into his body. Furthermore I marvel that these things be objected, seeing among the fathers these expositions are found. For they oftentimes say, that the body and blood of Christ is represented, is signified, is notified, is showed: and the signs of bread and wine they call, a seal, a figure, and a type, and an example of like form. Neither is there cause why any should cavil that they refer these signs or figures unto the death, and not unto the body of Christ, because the fathers manifestly say, that the body and blood is signified, and that signs and figures are given of the body and blood of the Lord. Which that thou mayest know to be true, among many places of the fathers we will here set forth these few. Augustine De

Catechis. rudib. As touching the Sacrament which he received, he saith in deed that there be visible seals of divine things, but that the very invisible things be honored in them. The same father De Civitate Dei the 10th book and 5th chapter: Wherefore the visible sacrifice is a Sacrament of the

invisible sacrifice, that is, it is a holy sign. Jerome in his 4th book upon Matthew chap. the 26th. That even as in the prefiguration of him,

Melchizedek the priest of the high God did in the offering of bread and wine, so he himself also represented the truth of his own body and blood.

And to set aside the testimonies of the holy scriptures and the sayings of the holy fathers, Bertram saith that that bread which is called the body of Christ, and the Cup which is called the blood of Christ, is a figure, because it is a mystery. Tertullian against Martion the 4th book: he having received bread and distributed it unto his disciples made it his body, saying: This is my body, that is, A figure of my body. Cyprian in his 2nd Epistle the 2nd book: We see that in the water the people be understood: in the wine, the blood of Christ is showed. Ambrose in his book De his qui initiantur

Mysterijs. Before the blessing of the heavenly words another kind is named, after consecration the body of Christ is signified. The same father De

Sacramentis the 4th book and 5th chapter: Do thou this oblation for us, being recorded in writing to be a reasonable and acceptable oblation, because it is the figure of the body and blood of our Lord Jesus Christ. The same father upon the 11th Chapter of the first Epistle to the Corinth. We being mindful hereof, do in eating and drinking, signify the flesh and blood which are offered for us. And straightway after: According to the figure, whereof we receive the cup, being the mystical body, for the defense of our body and soul. Bernard in his Sermon De Coena Domini: To this end therefore the Lord drawing towards his passion, provided to adorn his own people with his grace, that the invisible grace might he given by a visible sign. Chrysostom upon the first Epistle to the Corinth. the 10th Chapter: For what do I call the Communion? We be even one and the self-same body.

And what signifieth bread? The body of Christ. And what become they that

do receive it? The body of Christ. Basil in his Liturgy calleth it an example of like form and that after baptism. Augustine De Trinitate the 3rd book and 4th chapter: The Apostle might in signifying preach the Lord Jesus Christ by the tongue, otherwise by an Epistle, otherwise by a Sacrament of his body and blood. The same father against Adamantus: The Lord doubted not to say: This is my body, when he gave a sign of his body. Again, upon the 3rd Psalm: He admitted Judas unto the feast in which he commended and delivered his disciples the figure of his body and blood. Also against Maximinus in the 3rd book and 22nd chapter: In the Sacraments is considered not what they be, but what they show, because they are signs of things which being one thing do signify another. Hereby thou seest that the fathers do not mislike: nay rather they appoint a signification of the body in this Sacrament. Furthermore we have showed out of the holy scriptures, that such manner of speeches there be, where the verb substantive Is, is taken, for, It signifieth. And so this is become a slender Argument. Therefore whereas they object, that Christ said not, It either signifieth, or it representeth: we answer that it may be so understood out of the holy scriptures, and this we have plentifully showed before. Neither as they think do we argue on this wise: This saying is elsewhere had after this manner, therefore it must be so understood also in this place: but we only prevent them, who when they ought to prove their Transubstantiation, do bring This is my body, which place is in controversy, and the sense doubted of. They object unto us an absolute sense, and they obstinately stand therein, which by other places of the scripture appeareth not to be firm, seeing this saying is very oftentimes to be understood otherwise in the holy scriptures. We for our opinion of the Eucharist have many other reasons. Neither do we bring this as our own Argument, but only we answer them when they obtrude

such a phrase, that it most often signifieth otherwise, and that therefore of the same it is weakly concluded by them.

41. Afterward they argue as touching adoration, that if there remained bread, it should be adored in the Sacrament. I marvel that these men are so mindful of true adoration, when as otherwise both pictures and images are worshipped among them. But they say that they worship not these things, but those which be represented by the same. But how cometh it to pass that they will not grant the self-same thing of bread if it remain, that it shall not be worshipped, but that which is signified thereby? Further why did they not with the like reason remove from thence accidents, least those peradventure should be worshipped? Perhaps they will make this excuse, that none will there worship accidents, when as we know nevertheless that the pictures and figures which they suffer in the Temples be accidents, before which men do fall down. For if they would worship the substances of wood or of stones, they should have everywhere in the woods and in the streets which they might worship. Again, rude and simple men cannot distinguish or put a difference between accidents and substance. And they that feign themselves to be moved with so great a zeal, ought to transubstantiate the cup, least perhaps when it is showed it should be worshipped. And certainly this hath always seemed unto me to be a very light Argument, although it be objected by the Schoolmen, yea and those of no small account. It is moreover objected, that unless Transubstantiation be appointed, then in this Sacrament, two natures or bodily substances shall be put both together and in one and the self-same place. Who will not here marvel, that these men have so great religion and reverence towards nature, as though they would not violate the laws thereof: where nevertheless they appoint accidents to be things hanging without a subject: which is most of

all against the decrees of nature? And through their absurd devise they escape not that which they fear: because when they affirm the accidents to remain, among those accidents there is a body that hath quantity, and doth occupy a place, whereas also they would have the flesh of Christ to be corporally present, which hath a quantity, and that it lieth hidden under accidents, they must of necessity grant that there are two quantities and two bodies together. But according to the opinion which we affirm, there is no peril of this absurdity.

42. They said moreover that it agreeth not with the dignity of Christ, that his body should be joined to the substance of bread; which is a very vain thing: For it is not affirmed, that of the body of Christ and the nature of bread, is made one subject, as of the divine nature and human nature in Christ. Neither yet do we see what greater dignity there is of the Accidents, than there is of the bread; that if the body of Christ be assigned to be with them, it might not as well remain with the substance of bread. And seeing the divine nature is said to be even in hell without abridging the worthiness thereof: and this body (as they judge) is delivered to be eaten truly and substantially even of the wicked, who be most impure, and most unworthy of the same: why are they afraid only in respect of dignity to join the body and blood of the Lord unto bread and wine, especially when there must be a conjunction of the signification? Moreover they had a consideration of the sacrifice: for they say, that the body and blood of the Lord are offered in Masses, and if this alteration be not then, we shall offer nothing but only the thing signified and shadowed. Here shall Cyprian answer for us, who unto

Coecilius the 3rd Epistle and second Book saith, that it is the Passion of the Lord which we offer. And who knoweth not that the Passion of Christ is not present in the hands of the sacrificer, since it is a thing that was done in

times past: whereof there is made a memorial, and for the which thanks are given unto God? But all this that they pretend in this Argument is a feigned devise, whereby they imagine that the son of God himself is by the Priest properly and truly offered unto the father. Wherein how greatly they err, the place now serveth not to declare.

43. Now must we show that which they afterward objected, that as touching the opinions of the Fathers which seem to be against our purpose, they make not against us. But before I come to the expounding of them, I am minded to say somewhat before which may be used as certain rules for understanding of the Fathers, seeing they speak most loftily, and deal most earnestly of this matter of the Sacrament. First it must be considered that the holy Scripture hath been accustomed as it were by turns to attribute that which is of the signs unto the things: and again which be of the things to ascribe them unto the signs. The selfsame manner also do the fathers use, so as thou shalt oftentimes perceive them to entreat of the things, as though they spake of the signs: and on the other side so to write of the signs as though they entreated of the things, and of that which is signified. This may very well accord by reason of the great likeness which is between them by the appointment of the Lord. Hereof Augustine unto Boniface, gave a plain advertisement, that is Sacraments the names be changed. Another rule is: that if thou diligently consider, those things which are spoken before and after, thou shalt always perceive the fathers to testify that this food is spiritual and not meat of the throat, belly, or teeth. A third rule is, that if they at any time say, that we communicate with Christ carnally, so as the body also is nourished in the Eucharist: these things must be so taken even as we understand that the son of God (when he was conceived of the virgin and took upon him the nature of man) did then take part of our flesh.

Further we abide in him and he likewise abideth in us, when as we believe his words, and when by faith we receive the sacraments: because in so communicating, there is added unto us the spirit: And our flesh and body, which were already of the self-same nature with Christ, are become of the self-same conditions with him, they are made capable of immortality and resurrection, and when they obey and serve the spirit, they are truly nourished unto life everlasting. And so is our body two manner of ways fed in the Eucharist; first it is fed by signs, secondly by this renewing unto life everlasting. And thus is Christ said to dwell in us by this sacrament. And as touching the first communicating that we have with him by nativity and incarnation, thou hast a testimony out of the Epistle to the Hebrews the 2nd chapter. Forsomuch then as children are partakers of flesh and blood, he himself likewise was partaker with them. Moreover, consider that the word of consecrating, signifieth nothing else among the Fathers than to dedicate a thing common and profane unto a holy use: and this is to make it holy.

Wherefore there is no cause, that when we meet in the Fathers with the word Consecration, we should straight way fain unto ourselves

Transubstantiation. But that there is some alteration made there, we deny it not; namely in that those things are now made sacraments, to signify unto us effectually that by the power of the holy Ghost as touching the mind and faith, we must offer and exhibit the body and blood of the Lord. Further it must be known, that between us and the Capernaites, as touching the matter itself, there is no difference. They thought that they should eat the very body and the very flesh of Christ: which also we grant to be done. But the difference is in the manner and way of eating. That which they thought should be carnally done, we teach to be spiritually done. Otherwise the true body and the true blood is exhibited, because faith comprehendeth not

feigned things but true things. Also when it is read in the Fathers, that the body of Christ is contained or had in these mysteries: by these words is nothing else to be understood, then, betokened, showed, declared and signified.

44. And when thou hearest the Fathers say, that bread and wine is no more in the sacrament, this thou must not absolutely understand, but as touching thyself, when thou doest faithfully communicate. For there thou must not think either of the bread or of the wine: It behooveth that thy mind and thy sense do only cleave unto the things which are represented unto thee.

Therefore it is said, Lift up your hearts, when as thou liftest up thy mind from the signs unto things invisible which be offered unto thee. Also the holy scriptures shun not this kind of figure. Paul saith, Our wrestling is not against flesh and blood, who nevertheless denied not that the body and flesh do grieve the soul and must be bridled seeing he writeth in another place:

The flesh lusteth against the spirit. Neither yet was he ignorant, that there be many evil men who be called flesh and blood, by whom yet we be troubled, and with them we have daily wrestling. But Paul meant of that chief and principal contention, from whence these other have their original. He said also that In Christ there is neither male nor female, neither bond nor free: when as nevertheless these offices and these persons, are not removed from Christ and his Church: nay rather there be precepts particularly described of them. But Paul understood that these things are not in Christ as concerning the obtainment of regeneration, forgiveness of sins, and life everlasting, which are the chiefest of all in Christianity. And in the distributing of these mysteries Christ respecteth not these states and conditions. The same

Apostle writeth, that The kingdom of God is not in word, and yet would he not therefore that Sermons, Admonitions, and Readings which be done by

the word should be removed from the Church, which is the kingdom of God, but he only respected that high power and efficacy of the spirit, whereby all things ought to be ruled in the Church. Thus the Fathers speak when they deny that the nature of the signs do remain: which must not (as we have said) be simply understood, [but that is meant] as touching our faith and cogitation, which ought not to stay upon them. Hereunto thou mayest add, that faith is of so great efficacy, as it maketh things to be present, not forsooth really or substantially, but spiritually: for it truly comprehendeth them. And on this wise did the Apostle say, That Christ was crucified even before the eyes of the Galatians. And so was Abraham said to have seen the day of the Lord. And after this manner, the old Fathers had in their sacraments the self-same Christ which we also do enjoy. And thus thou seest that unto this presence is not required that the matter of the sacrament as touching natural constitution do change place or be present with us with all the material and natural conditions thereof. It is also to be understood by interchange and participation of properties, that because the divine nature of Christ, is most truly present with us, the self-same may be communicated with his humanity. As Christ, when he spake upon the earth: said that the son of man is in heaven: and so he attributed unto the humanity that which belonged unto the divinity. And after this manner I might grant, that the human nature of Christ is present with us in the Communion, if it should be expounded by communicating of properties one with another. Lastly, if thou demand why the fathers used these figures and excessive speeches: we say, partly to follow the phrase of the Scripture, partly to pierce more vehemently the minds of men. Further to the intent they might show that this signification of Sacraments is not as it were Comical or Tragical. For in those each player may represent Hector or Priamus, and there followeth

nothing besides of any great importance. But here the thing represented, is by the power of the holy Ghost, both given and imprinted in our minds by faith, and there follow many gifts and graces, and especially a secrete and unspeakable union with Christ, so as we truly become one with him.

45. But the first objection was out of Irenaeus, who saith that the earthly bread being consecrate, is not common bread, but is become the Eucharist.

This do we willingly admit, affirming that it is not here common bread, but holy, and which now, as he said is become the Eucharist. But that which followeth, makes more on our side. For he writeth that the Eucharist consisteth of two things, that is to wit, heavenly and earthly, and saith not, of the Accidents of an earthly thing. He addeth afterward: Even so our bodies receiving the Eucharist, are not corruptible, having the hope of the Resurrection. And if so great a change in our bodies be set forth by him, as he maketh it equal to the change of the bread (for he saith: even as that bread is no more common bread, so our bodies are no more corruptible,) what need shall there be of Transubstantiation, seeing he maketh these changes to be equal as well in the one as in the other? Next of all was

Tertullian alleged: and he also expoundeth his own self: He not only saith:

The Lord having received the bread, made it his body when he said, This is my body, but he added: That is, a sign of my body. They objected out of Origen, that he wrote that the Lord confesseth the bread to be his body. This do not we deny, but all the strife is as touching the manner how it is become the body of the Lord: and hereof he himself plainly teacheth elsewhere that there lieth a figure, and that this bread is called the nourishing word of the soul, and he teacheth that we must not hold ourselves unto the blood of the flesh, but unto the blood of the word. Cyprian seemeth to speak more hardly, when he saith that this bread is changed not in shape but in nature.

Howbeit we must have regard what he wrote unto Coecilius, namely that with the wine, is showed the blood of the Lord: and that if the wine cease to be in the cup, it cannot appear that the blood of the Lord is there. And whereas he now speaketh of changing, that also we grant. Howbeit a sacramental changing, and then we confess, not that the shape, or the form and accidents of bread have this gift to become sacraments, but that the nature and substance itself of bread and wine is changed into the sacraments of the body and blood of the Lord. And as the substance itself of bread, and not the form nourisheth, even so the body of Christ both nourisheth our soul and it fostereth the body and reneweth it. And as the substance itself of bread consisteth of many grains, so the mystical body which it representeth hath many members joined together. Whereupon as well we as our adversaries say that the form, (that is the appearance and show of the bread) is not changed, but that it is the substance which is changed. And they would have a change to be by casting away of the nature of bread, but we only affirm a sacramental change. And Cyprian himself maketh against our adversaries: for they change not the substance of bread, but they take it utterly away. We say, that it is changed, as that which is become the body of Christ, that is a sacrament of Christ's body which before it was not. Besides these things, Nature among the authors of the Latin tongue, doeth not always signify substance, but power, wit and property. Wherefore Cicero de

Somnio Scipionis: The proper nature and power of the soul is, that itself should be moved by itself. And unto Lentulus: That is the nature and Religion of thy Province. And when it is said the Nature of Herbs, the nature of stones, and such like. Which signification doeth well agree with the saying of Cyprian.

46. They object Ambrose, and especially in his books De Sacramentis, which books some have thought to be none of Ambrose works. The Bishop of Rochester is earnest against them that so think: And he saith, that we must in any wise give credit to Augustine, who ascribeth these books unto

Ambrose: And he openly testifieth, that Ambrose wrote the books de Sacramentis, and he citeth the prologue upon the Books of Christian doctrine which I have oftentimes read, and never find that which this man writeth. Unless perhaps he mean that which he wrote in his books of Retractations, when he maketh mention of his writings of Christian doctrine, there perhaps he hath some such thing. Moreover, this I know very well, that Augustine against Julian the Pelagian cited Ambrose De

Sacramento Regenerationis vel de Philosophia, yet not these Books De Mysterijs vel de Sacramentis. And the things which be there cited are not found in those books De Sacramentis. But I pass not hereof. Admit that they be the books of Ambrose. They do not altogether disagree with us. For he oftentimes maketh mention of signifying, and that these sacraments are named and called the body of Christ, the which we deny not. And if at any time he make mention of changing or conversion, these words must be understood of sacramental changing. Further the self-same father must be perused what he saith in another place. First in his Treatise De Officijs the 4th book the 48th chapter: Here is the shadow, here is the Image, there is the truth: A shadow in the Law, an Image in the Gospel, the truth in the heavenly places. Before time a Lamb was offered, a Calf was offered: now

Christ is offered, but he is offered as a man, as it were receiving passion, but he offereth himself as a priest, that he may forgive our sins; here, in an Image, there in truth: where as an advocate with the father, he maketh intercession for us. And upon the first Epistle to the Corinthians, as we have

already cited, he saith: In eating and drinking we signify the flesh and blood of Christ which are offered. And when he speaketh of the blood, he saith, that we receive a figure thereof, that is, the mystical Cup. Again the same father in these Books De Sacramentis in the 4th Book and 4th Chapter manifestly affirmeth our changing into Christ. The which we have oftentimes noted in other Fathers.

47. Now there remaineth that we consider of Chrysostom. They alleged this similitude of wax, the which being put into the fire, as touching the substance there is destroyed, so as nothing remaineth: so (saith he) thou mayest think that the mysteries be consumed by the substance of Christ's body. What (say they) can be more manifest for Transubstantiation? But here I think it good to examine Chrysostom himself, whereby ye may plainly perceive how rightly those things are noted, whereof we spake before, as touching the sayings of the fathers. He in the 83rd Homily upon Matthew saith: Many say that they would, and do covet to see the form and shape of Christ, also to behold his garments and shoes. But he giveth himself unto thee, not only that thou mayest see him but also that thou mayest touch him. Do we not here understand that he attributeth unto the matter of the sacrament that which belongeth unto the signs: namely, that the body of Christ may be touched and seen, which who seeth not to be true only as touching the signs? Again in the same Homily, He reduceth us, (as I may say) into one lump together with him, and that not alonely by faith, but he maketh us in very deed his body. And the same he wrote in the 60th

Homily, and in the 61st unto the people of Antioch: That we I say not only by faith and love, but also in very deed are made and mixed with the body of Christ, and if this be so, that we be not transubstantiated, and yet nevertheless so nearly joined with Christ, what need is it for the bread to be

transubstantiated, that it may be made the body of Christ? But there might arise a doubt, as though Chrysostom maketh against us which affirm this receiving by faith: seeing he saith that we not only by faith, but in very deed also are mingled with him and changed into him. But here it must be understood, that although we have said, that the body of Christ and his blood be eaten and drunk by faith, yet after this receiving by faith there followeth not a feigned but a true conjunction between us and Christ: whereby not only our mind is united with him but also our body and flesh hath his renewing from thence, and we are truly made the members of the Lord and do receive him to be our head, from whence we perpetually draw both spirit and life. And this is it that Chrysostom said, that we are in very deed joined with Christ. And again in the same Homily upon Matthew he saith, that these be signs of the Lord Jesus whereby we stop the mouths of the heretics which demand how Christ suffered. For if he had not had true flesh and had truly suffered, in vain should these signs be. In the same

Homily he saith, that our tongue is made bloody in receiving of the Sacraments. And least thou shouldest cavil that the bloodiness, w t which together with the wine or the accidents of the wine, (as they term it) our tongue is made bloody should be understood to be invisible, in the 60th

Homily which the same father had to the people of Antioch, he writeth that our tongue waxeth red with this blood: where every man may see that it is

Hyperbole or an excessive speech. And in Encaeniis he saith, that the blood in the cup is drawn out of the side of the Lord: which cannot be believed as it is spoken, seeing the side of the Lord is not at this day open, and from thence the blood is not drawn.

48. He writeth moreover in the same Homily: Doest thou see the bread or the wine? He answereth God forbid. Certainly if he should here ask the

senses, they would answer, that it is not true that he saith. For by the judgment of our sense, the bread and the wine is present: but he speaketh truly when he addeth: Think not so, because in respect of our judgment, bread and wine do cease to be there. The same father writeth: Think not thou that thou receivest of man the body of Christ, but of the Seraphin that is present, and with a pair of tongs he delivereth unto thee a fiery coal. Here

I think not, that they would have the Minister or Pastor to be transubstantiated which delivereth the Sacraments unto us. And he added,

Let us run together to suck forth the blood which floweth out of the side of the Lord. These things the Schoolmen themselves dare not speak. For they write that the bread and wine is changed into the substance of the body and blood, yet not so, as to the true substance of the body of Christ anything either cometh or departeth away. And in the 61st Homily unto the people of Antioch he saith, that Christ not only gave himself unto us to be seen, but also to be touched and felt, upon whose flesh also we fasten our teeth. In which place thou seest, that that which appertaineth to the signs, is attributed unto the thing signified by the Sacraments. For our tooth reacheth not unto the substance of the body of Christ, but only unto the bread and signs and Sacraments. The self-same father in the 60th Homily unto the people of Antioch saith, that we ought not to think that the hand of the priest reacheth the Sacrament, but must judge that the hand of Christ stretched forth doth deliver the same. And that he himself also in baptism executeth the office, namely of baptizing. And in the 61st he admonisheth that we should consider that in this Sacrament we leave Christ sitting in heaven, who is worshipped of the Angels. By all this it is plain, that this father of ours provided by all means, to call forth the minds of the communicants from the grosser sort of signs and from outward tokens to

the meditation of divine and heavenly things. And it is a wonder, that these men, who so diligently examine places of the Fathers, bring not that forth which is in the 61st Homily unto the people of Antioch: That they are both impudent and obstinate, which stand by at the administration of the Sacraments, and do not communicate. Wherein he affirmeth, that they do manifest injury unto Christ. But least we should swerve from that which is propounded in the Argument, namely in the Homily in Encaeniis, as touching the wax which in the fire runneth all abroad: we answer that Chrysostom eftsoons in that place hath this verb, Think thou: that we may understand that these things must not be understood but as touching our faith and cogitation whereby in communicating we comprehend not bread and wine by themselves, but we seek the things, which by a signification and that effectual are joined hereunto. We moreover bring forth a like similitude out of Cyril the 10th book the 13th chapter upon John, where he saith, that wax being molten, and mingled with other wax, so that of two is altogether made one doth resemble that which is done in the receiving of this Sacrament: which is, that we should in very deed be made one with Christ. The selfsame he hath in the 4th book and 17th chapter. And if so be that this similitude of wax between Christ and us, have place without transubstantiation of our body, the very same may be affirmed of the similitude of Chrysostom, which he putteth between wax and the signs or mysteries. Further our adversaries should be demanded whether they will have these similitudes to be made alike in all respects. Which if they will grant, they must also take away the accidents out of this Sacrament. For the wax which is applied to the fire is not only destroyed as touching the substance, but as touching the accidents. But and if they will not have the similitude to take place in this behalf, then shall it also be free unto us to

understand all this, as touching our cogitations of the mind and comprehension of faith: and we will confess that as touching the thing itself, the nature of bread and wine goeth away, and that our mind only cleaveth unto the things signified, and to that which by the signs is offered unto us: that is, unto the body and blood of Christ. And of Chrysostom thus much hath been said, wherein we may see how truly those things have place, which we spake before of the fathers.

49. Augustine was afterward objected, who should say upon the 33rd Psalm, that Christ bare himself in his own hands, and that verily in the last supper, when he distributed the Sacrament to his Apostles: And this do not we deny. For what should let Christ to bear his body in his own hands, if by Body, thou understand the Sacrament of his body? And this is it that Augustine addeth in the end of this place, After a certain manner: as if he should say: He did not absolutely bear himself, but after a sort he is undoubtedly the very same whom we now said him to be. They oppose unto us the same Augustine, in the third book De Trinitate, where he saith, the bread, is brought unto this visible form by the hands of men, but that it cannot be made so great a Sacrament, without the invisible working of the holy Ghost. It is much to be marveled at, why these men acknowledge not in this sacrament any other work of the holy Ghost besides transubstantiation. For the name of the working of the holy Ghost in this sacrament being heard, they straightway infer transubstantiation: whenas notwithstanding these signs cannot be advanced, or translated to the state and condition of Sacraments, but by the help of God: to wit, by the institution of the Lord, by holy words, and by strength of the holy Ghost.

Because these holy things do no longer possess our mind after an ordinary and common manner, but by an effectual and most vehement force of the

spirit: and by the strength and operation of the selfsame holy spirit, our minds and souls are furthered to embrace the matter of the Sacraments.

Now come we to Augustine, who upon the 99th Psalm, upon that saying, Worship ye his footstool: doth inquire diligently, what manner of footstool that should be; And at the length he findeth that it is said in the Scriptures: that the earth is his footstool. But how saith he shall we worship the earth?

Is it not written: Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God, and him only shalt thou serve? And is it not commanded that we should not worship those things, which be in heaven, or upon the earth, or in the waters, or under the earth? But he saith afterward, that there is a certain earth, which justly may and ought to be worshipped: For the son of God (saith he) took the nature of man upon him, that is flesh of the virgins: and that in the holy Scriptures is called earth: forsomuch as our body is taken out of the earth. But that the flesh of Christ ought to be worshipped, hereby it appeareth, because when he gave the same to be eaten, none did eat it but he first worshipped. These words of Augustine can make nothing against us, because we deny not but that the flesh of Christ must be worshipped by reason of the conjunction that it hath with the divine nature. Here the contention is whether the same flesh lie close hidden under the Accidents, not whether it should be worshipped. But they say: if it were not there in the Sacrament, and that bread should be there, it would be Idolatry. Unto which we answer, that they fall into as great a peril, for they ought to remove the accidents least those should be worshipped, and to transubstantiate the very cup itself. But in a Sacrament we distinguish the signs from the things, and unto the signs we give some honor, to wit, that they should be decently handled, and should not be despised: For they be holy things once dedicated unto God.

And as concerning the things signified, namely the body and blood of

Christ, we grant that those should be readily and cheerfully worshipped. For Augustine in this place saith: We sin not in worshipping the flesh of Christ, but we sin in not worshipping of the same. But he adviseth in the mean time that we should not cleave unto the flesh of Christ, but lift up our mind unto the divine nature, whereunto the flesh is joined by a knot not possible to be undone. Otherwise he saith: the flesh profiteth nothing, but it is the spirit that quickeneth. Wherein thou mayest note that this saying of our Savior which is in the 6th of John, is understood by Augustine as touching the flesh of Christ, but not of the carnal understanding as some will have it.

50. And as touching adoration, I will knit up in few words, and will rehearse what I have elsewhere spoken, in my exposition of the Epistle unto the Corinthians: namely, that the same consisteth in invocation and confession, which is of two sorts: as well of the heart as of the mouth, and in thanksgiving. And those things are due both unto God and unto Christ, wheresoever they show themselves unto us. And this is done three manner of ways: First by the internal word when as by the power of the spirit of God any vehement cogitation of God and of Christ, entereth into our minds.

Then followeth worshipping: because we either confess or invocate, or else give thanks. Sometime these things declare themselves unto us by the outward word, when as we ourselves read the holy scriptures, or else hear godly sermons: Then are we oftentimes stirred up to invocation or else to other things which belong to the order of serving God. Finally Christ and God otherwhile declareth himself by outward signs, as upon mount Syna:

Unto Isaiah under the form of a king sitting upon his royal seat, in the Ark of the Covenant, in the Sacraments: and there also worshipping is given unto him. But even as Augustine admonished that we must not settle our mind upon the flesh, but we must have access unto the Godhead: So I here

admonish that in worshipping, when we receive the Eucharist, we must not stay in the signs, but must worship in spirit and truth Christ sitting in heaven at the right hand of his father. And this because the simple sort do not understand, by reason of the confirmed and grounded error of transubstantiation, therefore I think it not unprofitable if we would forbear from outward worshipping, namely from prostrating or kneeling, until such time as these might be instructed. Inward worshipping may be used without danger: neither would outward worshipping in his own nature be evil: for many do kneel and worship devoutly, at the hearing of those words: And the word was made flesh, and yet is it not to be said that those words be worshipped, but the things signified. And why may not the same be done here, so that the signs be not worshipped, but that which is signified by them? Howbeit in these days for the cause aforesaid, perhaps outward

Adoration is not meet, unless that oftentimes mention should be made hereof in Sermons.

51. Neither let any man take an occasion of my sayings, that it should be lawful to worship either Images or pictures, because God and Christ seem otherwhile to declare themselves there effectually. For we have the plain word: Let us not make unto ourselves Images for to worship. But as touching the words of the holy scripture and the Sacraments, nothing letteth that we should adore in the hearing or receiving of them, because those things are instituted by the word, will, and commandment of God, that we may be provoked to the service of God which consisteth in adoration.

Neither oughtest thou to gather hereby, that the remnants of the Eucharist must be worshipped. For whatsoever strength the signs have, that they have by the holy Ghost, by the words of the Lord, and by his institution, which things without the use of the sacrament are not extant. And while we eat and

drink, there is a promise. Wherefore that opinion of consecration was not universal, because in the time of Hesychius (as he himself testifieth upon Leviticus) the remnants of the Eucharist were burned. And even this thou hast in Origen upon Leviticus: although it be the same book which is ascribed unto two. And Clement the Bishop of Rome, (as appeareth by his decree, which is de Consecratione, distinct. 2.) ordained that the remnants of this sacrament should be eaten by the Ecclesiastical persons. We deny not that they were sometime kept, but this was done without adoration and superstitious worshipping's. They were given unto children and unto

Women, to be carried unto the sick, as appeareth out of the History of Eusebius Caesariensis and out of Jerome. And I would not willingly say, that the receiving of these remnants after that manner out of the holy congregation and besides the rite appointed by the Lord was a just communion, which nevertheless I grant the sick might have so that they repeated the holy words, and that some faithful men did there communicate among themselves. For where many do not communicate, the nature of the sacrament is not retained. Christ said: Take ye, eat ye, and drink ye. The bread is broken which pertaineth unto distribution. And in their Canon they say many things, the which unless many do communicate, be lies.

Moreover it is called a supper, a Communion, a gathering together. Which names little agree with private action. Neither do we at any time read of private masses among the old Fathers. Honorius the Bishop of Rome, brought in a decree, that the Eucharist should be kept: and he added, that honor and reverence should be done unto it when it shall be carried about.

Which if it had been done before his time, it should have been needless for him to make such a decree. And to speak briefly we affirm that this

Sacrament, (as before hath been said) hath not his force or efficacy, except

when it is exercised and received: which also thou seest to come to pass in all other Sacraments.

52. Hilarius is objected against us. But he had very great controversies with the Arians, against whom he dealeth, because they thought that between the father and the son there is no conjunction, unless it be by a consent of will. Against these Hilary saith: I demand of you whether between us and Christ, there be a conjunction by the property of nature or by an agreement of the will? For the Arians would lay hold of that place wherein Christ prayed, that we might be one together with him, even as he and the father be one between themselves. There is a place in John the 17th chapter, where it is said, Even as thou father art in me, and I in thee, that they also may be one in us. The Heretics added that we have no conjunction with Christ, unless it be as touching the consent and will: and by this they inferred that between the son of God and the father, there happeneth no other union or conjunction than this. Wherefore it was the part of Hilary to show that we be naturally united with Christ, to the intent he might conclude, that the son also is naturally joined to the Father. His proof is on this wise: If the word of God did truly take upon it the nature of man, he doeth naturally communicate in his flesh with us, and we are said to remain in him, because he hath in himself our nature. And semblably in the Lord's supper, if we truly receive his flesh, we do participate naturally with him, and he doth truly dwell in us. And thus Hilary argueth from the truth of Sacraments, which we deny not. And this was the use of the old fathers, that they drew their Arguments from Sacraments as from things best known. But there is none of these things against our opinion. For Hilary contendeth not that the flesh of Christ is hidden and covered under Accidents or in this

Sacrament; but he only affirmeth, that we in communicating are truly joined

to the flesh of Christ, the which we deny not. But consider with me that the self-same father, not much before those words which he speaketh of the Eucharist saith the same of Baptism, that by it we are joined unto Christ and one with another, not only in the unity of assent and will, but also in the unity of nature. So that ye shall be constrained there also to appoint

Transubstantiation, if for that cause ye bring it into the Sacrament.

Chrysostom is not far from this use of taking Arguments from Sacraments: who in the 83rd Homily upon Matthew saith (as we cited before) that these be signs of the Lord Jesus, whereby we both bridle and stop the mouths of Heretics. For they say very often: how did Christ suffer? And we on the other side object: If Christ had not true flesh, these signs be in vain. And this doth rightly follow, because they should else represent unto us feigned things. And thus were the Manichees, Marcionites, and such like pestilent sects, put to silence by them.

53. As touching Leo the Bishop of Rome, there is no cause why we should trouble ourselves much, because he in the sentence objected against us both affirmeth a mystical distribution, and setteth down a spiritual sustenance and a virtue celestial, and saith that we do pass into the flesh of Christ, even as he took our flesh upon him. They cite Emisenus, whose words are read, De Consecratione, distinct. the first: but there, if thou look well upon it, thou shalt find these words: Touch thou with thy mind, and with the hand of thy heart take hold of the body of Christ. By which words it is plain, that he affirmeth us to eat the body of the Lord spiritually.

Further he vehemently urgeth (as other of the fathers do) our changing into Christ, the which nevertheless (as we see) is without Transubstantiation. I know that some may wonder why we so oftentimes oppose the changing of ourselves against the changing that the fathers seem to affirm to be in the

signs which they constantly say are all one: and some imagine that there is a far other conjunction between the body of Christ and the signs, than is between us and the body of Christ, and that therefore the Analogy and proportion holdeth not, although the fathers do appoint both the one and the other. To this we answer and say, that our Argument is most strong because it is from the greater to the less by a negative. For the joining together of Christ unto us and with them which communicate, is greater than it can be with the signs. Seeing therefore in respect of us transubstantiation is not required, much less shall it be in signs. But that we be more joined together unto Christ than the signs be it thereby appeareth, insomuch as that conjunction was invented because of this. Further the words and the spirit whereby the signs are consecrated, do much less belong unto other things than unto men.

54. Of Theophilact we say that he is a late writer, and who perhaps lived in those times when as many questions were begun to be moved touching

Transubstantiation under Nicholas the Bishop of Rome in the time of Lanfranck and Berengarius. Further he was a man of no great judgment, as it may appear by his interpretation of John the 3rd chapter at the end: where he blameth the Church of the Latins by name, as touching the proceeding of the holy Ghost, that it proceedeth from the father and the son. So as we will not think his authority to be so great, as it ought to prejudice the truth: yet nevertheless we will examine his sayings. He affirmeth bread not to be the figure of the body of Christ: and that in his treatise upon Matthew. But and if he mean a void and vain figure, he saith rightly, neither do we appoint such a figure: And we doubt not, but that this is his interpretation, because upon Mark he saith that it is not a figure only: otherwise if he should utterly deny it to be a figure, he should be against the rest of the fathers, whom we

have manifestly proved to affirm that it is both a sign and a figure. He saith that bread is transformed, that it is changed, and transelementated: which speeches, if he understand sacramentally, we mislike them not. For bread and wine be sacraments, and do pass into the Elements of divine things, and they put on a signifying form. But they say that this Father writeth:

Therefore the flesh and blood is not seen, least we should abhor it. But if thou wilt sharply urge these words, we will object that which he writeth upon Mark, to wit, that the kinds of bread and wine are changed into the virtue of the body and blood of the Lord. And if thou wilt say that he in another place saith not: Into the virtue, but into the body and blood of the Lord: we answer, that this is the interpretation of those words, that these signs take unto them the virtue of the things, by which virtue the Sacraments have no less than if the things themselves were there; and (as I have said) the abhorring is taken away if we appoint the signs to be changed, not into the thing, but into the virtue. More violent seemeth another saying of his, which he hath upon the 6th chapter of John, where he writeth: Even as while Christ lived upon the earth, the bread was changed into his flesh by a usual way of nourishment, through natural transmutation, so this bread is changed into the body of Christ. Yet nevertheless we grant that this comparison is generally taken. For we deny not, but that there is a sacramental change even in this sacrament. But and if thou shalt say, that thou wilt take this similitude according as it is brought: that so truly is the bread changed into the sacrament of the Eucharist, as in the meat and sustenance of Christ it was converted into his flesh while he lived here, there will follow an absurdity very repugnant unto thine own opinion: to wit, that the accidents of the signs must not be retained in this sacrament, because they were not there kept in the sustenance of Christ while he lived

here. Furthermore the same interpreter upon the 6th chapter of John writeth upon these words: He that eateth my flesh and drinketh my blood, dwelleth in me and I in him. He saith that this is done while he is after a sort transelemented and mingled with us. Where again thou seest that he, as do the rest of the Fathers, affirmeth so great a change of us into Christ, as he writeth that we be transelementated into him. And thus much of Theophilact.

55. Among the latter men, they allege Anselmus, Hugo, and Richardus, and the Victorines. Howbeit seeing in their time the opinion of transubstantiation was obtruded, they with their writings served the time.

Neither ought the new invention of these men be prejudicial to the opinion of the most ancient Church and the opinion of the old Fathers. But among others, they seem to make great account of one: and that is of Johannes

Damascenus, who in the 4th Book of the Catholic faith the 14th chapter wrote most amply of this matter. But I find that this man lived under Leo

Isauricus Emperor of Greece. And between Gregorius Magnus Bishop of Rome, and this John there were well near a hundredth and twenty years.

And when as now in the time of Gregory, many superstitions and inventions of men were heaped up in the Church, all things grew to be worse and worse. Wherefore it is no marvel that this Damascene inclined unto many superstitions and untruths. And of how great judgment he was as well in matters of doctrine as also in expounding the holy scriptures, we have a proof. For he marvelously favoreth Images, and for the defense of them entered into great dangers. And in this self-same fourth Book, he wrote a particular Chapter of that matter, wherein he not only willeth that they should be made, but also be worshipped and honored. Moreover he had in so great estimation the Relics of Saints departed, as upon them also he spent

a whole chapter wherein he feared not to call them the fountains of God's gifts. And he is bold to say, that we ought by faith to worship the Saints, which saying is intolerable, seeing faith is only due unto God and his word.

He hath a Sermon of Purgatory, wherein he affirmeth, that Traianus the Emperor, and Idolater and persecutor of Martyrs, was delivered from the pains of hell, and that by the prayers of Gregory. And the Falconilla also an Idolatrous woman was by the prayers of a certain other man saved, when she had been now dead and detained in the pains of hell. And he bringeth in a fable of one Macarius, which talked with the skull of a dead man, of whom he heard, that in time of sacrifice of the Mass, the souls of the dead which are tormented in pains, are in more ease: and he sprinkleth all his

Sermon with these fables. And the selfsame man when he writeth of the Resurrection, endeavoreth to prove the same in the book of Genesis: where we read that the Lord said to Noah: Thou shalt not eat flesh with the blood, for your lives will I require at the hands of beasts. He will require them

(saith he) at the Resurrection, yet forsooth beasts do not die for man. It seems that he knew not the law made by God in Exodus, where he commandeth the Ox to be slain, which shall push with his horn and kill a man. And in the Chapter De Virginitate, he writeth: If Adam had not sinned, men had not been joined together in Matrimony for procreation sake: and because he seeth, that the sentence of God: Increase and multiply, is against him, he saith, that perhaps men might have multiplied by another part of the body. Among the school divines none would have spoken these words. The same man wresteth Basel: For when he perceiveth him to say that bread and wine be ἀντίτυπα, that is, patterns or examples of the body of Christ, he expoundeth him that he meaneth, before consecration. And this is most absurd. For before consecration they have no more in them than other

common meats. And if they should so signify the body and blood of Christ, they should be already sacraments before the uttering of the words of the Lord. Moreover in the Mass of the Greeks, they openly pray after consecration, that the bread may become the body and blood of Christ: And namely the case so standeth in the Mass of Basel, that those words be put after consecration. And in our Canon, if it be well considered, it is named bread after consecration.

56. But now must we see his Arguments. The first is taken from the power of God. For seeing he was able by his word to make heaven and earth to bring forth Plantes, Beasts, Birds, and Fishes; why may he not of bread make his own body? Which kind of Argument is most weak: neither is the disputation now as touching the power of God. For we deny not that God can turn bread into flesh, but the whole contention is, whether he will do it or no. Another of his Arguments is derived from the speech of Christ. For (saith he) it was not said of the Lord: This is a figure or sign of my body, but it is pronounced to be the Lord's own body. But unto this Argument we have before answered. And if this man when he denieth the sacrament to be a figure of the Lord's body, do mean this absolutely, he hath almost all the fathers against him, who in this place do acknowledge a figure. But if he understand it not to be a figure only, to wit, a frustrate or void sign, that also do we willingly grant. Albeit he mingleth certain words in his writings, whereby it may be perceived, that he meant not so grossly as he maketh semblance for. For he saith, that the bread of the communion is no simple bread, but it hath the Godhead joined with it. Which words we will willingly admit, for we say not that it is here common or simple bread, but it is now sanctified and turned into the nature of a sacrament. And it may be said that the Godhead is therefore joined unto it, because the holy Ghost

useth it as an instrument to our salvation. Further he maketh a comparison thereof with Baptism: wherein he saith that God hath used to condescend unto our custom and usual manners. And because men are wont to be washed with water, and anointed with oil, therefore God joined unto these things his grace and spirit in Baptism: Even so seeing the custom of men is to eat bread, and drink wine, unto those things he joined his Godhead. But if he had followed these transubstantiators, he would not have joined unto, but utterly extinguished the natures of bread and wine. And the nature of this comparison requireth, that even as the joining together of Baptism with the grace and holy Ghost doeth not repel or extinguish the nature of water, even so the matter of this sacrament doeth not destroy and cast away the being of the signs. He saith also, that God did so condescend to our custom, as that by things usual and agreeable to nature we may attain to that which is above nature. Wherein he toucheth our transmutation into Christ. But it must be marked that he saith the signs of the sacraments be according to nature: and those if thou appoint to be only accidents without a subject, or which have the body of Christ hidden under them, they be no more according to nature.

In deed he useth words in which he saith that the nature of bread is changed, consumed, and become the body of Christ. Which words if they be understood as touching the change of the Sacrament, they do not make against us. And whereas he saith that these things do happen above nature, we grant. For it is no natural thing, that a Sacrament should be made of common bread, no more than the fountain of regeneration is naturally made of water. But and if thou demand of him the manner of this transmutation into the body of Christ, he saith also that it is not easy for us to express the manner how in natural nourishment, bread is changed into our flesh. But of this similitude, how it may be taken, we sufficiently entreated before when

we spake of Theophilact. If thou understand this similitude generally, and appliest it unto a Sacramental changing, it sufficeth: but if thou wilt have the comparison to be made specially of such a changing, as is of the sustenance in our body, when it is converted into flesh: then thou shalt not only make the nature of bread to give place, but the accidents.

57. He addeth that bread is made the body of Christ, and Wine and Water his blood, so nevertheless as they be not two but one. If he refer, One, unto the cup and bread, as if he should say that these be one Sacrament, we contend not much, because in this action, as in one sacrament, Christ even as sustenance is given unto us. Albeit in receiving both the parts of this

Sacrament the Church feareth not to say in the plural number, that here be sacraments: And in the Collects of the mass, after communion thou readest oftentimes: The Sacraments which we have received, and the rest that followeth. But if they shall say: They be one, so that after consecration the bread and body of Christ should now be all one, and not two, by reason of Transubstantiation that is incident: we oppose the saying of Irenaeus, wherein he writeth that the Eucharist doeth consist of two things, namely of earthly and heavenly: Also Gelasius the Pope, who argueth from the conjunction of bread with the body of Christ, the natures remaining whole, that the human and divine nature in Christ are joined in one, both the one and the other remaining whole, and inviolate. He addeth moreover, that this

Sacrament is not cast into the draught. And surly it cannot otherwise be spoken of the Transubstantiators: For seeing they appoint nothing in the Eucharist besides the accidents and the nature of Christ's body, none of these things belong to the draught. But against these things I object a most manifest place of Origen upon Matthew the 15th chapter, where he interpreteth these words: That which goeth into the mouth defileth not man.

And he saith, If it defile not, neither doeth it sanctify. But what shall we say of the bread of the Lord? Is it true that it neither sanctifieth nor yet defileth?

He answereth: That if anything may seem to be impure, it doeth not defile us, unless it be through an evil conscience: Even so that which is seen and is called holy, unless that righteousness and integrity of life be with us, it doeth not sanctify. For if this had wherewithal of his own nature to sanctify, there had not been among the Corinthians so many weak and feeble, and so many that slept. Wherefore that which in the Lord's bread is material passeth through into the belly, and is cast into the draught. But whatsoever cometh by prayer and by the word of the Lord, profiteth the soul according to the measure of faith. Wherefore the matter is not profitable, but the word which is added doth profit the soul. And least thou shouldest think that he speaketh of any other meat, he briefly repeateth, and saith, These things are spoken concerning the mystical body of Christ. None will take exception hereunto, that Origen sometimes erred in doctrine, seeing Jerome,

Epiphamus and the ancient fathers, which most diligently scanned his errors, never made mention that he judged ill of the Eucharist: This would they not have done if he had transgressed in so great a matter. And in the self-same place he most plainly added, that the wicked do not eat the body of Christ, because it is a quickening body, and he which eateth it dwelleth in him. Wherefore against this John Damascene being but a late writer and not very famous, let Origen be opposed, a most ancient Father and of great renown.

58. After these matters, that was objected the which Cyril in the name of the council of Ephesus wrote to Nestorius the Bishop of Constantinople.

For then there was a disputation against him who affirmed the human person in Christ to be altogether several and distinct from the person of the

son of God, so as there should be no other manner of conjunction except it be of dignity. Against him is argued from the nature of Sacraments. If the flesh of Christ be so severed from the person God, it followeth that the same is no quickening flesh: and whereas we grant the flesh of Christ to be in the sacraments, we should eat the flesh of man, after a sort sanctified and excellent: but thereby we could not according to the promise, obtain everlasting life. This is the scope whereunto all those disputations tend.

Those Fathers do not contend, neither go they about to prove, that in the bread lieth hidden the flesh of Christ, but they would have us to eat the same in a Sacrament, and that truly: and to eat such flesh as will give us eternal life. Which we deny not, so it be understood that the eating belong unto the soul and to faith. For we grant that in a sacrament the flesh of Christ is eaten spiritually but yet truly. Neither do we at any time fain such a flesh as is severed and divided from the divine person of the word. They object against us the Council of Rome or the Vercellentian, wherein

Berengarius was condemned, and compelled to recant. As concerning which councils seeing their Acts are not extant, we cannot answer much: wherefore it shall be profitable to weigh the recantation itself prescribed unto Berengarius by Pope Nicholas in the Council: and thereby we may see of what credit this Council was, and how well in their wits they were which had the chief rule in the same. In the decrees De Consecratione, the second distinction in the chapter Ego Berengarius, his recantation is described wherein he was compelled to confess that the body of Christ is sensibly handled with the hands of the Priests, that it is broken and rent with the teeth, which things, how well they agree with the body of Christ already glorified, and unto that Sacrament, let every wise man judge. The Glosser upon the decrees, a man otherwise of gross understanding, could not choose

but see so great an absurdity. Wherefore he saith, that these things must be very advisedly and rightly understood, if not, thou shalt fall (saith he) into a greater error than that wherewith Berengarius was infected. For he saw that it was not convenient to be said, that the body of Christ is sensibly felt in the Sacrament, or that it is broken or rent with the teeth. And the master of the sentences in the 4th book would remedy this sore, and saith that these things must be attributed not to the body of Christ, but to the signs, which they affirm to be accidents. And so in that speech he appointed a figure, whereby that is attributed unto the thing which belongeth to the signs.

Which figure if we use, and that in due time, in interpreting the sayings of the Fathers, while they speak magnifically of this sacrament unto the people, our adversaries exclaim that we corrupt and mar and falsify their writings: whereas here nevertheless they themselves fly unto the self-same

Anchors, and they will have a figure where it ought least to be, namely in the declaring of an opinion and in framing a recantation, the which ought of all other things to be most clear and plain. So then we pass not of this council seeing they dealt there so blockishly.

59. They also object the Synod of Constance, wherein Wycliffe was condemned, and where John Hus, and Jerome of Prague were burned for sundry articles, but especially for that they held against Transubstantiation, which there by a full decree was ordained. Doubtless this council we cannot choose but call treacherous, seeing it found the means to slay those two men, which came thither under safe conduct. And this also the Emperor took grievously, for he among others had given his word, otherwise the Bohemians would never have suffered those men to go unto that Council.

And for so much as they there decreed touching Transubstantiation, it is an Argument that the same is a new opinion. Neither is it of force which many

do say that it was there confirmed by a decree, but not first invented, because under Nicholas the Roman Bishop in the Vercellentian and Roman

Synod, it was manifestly enough declared. We grant indeed that this opinion brake out after a sort and was obtruded before the Council of Constance: but because it was not fully received, and had everywhere many contradictions, therefore they judged it necessary to establish the same again, and that tyrannically, to wit, by fire and cruel threatening's. But against this Council we object the general and universal Council of Florence, held under Eugenius, Bishop of Rome the 4th of that name who was there present. And there was also present there the Emperor of Greece with the Patriarch of Constantinople, and many Bishops of the East part. In which Council the Greek Church was joined with the Latin, and they agreed together as touching the dissension that was about the holy Ghost. And we may see in the Acts of that Council, that after agreement was made between them of the East, and of the West about certain Articles, the Pope would have proceeded further, and have driven them to entreat of Transubstantiation, and to have received it according to the opinion of the West Church. There the Greeks resisted, and would not deal in that matter, neither could they by any reasons be driven to give their consent thereunto.

And when writings of union were to be drawn and published, they in any wise provided, that no mention should be made of that matter. Which also was observed as appeareth in a Bull of Eugenius, which beginneth: Let the heavens rejoice, and let the earth be glad. Wherein he rejoiceth with Christendom, for this good hap that the Greek and the Latin Churches were once again joined together. Wherefore if this Transubstantiation had been of so great importance, the Roman Church would never have been joined with the Greek which did not receive the same. For at this day, they say, that it is

a pestilent heresy not to admit the same. But it is not credible that the Latin Church would then join itself with Heretics, and be partakers with them.

And hereby also is the Argument dissolved, which they brought as touching the universal consent of the Church. For it is not true which they assume, that all Churches agreed together in this; for that ancient Church which was in the time of the Fathers, as we have showed, never dreamed of any such thing. Again, the Cast and Greek Churches were of the same judgment that we are.

60. Moreover unto their Arguments they add exceeding great praises of the power of God, that they may bring in men to believe so great a miracle.

But it is a most feeble kind of reasoning. That which they ought to have showed, in truth they have never proved, namely that God's will is to do this, and that this the holy scriptures promise us. For that which they allege,

This is my body, is in controversy, and may have another sense. Wherefore the Argument is made weak and by a certain example we will show the feebleness thereof. The Lord said to Nicodemus, That none can enter into the kingdom of heaven, unless he be born a new: He began to demand, How can a man of ripe age, or else an old man enter the second time into the womb of his mother? It might have been said unto him: Christ hath now affirmed that it shall so be, why doubtest thou of the power of God whereby all things be created? By it, thou mayest undoubtedly be born again out of thy mother's womb. Howbeit Christ said not so, but he declared, that all this should be done by spiritual regeneration. For albeit he made mention of water, which should belong unto baptism, yet he most plainly taught that we should be born again by the spirit. So we see it come to pass in this place.

Christ commanded that we should eat his flesh. And in receiving of bread he said: This is my body. The transubstantiators say: It cannot be brought to

pass that the body of the Lord should be together with bread: wherefore it behooveth that the nature thereof should be transubstantiated into the body of Christ: and this will they persuade to be done by the power of God. But in the mean time they object, We alone say not so: For Chrysostom,

Ambrose and Cyril, when they dispute of this change, send us to the power of God, and do extol the same with wonderful praises. But we answer, that the fathers speak well: For indeed it belongeth to the power of God to change bread and wine, that the Sacraments should be such as they were not before. Neither is it a work of nature that they should so mightily and effectually signify, offer and exhibit the body and blood of the Lord, which must be apprehended with our minds and faith. Wherefore the holy Ghost is the chiefest in this business, and the institution of the Lord is of great force, and the words being uttered by divine inspiration, and now repeated do profit very much. Add here withal, that while we communicate there is a change or conversion of us into Christ, which doth far exceed the power of nature. But now seeing the supernatural power of God may be required to all these things, they apply the same unto transubstantiation. And it is even as if we should argue from the more universal to the more particular affirmatively, which is not lawful. Moreover in baptism is required the selfsame power, seeing it is not the work of nature, that water should become the fountain of regeneration. But here some take it not in good part, that Baptism should in such wise be compared with the Eucharist. For albeit they cannot deny that Christ also is present in Baptism, and given unto us

(for it is written: So many of you as are baptized have put on Christ) yet say they: Christ is better and after a more excellent manner in the Eucharist, than he is in Baptism: therefore the bread is transubstantiated, and it is not necessary that the water should be changed. Unto whom we answer, that we

need not strive much in which of the Sacraments Christ is more excellent, so it be granted that he is in the one and the other. And even as he may be in the one, the substance of the elements preserved, so may he be in the other.

But if thou wilt in any wise contend about the worthiness of them, the excellency of baptism may be showed by effectual reasons. Insomuch as it is more to be begotten, than to be nourished. Furthermore, Baptism was made famous by many miracles. The heavens were opened, the voice of the father was heard, and the holy Ghost was seen in the likeness of a dove: the which happened not in the institution of the Eucharist. And these things we speak not to the abasing of this Sacrament. For it is most worthy, and should be exceedingly honored, but they be therefore uttered, that we may answer to the objection made as touching the power of God. And we have already showed before out of Augustine De Trinitate, the 3rd book and 10th

Chapter, that so exceeding great miracles as these men bring must not be allowed. Which also appeareth, if thou rehearse the verses of Gregory

Nazianzen, wherein he comprehended all the miracles of Christ: neither did he make any mention of these miracles, which nevertheless, if we believe them they be singular and without comparison. Augustine also, while he compriseth the marvels of the holy scripture, in a certain book of his entitled the book of miracles, he maketh mention of Transubstantiation.

Wherefore it appeareth that we must not for this opinion bring in an Argument drawn from the power of God, which we deny not: yea rather we affirm that in this Sacrament there is need of it.

61. Next of all, they objected, that their opinion was confirmed by many wonders and miracles, the which be read in Cyprian, in the life of Gregory, and among many other writers. We answer hereunto, that about the Eucharist miracles might be done for three causes: either to keep back

wicked and unworthy men from so worthy a Sacrament: and this kind of miracles we allow. For the Apostle writeth that among the Corinthians many were feeble and weak, and that many were asleep because they communicated unworthily. And unto this order I think those men must be brought whereof Cyprian writeth. Another kind of miracles is sometime brought in to set forth the excellency of this Sacrament, that the dignity and greatness thereof might thereby be expressed. Which miracles also we reject not. For we know also that baptism was oftentimes adorned with many miracles. A third kind there may be for the confirming of this opinion or rather error concerning Transubstantiation. And after this manner the adversaries allege these things against us. But miracles of this sort must be utterly rejected. And hereof are we admonished by the law, that so often as a Prophet goeth about to draw men to idolatry and superstitions, although he get credit thereunto by working of miracles, we must not believe him, yea rather the Lord would have him to be stoned. We know moreover that Antichrist shall come, and that he shall be famous in signs and wonders.

And we are not ignorant that in the time of Moses the sorcerers stood before Pharaoh which did wonders against the word of God. And we read in Irenaeus the 1st book of one Mark a deceiver and heretic, who in this sacrament of the Eucharist did wonderfully beguile the simple sort. For he changed the color of the wine, that it might altogether appear blood: and by his enchantment he so increased a little wine, as the whole cup was filled and run over. And when again there was a cup longer and of more receipt, that also was filled up to the top without addition of more liquor. Who would say that through these miracles, his heresy should be approved? If we shall make mention of Ethnics: we read that there flowed in the earth rivers of blood, that out of the thumb of Jupiter sprang blood. Titus Livius saith

that at Rome it rained flesh. Quintus Curtius saith, that at Tyre, when it was besieged by Alexander the Great, bread did openly sweat forth blood. And it is said that Apollonius Thyanaeus, when he was in the Council before Domitianus the Emperor suddenly vanished away, so that he was no more found. And infinite be the things that the Ethnics can bring for to confirm their service of Idols. Wherefore we wholly reject these miracles, which these men say do serve for establishing the superstition of transubstantiation. Neither are we to make great account of that which they bring in here as touching a miracle wrought by Gregory bishop of Rome.

For it is written in his life, that the bread of the Lord, or if thou wilt call it the Sacrament of the Eucharist, was turned into a finger of flesh. Which if it were done for the two causes which we ourselves allow, we are not much to stand upon it. Albeit that life of Gregory is not of any great credit. For if we shall believe Vincentius, it was described a hundredth years after his death by John a Deacon of Rome, and sent to a certain Emperor of Germany. But admit it were so: so long as our adversaries would thereof conclude, that through the token of a fleshy finger, the flesh of Christ doth corporally lie hidden under accidents, any man might by this kind of miracles conclude that under Sacramental forms, are contained ashes and coals, because the holy bread was once converted into these in the time of Cyprian, as himself writeth. I think also that the legerdemain of naughty fellows which they have often times used to the feigning of miracles is not unknown.

62. In another Argument they very much obtruded the dignity of the glorified body of Christ which after the resurrection is called spiritual. This we deny dot: yet do we give warning of that which Augustine hath in an epistle to Consentius, that such a body is not so spiritual, as it passeth into the nature of a spirit. For Paul also calleth the body a certain natural body:

which must not so be understood as though the body passeth into the nature of the soul. And again the same father in his 13rd Book De Civitate Dei, the 20th chapter, writeth: The soul sometime while it obeyeth the flesh, is called carnal, not that it passeth into the nature of flesh: so likewise the body is called spiritual, not because it gathereth the nature of a spirit, but because it will be wholly subject to fulfill the will thereof. And Jerome in an Epistle unto Pamachius, which was an Apology against John Bishop of Jerusalem (who attributed unto the souls of them that rise again an elementary or airy body that should not be subject either to feeling or feeding) contended by all means that Christ after his resurrection had a most true body, and that doubtless visible. And he preventeth an objection: if in such sort it were visible and one self-same body, why was it not known when he showed himself like a stranger? He answereth: because their eyes were holden that they might not know him: as if he should say: that which belongeth unto the nature of a body both was visible, and might be known, but there was an impediment in their eyes which were holden that they could not discern. Seeing therefore Christ after his resurrection had a true body bound to measure and place, there is no cause why we should deprive it of these properties, and cast it into the narrow corners of a small piece of bread, as though it were wholly contained therein how great so ever it be.

But if it be granted, that this also may be done by the power of God, can it straightway be concluded that it is done? The Argument as we showed before is weak. They also argued from the Greek Article, seeing Christ said, τοῦτο ἐστί τό σῶμα μου, This is my body: as though the Article can have strength to draw the proposition unto the proper sense, and permitteth not a figurative meaning. These men are deceived. For the Greek article hath not always that strength. And that appeareth plainly in the 8th chapter of the

Gospel of Luke, where Christ expounded that parable which he had uttered of the sower of the seed. And he saith, ὁ σπόρος ὁ λόγος τοῦ θεοῦ: that is,

The seed is the word of God: where thou seest that unto the word of God is added the Greek article. Yet did not this speech work that the word of God is bound, as though it should properly, really, and corporally be in that seed which is thrown into the earth, whereof the parable was proposed at the beginning. But it is said to be contained therein by the power and property of the signification: after which manner we also understand it in the words of the Lord: when he saith: This is my body. For we say, that it is not pronounced of the bread of the Lord's body, unless it be by signification.

Moreover there was an Argument taken of the promise of Christ, wherein he said: I will be with you until the end of the world. The which is no hindrance to our opinion. For we confess that Christ is present with us by his divine nature, by grace also and by many gifts, which his spirit bringeth unto us. Furthermore, if we desire his blood and flesh, we may also comprehend them in this Sacrament by faith, and may spiritually eat them, whereunto there afterward followeth a most true, yet a secrete and unspeakable conjunction of us with Christ when we be changed into him.

63. Then afterward it was proposed, that if the matter be on this wise, it will follow, that our Sacraments have no more than had the Sacraments of the old Law, seeing in them also Christ was signified: yea and perhaps, if we respect the nature of signs, the thing was more fully shadowed there than it is in our Sacraments, the which be altogether unbloody. But in the sacrifices of the old fathers, the slaughter was plainly seen, and the blood there shed did more plainly fashion out the Lord's death and place it before our eyes, than our bread and wine do. We answer that as touching the substance, our sacraments are the selfsame that the old fathers Sacraments

were, the selfsame thing is given in the one and the other, although the signs be diverse. And this did Paul testify in the first Epistle to the Corinthians.

Yet nevertheless our Sacraments have many prerogatives above the Sacraments of the old law. For they be firm and are no more to be changed until the end of the world: and they show not the thing that is to be done, but the thing that is done already. They be plainer, and belong to a more ample and greater number of people. And seeing they be plainer, they stir up a greater faith, and thereby followeth a greater measure of the spirit. In that they be more plain, it proceedeth not as the adversaries fain unto themselves of a more manifest outward prefiguration, but of the nature of the words which be there uttered. For our redemption performed, is with more excellent and plain words declared, than the common people in the old Law understood it. But and if that the thing be more plainly expressed by words, an outward representation is not to be looked for. Besides this they wondered how it can be that the Church was so long in an error, and that no small error, if it be so as we say. Which nevertheless they would not marvel at, if they considered what Christ said of his last coming: Thinkest thou that when the son of man cometh, he shall find faith upon the earth?

And it is showed, that so great the error shall be, that if it were possible the very elect should be seduced. I beseech you let these men tell us what manner of Church Christ did find at his first coming? Had not now the Scribes and Pharisees and also the Bishops corrupted and infected all things with their traditions? Yet are we not to think that the Church was utterly left in error. For there were always some good men who were displeased at these things, and which repugned against them. And as in the first coming, there were Simeon, Anna the widow, Joseph and Mary the virgin, Elizabeth, and John the Baptist, which were godly and of very good understanding:

and that the Church would not be said to be utterly forsaken, so likewise is it come to pass in these latter times. For the universal Church is not infected with these traditions of men. They say also that as touching the signification, this very thing may be done by bread and wine in banquets, and that therefore there is no cause that we should so greatly honor the Eucharist. But the Argument is most weak, seeing that in common meats, there is no institution of the Lord, no Sacrament, the words of the Lord not heard, neither is any promise there. Wherefore these things must not be compared together.

64. Lastly there was brought in an argument taken from the force and efficacy of the word of God, (which being spoken of Ambrose, Algerius citeth in the first Book the seventh Chapter.) It is called a working word, as when by the bread and wine which remain the self-same, are changed into another thing. As concerning the words of Ambrose, we willingly accept them. For we also affirm, that bread and wine remain the selfsame not in deed (as the transubstantiators say) as touching accidents or forms, so as there should be a change: (the substance being cast away) but we affirm, that they are preserved as touching their own proper natures, yet that the change is made only by a sacramental grace. And we derogate nothing from the strength of the Lord's words. Yet do we not think it meet to attribute unto them as to some enchantment, that after what manner soever, and in what place soever, they are by the priest pronounced over bread and wine with a mind to consecrate, they shall straightway obtain effect. For all wholly dependeth upon the institution of the Lord and the working of the holy spirit. We need not much to care for Algerius, for he was after the time of Berengarius, and of whose recantation he maketh mention in his writing.

Further of what judgment he was, it appeareth by a certain argument of his.

For in the 21st chapter of the first book, minding to prove, that as well the godly as the wicked do receive the body of Christ in the sacrament, (which in deed followeth upon Transubstantiation) Hearken to a similitude (saith he) of the outward word, that is to say, of the speech that is done by the found. Unto whom soever such a speech cometh, it containeth and hath with it his own proper sense. But if it come to men of understanding, they hear with profit, for they perceive those things which he spoken: and if doubtless it shall come to the unlearned and ignorant, it no less carrieth the proper sense with it, but yet without profit to the hearer, because he understandeth it not. This man presumeth in his argument, that words carry a sense with them, yet doeth he not consider, that the sense is not included or foulded (as they say) really in the sound or form of speech of the letters, but by a signification only. The same if it be said unto him, as concerning bread and wine in the Sacraments, because they offer the body of Christ by signification, he shall be confuted by his own similitude. Whereby also it is proved, that the wicked do not receive the body of the Lord, like as the rude and ignorant, who, when they hear the Greek and Latin words, understand not the meaning thereof. Wherefore no man could have said more for us.

The same Author affirmeth in the first Chapter of the second Book, that the accidents in the Sacrament do not in very deed admit corruption or horiness, but that it only seemeth so unto us: which the Schoolmen themselves would not have said. For what else is this, than to appoint a perpetual illusion of the sense? So we are not to pass much upon him, although he endeavor by all means to fortify his Transubstantiation.

65. Now have we made trial of the first opinion and that largely: for that being removed, very many superstitions are taken away. Of the other two we will not so largely dispute, because whether of the two is appointed, we

do not greatly pass, so it be soundly understood. Now we will only speak of them, to the end we may see what we shall judge in both to be avoided and what to be received. Wherefore some there have been, which retaining the substance of bread and wine, and also the body and blood of the Lord, have together with these signs yet remaining in their own nature, joined by a most firm knot, the body and blood of the Lord, yet not so, as I think, that of them being joined together, should be made one substance: nevertheless they have said, that the body and blood of Christ is in the bread and wine, really, (as they speak) corporally, and naturally: but others have joined them together by signification only. The first opinion is attributed unto Luther, the other unto Zwingli. Howbeit I have heard men of credit say, that Luther judged not so grossly of this matter: and that Zwingli also believed not so slenderly of the sacraments. And they say that Luther inclined unto hyperbolical speeches, such as after a sort exceed the truth, because he thought that Zwingli and others would make the sacraments to be bare and vain signs: whereas Zwingli meant no such matter. But he also feared, least

Luther should affirm those things which both should derogate from the truth of the human nature, and also include the body of Christ in bread, whereupon a greater superstition should yet be nourished, and therefore he thought meet to report somewhat slenderly of this Sacrament: and thus there was stirred up a contention more than was meet, and was a cause of great mischief. Whereas yet in very deed the contention was rather about words than about the matter. Wherefore we will remove the handling of these two opinions from the persons: for we affirm not, that either Zwingli or Luther were of that mind, but only we will examine the opinions, such as are carried about.

66. That those men which so grossly join the body of Christ with the signs, may the better declare themselves, they are wont to bring two similitudes. The first is, if thou have a pot full of wine, and shalt pronounce,

This is wine, thou liest not at all, seeing thou showest the wine itself contained in the Cup. In like manner shall it be if thou take a hot burning

Iron, and showing the fire, sayest, This is fire, therein thou speakest neither falsely nor absurdly: so (say they) must be understood that saying of the Lord, This is my body: and they manifestly admit the figure Synecdoche.

For seeing they show a subject compounded, it is no true proposition unless it be as touching the one part of the thing showed. Yet must it be known that these similitudes are not taken by them, as though they thought that every manner of way they agree with the matter proposed: because they contend that the body of Christ is present not locally, but only definitively, which then they understand to be when anything is not circumscribed with the measure of place, but yet is said to be there, because his nature or essence is then appointed to that place, or worketh therein. But this agreeth not with wine being in a cup: for that hath his place there wherein it is limited.

Further these men would not say that the body of Christ is so in bread as it shall take name of the qualities or accidents thereof. For it cannot truly be named white, round, baked or sodden: which nevertheless we perceive to happen unto fire mixed with burning Iron. For it so followeth the fashion of the Iron, the length, the breadth, and the depth thereof, as it may be named by the shapes and forms of the same. Whereby it plainly appeareth, that this similitude in this opinion, is not understood by these men, as touching all the parts, but only that a true and real conjunction of the sacrament and the thing may be showed, which being granted, it followeth, that as well the wicked as the godly, do receive the body of Christ. First (forsooth) that this

conjunction is real, they think it is sufficiently proved by the words of the Lord. But the other, namely that the body of Christ is given even unto the wicked, they see it doeth necessarily follow. But we have already showed the contrary, to wit, that these words of Christ drive us not necessarily unto this sense, and by effectual reasons it hath been proved that the wicked receive only the outward elements.

67. These men also are wont to argue, that if the words of the scripture be understood figuratively, it may then easily be that many precepts should be overthrown. For Abraham might have said of circumcision when it was commanded: It is a figurative speech, and I shall fulfill this commandment, if I circumcise my heart, and cut off the lusts and infections of the flesh.

Also when the choice of meats was commanded, the Israelites might have said, that the execution of that commandment might consist in the moral observation, if they did not commit those sins which were signified by those unclean beasts: and by that means neither circumcision nor choice of meats should have taken place. Howbeit it may plainly be proved that this is a weak argument, because it is perceived by the letter itself and by the text that the same is no figurative speech. As touching Circumcision, it is appointed to be the 8th day after the childes birth, and it is added, that the covenant of the Lord was to be borne in the flesh itself. By which words it appeareth, that true Circumcision was commanded. And in the choice of meats the conditions of the living creatures clean and unclean are so expressly described and a purifying appointed as touching the offenders, that no place of doubting is left. We have also a rule of Augustine De

Doctrina Christiana, wherein he showeth, that unless an ill act be commanded, or some good work prohibited, the speech is to be taken without a figure: the which rule if it be applied to the choice of meats and

unto circumcision, he showeth, that the words of God must be absolutely understood. They say moreover, that in the Prophets and histories, figures are easily admitted, because in these the holy Ghost dealeth after the manner of men, and applieth himself to their familiar speeches, that he may the more and the more earnestly express those things which are to be spoken, but in doctrine and precepts we must not so judge: All things, (say they) must be taken simply, which opinion of theirs is not firm or universal.

For as touching precepts, the Lord saith: Beware of the Leaven of the Pharisees, where he manifestly useth a figure, and that such a figure, as the Apostles in that place understood him amiss. Moreover in the 7th of Matthew he commanded that they should beware of false Prophets, for they will come unto you (saith he) in sheep's clothing, but inwardly they be ravening wolves. In which commandment who perceiveth not a figurative speech? And in teaching of doctrine there is no doubt, but figures and tropes are used. Paul saith in the New Testament: The rock was Christ: We be one bread. And of God it is written, that he is a consuming fire.

68. Afterward they affirm that the body of Christ may be everywhere, and that by the words of Christ to Nicodemus in the 3rd chapter of John where it is said: No man ascendeth into heaven, but he that came down from heaven, even the son of man which is in heaven. Behold say they the son of man, that is Christ, spake unto them as touching his human nature, and was also in heaven, because the human nature cannot be plucked away from the divine: Therefore what he affirmeth of one, must also be spoken of the other. But it is answered that we will not divide these two natures one from another: yet it followeth not therefore that that which appertaineth to the one should be given unto the other. Indeed we grant that the divinity of Christ is everywhere, but we will not attribute the same unto his body and

humanity. And this did Augustine unto Dardanus most manifestly teach.

And that which is brought out of the third Chapter of John, the same Augustine interpreteth, that it must be understood, that the son of man was in heaven as touching his divine nature. Neither did Chrysostom otherwise judge, when he expoundeth this place. For he affirmeth, that to be in heaven was not attributed unto the son of man but in respect of his divine nature.

But how feeble an argument this is: These two natures are joined together, therefore that which is granted to the one, must be attributed also to the other. This may be showed by the like: The body of the son and the light thereof, have between them a natural and excellent conjunction: yet the light extendeth not itself to every place, whereunto the body doeth really attain. In like manner the body, our eyes and sight, are very much joined one with another, and yet doth our sight attain to many things unto which the eye of the body extendeth not. Afterward they argue that unto the body of Christ, many things must be granted besides the common course and conditions of other bodies: and that for two causes: partly because it is glorified, and partly because it hath the word joined with it. We confess that many things are to be given, but, to be everywhere, this cannot be fit for it, the nature of man's body preserved. And if we should grant this unto it, it were not to bring renown but ruin thereunto, for then it should be extruded from his own nature. Moreover it doeth not much further this matter, because although we should grant that the body of Christ hath this in it, that it can be in many places, yet would it not thereof follow that God would deal so in this sacrament.

69. Moreover they endeavor to prove this corporal presence, by the similitude of a teacher. Who seeing he can extend his words unto many hearers, in them he communicateth unto the hearers the concept of his

mind, so as all they understand him fully alike: So saith he doth God deal in the words which be uttered at the Sacrament. He fouldeth his body in them, that by them he may be showed in all these signs, and may be communicated unto all that be receivers. Wherefore that which is granted unto a master, and that an earthly master, why shall it not be granted unto

Christ? But the comparison is far wide, and as we said before, words do not discover things or the concept of the mind, unless it be by way of signification. And that is to no purpose which afterward they go about to prove that the body of Christ is everywhere, out of the first chapter of the Epistle to the Ephesians (where it is said: Christ is given to be the head of the body of the Church: which (as it is written in the Greek) is the fullness of him that filleth all in all things) For the Apostle meaneth not that the body of Christ filleth all things and is everywhere as these men infer. But because the signification of that verb or participle πληρουμένου fulfilling, is doubtful, (for it may be taken both actively and passively, seeing it is a verb of the mean voice) if thou understand it passively according to the Greek expositions, the sense shall be this: That Christ the head of the Church is filled as touching all things in all his members, not that he is accomplished in himself. For he is both sufficiently perfect and happy. Howbeit, that must be understood in respect of the body and members. For as to be the head is given unto him, so likewise the Church is understood to be the fullness of Christ: namely for that it filleth and maketh perfect his mystical body. But if the signification thereof be active, then shall it be said that Christ is the head, because he himself perfecteth all the gifts and virtues in all his members. Neither is the sense that he, as he is man, is everywhere. And it is thought that this may be proved by the Scriptures. For Christ openly confesseth that Lazarus was dead when he was not there. But if he will

contend, that he had not a glorified body, it maketh not much to the matter, because he had nevertheless the godhead joined with it. But to take away the doubt, the Angel now after the resurrection said unto the women: He is risen, he is not here. And again: He shall go before you into Galilee. And again, He was taken away from their eyes as he ascended into heaven.

Wherefore he filleth not all things nor is everywhere.

70. They are wont also to cite a place in the 4th chapter to the Ephesians:

He that descended is the very same that ascended even above all heavens, that he might fill all things. Which place notwithstanding proveth nothing, and is expounded two manner of ways. First that to fill all things is referred unto that which is prophesied and written of Christ. Wherefore a little before he cited the scripture: He ascended on high, he led captivity captive and gave gifts unto men. And if thou wilt refer it unto places, thou must understand this of the kinds of places, not of each one place particularly, according to that sentence, The Lord would have all men to be saved. So shall we say that Christ sometime occupied the middle places, sometime the higher places, and otherwhile the lower places, as in the sepulcher. The Transubstantiators say, that this belonged not unto them, because they say not that the body of Christ is everywhere, but only where the Sacrament is: yea rather it is against them. For if (as they judge) it be not repugnant to the body of Christ, to be at one time and together in twenty or fifty places, it will not be repugnant to be in an hundredth or in a thousand, and finally in all places: and so will they make the body of Christ to be infinite, neither is there any cause why thou shouldst accuse the form of the Argument. For the selfsame did Jerome use against John Bishop of Jerusalem, where he would prove that our bodies after resurrection, can remain without meat. For Elias

(saith he) and Moses by the power of God could remain without meat for

the space of 40 days, therefore might man for more days also be sustained by the power of God. And if for longer time, it followeth that for evermore if it be the will of God. But to return to those men, they, because they see, that upon so near a conjunction it followeth, that the Sacrament may be adored (for if the Lord be corporally and really contained therein, who will not worship him?) they teach that it is free for thee to do it or not do it. For they say: although he be there, yet is he not there to the end he should be worshipped. If thou receive him and eat him, it is enough: if also thou worship him, thou errest not. But we rather judge, that in worshipping we should not convert our mind unto the signs. But if any man while the rite of the Sacrament is exercised, being well instructed in the mystery shall turn his mind to the worshipping of Christ reigning in heaven, he doth rightly, and his bounden duty to worship Christ, which declareth himself unto him: neither is idolatry committed therein. And this Paul taught in the first

Epistle to the Corinthians, when he saith: If a man enter into your congregation, if he be unlearned and a plain man, and hear you all speak together in tongues, doubtless he will say: They be mad, neither shall he be edified: but if he shall hear you prophesy, and shall perceive that the secretes of his heart be opened, then will he fall down upon his face and worship God. He will not worship men in such wise prophesying, but seeing the Lord is there revealed unto him, he will turn himself to the worshipping of God.

71. The reasons in brief, for the which their gross judgment seemeth not to be true, are these, to wit, that this real and corporal presence bringeth therewith no utility, which we receive not as well by the spiritual presence.

For in the 6th of John, the Lord promised to them that eat him, eternal life: further that he would dwell in them and they in him: over and besides these

things what is required? Moreover it might not be granted that we and the fathers of the old law had the selfsame Sacraments: because it was not possible that the old fathers could have obtained this real presence, for that the son of God had not as yet taken upon him human flesh. Further it would follow, that both the godly and the wicked do eat the body of Christ. Again, besides that spiritual eating which we have in the 6th of John, they bring in another carnal and corporal eating, which cannot be allowed, seeing this eating and that be all one, saving that in the latter are added signs, for the more confirmation of the thing. Finally it followeth, that when they attribute so much unto words, they are in the same difficulty wherein the Transubstantiators be when they say, This is my body. For they cannot express their meaning, that they may speak plainly without contradiction, what they would declare, and how the words while they be uttered may be true, if they admit not a figure. They spread abroad the body of Christ, that it may be together in many places, and everywhere. Neither is it of force if they say, Not locally, because although he be there, as Angels are said to be in a place, that is not fit for the creature as it is proved before by Didimus,

Basel, Augustine unto Dardanus, and by Cyril: which places, thou shalt find at the end of the first disputation against Tresham: The words of the scripture drive us not to so gross and corporal a presence: and faith is of the word of God, wherefore faith ought not to embrace the same.

72. Besides this, the fathers teach otherwise, for what manner of body is in the Eucharist, Cyprian in his Sermon of the Lord's supper showeth, when he saith: Who unto this day createth, sanctifieth and blesseth his most true and holy body, and divideth it unto the godly receivers. The proper body of Christ is not created or sanctified of men, neither yet is it divided.

Chrysostom upon Matthew the 5th chapter in the 11th Homily in the

unfinished work: If therefore it be so dangerous to transfer unto private uses these vessels sanctified wherein is not contained the true body of Christ, but a mystery of his body, &c. And how we must ascend into heaven when we communicate, if we would enjoy the body of Christ, the same father declareth upon the first Epistle to the Corinthians the 10th chapter, Homily

24. He commandeth us that with great concord and charity we come unto him, and being made Eagles in this life, we should fly unto the very heaven or rather above heaven. For where (saith he) the dead carcass is, there also the Eagles be. The carcass is the body of the Lord by reason of his death.

For unless that he had fallen, we had not risen again. And he calleth us Eagles, to show that he which cometh unto this body must mount on high, and must have no community with the earth, and must not lay hold upon, or be drawn unto inferior things, but always fly aloft and look into the son of righteousness, and have a most ready eye of the mind: for this is a table of Eagles and not of Jays. Again the same father upon Matthew the 26th chapter, Homily 83. They were about to journey from Egypt into Palestine, and therefore they did wear the habit of a traveler: thou from the earth must ascend into heaven. And in the 3rd book De Sacerdotio: Doest thou think to dwell among mortal men, and to stay and be in the earth? And dost thou not rather think that thou shalt forthwith be translated into heaven? And in casting away all cogitation of the flesh, doest thou not with a single heart and pure mind consider those things that be in heaven?

73. Augustine unto Boniface hath all these things after the same order and sense. The time of Easter being at hand, he saith: As this or the next day save one Christ died, and on the Sunday: This day Christ rose again.

Baptism is faith: and the Sacrament of the body of Christ is the body of Christ. And we see that in all the sayings which we have reckoned, that

which is absent, is really pronounced of that which is present. The same Father upon the 54th Psalm: The head was in heaven: and he said, Why doest thou persecute me? We are with him in heaven by hope, he is with us in the earth by love. And in the 119th Epistle to Januarius: Wherefore to that persecutor whom with his voice he slew, and translating him into his body after a sort hath eaten, he sounded from heaven: Saul, Saul, why persecutest thou me? Upon John the 30th Treatise, and we have it in the Title de

Consecratione distinction the 2nd, yet the first in deed, The Lord is above, but here also is the truth of the Lord: For the Lord's body wherein he rose again, ought to be in one place: his truth is everywhere spread. Also upon John the 50th Treatise: For according to his Majesty, according to his providence, according to this unspeakable and invisible grace is fulfilled that which was spoken by him: Behold I will be with you until the end of the world. But according to the flesh which the word took upon it, according to that which was born of the Virgin, according to that which was taken hold of by the Jews, which was fastened to the tree, which was taken down from the cross, which was wrapped in clothes, which was buried in the sepulcher, which was made manifest in the resurrection, Ye shall not always have me with you. Wherefore after he had been conversant as touching his bodily presence forty days with his Disciples, they leading him forth, while they saw him, but not followed him, he ascended into heaven, and is not here: for there he sitteth at the right hand of his Father, and is here: for he departed not with the presence of his Majesty: we have Christ always. As touching the presence of the flesh, it was rightly said unto the Disciples: Me ye shall not have always. For the Church had him but a few days as touching the presence of the flesh. Now it holdeth him by faith, it seeth him not with the eyes. And the same Father upon the Epistle of John

at the end: Wherefore our Lord Jesus Christ did for this cause ascend into heaven on the forty day, he in this respect commended his body, because it was to be left on the earth in his members, for that he saw that many would honor him for that he ascended into heaven, and perceived that their honoring is unprofitable, if they tread down his members upon the earth.

And that none might be deceived, nor when he should worship the head in heaven, should oppress the feet upon the earth, he told them, where his members should be. For when he was about to ascend, he spake the last words, after these words he spake no more upon the earth. The head being about to ascend into heaven, commended his members upon the earth, and so departed. Thou shalt not now find Christ to speak upon the earth. Thou findest him to speak, howbeit in heaven, and out of heaven itself.

Wherefore? Because the members were overtrodden upon the earth. For unto Paul the persecutor he said, Saul, Saul, why persecutest thou me? I ascended into heaven, but I lie still upon the earth. Here I sit at the right hand of the father, there I still hunger, thirst, and am a stranger. After what sort then commended he his body upon the earth being about to ascend?

When his disciples had demanded of him: Lord, if thou wilt at this time be presented, when wilt thou restore the kingdom of Israel? He answered upon his departure, It is not for you to know the time, which the father hath laid up in his own power: but ye shall receive the power of the holy spirit coming upon you, ye shall be witnesses unto me in Jerusalem. Behold in what respect he spreadeth out his body: behold, when he will not be trodden upon, ye shall be my witnesses in Jerusalem, and over all Jury and Samaria, and unto the ends of the earth. Behold I lie which do ascend: For I ascend because I am the head: my body yet still lieth. In what sort doth it lie? Over the whole earth.

74. Unto Augustine, Cyrillus doth consent, who saith upon John the 6th book and 14th Chapter: Here must we note, that although he took from hence the presence of his body, even as he promised that he would be away from his disciples, yet in the majesty of his Godhead he is always present.

Behold I am with you always even until the end of the world. And the same father in the 9th book upon John the 21st chapter: And Christ said that he would be with his disciples a little while, not because he would utterly depart from them, for he is with us always even until the end of the world, but because he would not live together with them as he did before. For the time was now at hand, that he should go even into heaven unto the father:

And the faithful ought to believe, that although he be absent from us, in body, yet that we and all things are governed by his power, and that he is always present with all men which love him. Therefore he said: Verily verily I say unto you, that wheresoever two or three be gathered in my name, there am I in the midst of them. For even as when he was conversant upon the earth as man, he then also filled the heavens, and left not the fellowship of the Angels: after the same manner now he being in the heavens filleth not the earth with his flesh, and yet is with them that love him. And it must be observed that although he should be absent only according to the flesh (for he is always present by the power of the Godhead, as we have said) yet he said he would be a little while with his disciples, manifestly naming himself, that none should be so hardy as divide

Christ into two sons. Among these comes Vigilius, which in the 1st book against Eutyches writeth: The son of God as concerning his humanity departed from us: as concerning his Godhead he saith unto us: Behold I am with you unto the end of the world. And straightway after: Because whom he left and from whom he departed with his humanity, he neither left nor

forsook them with his divinity. For according to the form of a servant, which he took from us into heaven, he is absent from us: according to the form of God wherewith he departeth not from us, he is present with us upon the earth: yet both present and absent he is one and the self-same to us. Also in the 4th book: If of the word and the flesh the nature be all one, how is it, that seeing the word is everywhere, the flesh also is not found everywhere?

For when he was in the earth, he was not also in heaven, and now because he is in heaven, verily he is not upon the earth. And it importeth not much, that we should expect Christ to come out of heaven as touching the flesh itself, whom we believe to be with us upon the earth as concerning the word. Therefore as you will have it, either the word is contained in a place with his flesh, or the flesh with the word is everywhere: because one nature doth not receive a thing contrary or diverse in itself: But it is a thing diverse and far unlike, To be limited in a place, and to be everywhere. Forasmuch then as the word is everywhere, but the flesh thereof is not everywhere, it appeareth that one and the selfsame Christ is of both natures: That both he is everywhere according to his divine nature, and that according to the nature of his humanity he is contained in a place: that he is created, and that he hath no beginning: that he is subject unto death, and that he cannot die.

And straightway he addeth: This is the Catholic faith and confession, which the Apostles have taught, the Martyrs have confirmed, and the faithful do to this day keep.

75. Moreover Fulgentius unto Trasimundus the King, the 2nd book: One and the self-same man, local of a man, which is God immensible of the father, one and the selfsame, according to human substance, absent out of heaven when he was in earth, and forsaking the earth when he ascended into heaven: but as touching the divine and immensible substance, neither

leaving heaven when he descended out of heaven, neither forsaking the earth when he ascended into heaven. And this appeareth certainly by the assured word of the Lord himself: who to show that his humanity was local, said unto his disciples, I ascend unto your father and my father, unto my

God and to your God. Of Lazarus also, when he had said: Lazarus is dead, he added saying, I am glad because of you that ye may believe because I was not there. He showed undoubtedly the infinite greatness of his divinity unto his Apostles, saying: Behold I am with you even to the end of the world. How ascendeth he into heaven, but for that he is in a place as very man? Or how is he present with his faithful, saving because he is one immensible and very God? The same father in the 3rd book: The very same and inseparable Christ, as touching his flesh only, rose out of the sepulcher.

The very same and inseparable Christ, according to the whole man which he received, forsaking the earth locally, ascended into heaven, and sitteth at the right hand of God. According to the selfsame man, he shall come to judge the quick and the dead, and to crown the faithful and godly. Lastly

Bernard upon the Canticles the 33rd Sermon: I also have the word, but in the flesh, and before me is set the truth, howbeit in a Sacrament. The Angel is fattened, but yet with the fatness of Corn, and is now filled with grain. In the meantime it behooveth me to be content, with the bark of the Sacrament, with the bran of the flesh, with the chaff of the letter, with the covering of faith. And these things be such as being tasted bring death, if they have not received some seasoning of the first fruits of the spirit. Death is altogether to me in the pot, unless it should be sweetened by the little meal of the Prophet. But certainly in how great abundance soever these things do wax fat, the book of the Sacrament and the fat of the wheat, faith and hope, memory and presence, eternity and time, the visage and a glass,

the Image of God and the form of a servant, are not received with like pleasantness. Verily in all these things, faith unto me is rich and the understanding poor. And is the savor of faith and understanding all one, when as this tendeth unto merit, and that unto reward? Thou seest that there is as much difference between the meats, as between the places. And even as the heavens are exalted from the earth, so are the inhabitants therein.

Here thou plainly seest that Bernard maketh an Antithesis or contrary comparison between the remembrance and presence of a thing, and speaketh of many other things which serve much to that we have in hand.

But let us return unto the adversaries: they have fathers to oppose against us. They have Irenaeus who saith that the Eucharist consisteth of two things: the one earthly, and the other heavenly, the which also Gelasius supposeth. Howbeit these things conclude not unless thou shalt understand the whole Sacrament, so that thou make it one thing consisting of the sign and the thing signified, then we grant that it standeth of two parts. But if afterward thou wouldest appoint so great a conjunction between the bread and the body of Christ as is between the divine and human natures in Christ, that should in no wise be granted, because it were necessary that of bread and of the body of Christ, should be made one substance, that is one subject, so as they might never be sundered one from another, the which is most absurd. Out of the other fathers they object in a manner the very same which the Transubstantiators cited before.

76. Now let us see, what they which embrace the third opinion say against these men. First they admit not that same scattering of the body of Christ, so as it can be everywhere, because it is against the property of man's nature. And Augustine unto Dardanus doth most plainly write otherwise.

Furthermore they contend that the eating set forth in the 6th of John and this

last eating is altogether one, saving that in this are added signs. And that they prove by this Argument, that John when he made mention of his eating at the end of the Gospel, spake not of the institution of the Sacrament as do the other Evangelists: For that he had sufficiently taught before. And the Sum of doctrine which they omitted, John in the 6th chapter fulfilled. And there is not therefore any cause (say they) why any man should say, that the communion is therefore superfluous, because in often communicating we celebrate the memory of the Lord: and thanks giving, and the mind is stirred up with a likeness of those things which be represented. Neither are they dumb, but speaking signs which be there. Further a certain privy token is there, whereby the Christians do make themselves to be joined one with another, and with Christ. Moreover they profess their faith as touching the body of Christ nailed upon the Cross, and his blood shed for our salvation.

For it is not enough to believe with the heart, but confession also must be with the mouth: and not only with the mouth, but with outward actions.

Neither do they admit it (as these men say) that the wicked also do receive the body of Christ. For sense and reason attain not unto it. Wherefore it remaineth that he be received by faith, whereof they being destitute, can have nothing but the signs. And Paul writeth: He that shall eat the bread unworthily, and saith not: He that eateth the body unworthily.

77. Furthermore they wonder at them which follow the contrary opinion, that unto that corporal eating of Christ they attribute remission of sins: for so much as this is to admit Opus operatum, that is merit, in respect of the very act of working. Neither is remission of sins had otherwise than by faith. Afterward they stick unto the saying of Paul, when the Lord commandeth this to be done in the remembrance of him, and that his death should be showed: which words seem unto them to declare the absence of

the body of Christ. But I have elsewhere showed, that this argument is not very firm, unless they mean as touching the body of Christ really and corporally and naturally to be present. Otherwise when it is received by faith, it is not understood to be altogether absent, although he remain in heaven as touching his nature and substance. For he is spiritually eaten, and is truly joined with us. Moreover they cite the fathers, which do plainly pronounce, that the type, the sign and the figure here is the body of Christ.

And they bring in two similitudes. One is of a friend, whose friend being absent bodily, is said to be present when he thinketh of him. The other they appoint to be of looking-glasses which be about one, and the selfsame man, whose face and countenance is multiplied throughout all the glasses, although he be not moved out of his place. Similitudes I grant these be, but yet over could to agree with this mystery. For a friend being comprehended in the cogitation, and conversant in the mind, changeth not him that thinketh upon him: he nourisheth not his mind, neither yet doth he restore his flesh whereby it might be capable of the resurrection. And this similitude of the glasses, is a very slender shadow, neither must it be compared to that conjunction which we have with Christ. For the presence that we confess of the spirit of Christ hath the power of the holy Ghost joined therewith, which most nearly coupleth us unto him. But yet the foresaid similitudes are not utterly to be refused seeing they may after a sort lead us to the truth of the matter, so that they make not the things equal. For they show how this receiving may be with faith and with the mind. But they have made mention of two conjunctions with Christ: One is, that by faith we apprehend his body was nailed to the cross, and his blood shed for our salvation. Another is, that the son of God himself took our very nature upon him. And so is there a natural conjunction between us and Christ, whereof

there is mention in the 2nd chapter to the Hebrews. But there is a certain third conjunction, which we enter into with Christ in eating of him spiritually, whereof they do not many times speak, although they pass it not over altogether in silence. But as touching that, we will entreat a little after.

Now if these men be demanded, whether Christ be present at the supper of the Lord, they answer that he is present. Howbeit this they speak by the figure Synecdoche, because the one part of Christ that is his Godhead, is truly present. Otherwise in expounding the sentence of the Lord: This is my body, they use the figure Metonymia, to wit, the name of the sign for the thing signified. And they grant that Christ himself after that sort is present: as the Son which keepeth itself within his own circle, and yet nevertheless is said to be present with the world, and to govern the same with his motion and light. But how thoroughly faith may make a thing to be present, they think that they declared out of the Epistle to the Galatians, where Paul said that Christ was described before their eyes and crucified among them.

78. Now remaineth that we show our judgment among these opinions, what must be avoided, and what must be received. Not that I am minded to reprove either Luther or Zwingli being singular and very excellent men. For as touching Zwingli, I certainly know, that in his books he affirmeth the signs in this sacrament, not to be vain or frustrate signs, as we before declared. And it hath also been reported unto me, by all them which have had conference with Luther, that he in very deed, between the body of Christ and the signs, put no other but a sacramental conjunction. But how the contention is grown and set on fire between them, it is no time now to rehearse. Now then setting these men aside, which are never sufficiently praised, we will entreat of the opinions, as they are set down and urged on both parts. Wherefore in the first opinion, I allow not that gross knitting

together of the body of Christ with bread, so as it should be naturally, corporally, and really comprehended therein. For the holy Scripture driveth us not thus to affirm. And to multiply and increase so many miracles without the testimony thereof, is not to deal like a divine. And further such a presence is not necessary, and is of no moment to our salvation. Again that the wicked receive the body of Christ I allow not. For whatsoever the Lord instituted, that did he that it might be for our health. But a fleshly and corporal eating helpeth not the salvation of the wicked. Therefore Christ appointed no such eating. And whatsoever the wicked do eat corporally, it ought not to be said, that they eat the body of Christ, unless unto the sign and seal thou wilt attribute the name of the thing. Further we will not grant that the body of Christ is everywhere, or that it is spread over all or many places, because this is against the human nature. Neither must we in like manner judge that there is a difference between the spiritual eating which is in the 6th chapter of John, and that which the Lord instituted in the last supper, saving unto that doctrine and promise which he had first taught, he added a Seal. That also which they speak doubtfully of adoration, must not be admitted. For we taught before and that plainly and manifestly what we must judge of that matter. And thus much as concerning this opinion. From the which I think good, that those things be taken away which I have now recited.

79. And in the other it liketh me not, that they seldom make mention of a sacramental changing of the bread and wine, which nevertheless is no light matter. And the Fathers, wheresoever they seem to favor transubstantiation, have a respect unto the same. And the holy Scriptures contemned it not. For Paul even in the very handling of the Sacrament, nameth not simply, The Cup: but The Cup of the Lord. Further we see in the Old Testament that

things which were offered, are not only called holy, but holy of holy, that is in the Hebrew phrase, most holy. Wherefore there is no cause why they should say that this change is of light importance, seeing it is of great moment. But if they pretend that they do this, because we should not cleave over much to signs: we answer, that a remedy may easily be had for this evil through the doctrine whereby men are taught, that Christ while we communicate, is joined unto us with an excellent conjunction, as he that dwelleth in us and we in him: who also in the next degree is joined with words, and that by signification: Thirdly also he is coupled by signs and also by signification: which conjunction notwithstanding is less than that which belongeth unto words. Yea and of the former, to wit, the conjunction by the words, the signs do take their sacramental signification. If these things be rightly taught, there will be no danger. I grant that the writers of this opinion have sometimes entreated of this sacramental changing, yet but seldom.

80. Furthermore they have not always applied thereunto that efficacy which is due unto it: for these are not made common signs, but such as may mightily and effectually stir up the mind. They will say, that this will be to attribute overmuch to the elements of this world. We answer that these things are not attributed unto those elements for themselves sake, but because of the institution of the Lord, the power of the holy Ghost and plainness of the words. If they shall demand: how may I know that the holy

Ghost worketh here? It may be easily answered, because it is already ordained that this is a spiritual eating. But how shall we eat spiritually without the holy Ghost? As touching the institution of the Lord, there is no doubt: and of the efficacy of the word, the scriptures speak everywhere.

Paul saith, That the Gospel is the power of God unto salvation: namely that

God will declare his power by this instrument: and what else is the Eucharist, then the Gospel or visible word? Also Paul saith, That faith is by hearing, and hearing by the word of God: not that the word maketh us to believe, for it is the spirit by whom we believe: but he useth the instrument of words and also of sacraments which be the sensible words of God. For who knoweth not that the creatures are sanctified by the word of God as it is in the Epistle to Timothy? Which also must be rightly understood. For it is the holy Ghost which in very deed doth sanctify. Howbeit he doeth this by the instrument both of the word and sacraments. Wherefore this changing must not be taken from bread and wine, whereby they are made effectual signs of the body and blood of Christ: that is, by the which the spirit of the Lord worketh mightily and not meanly in us, so that we be endued with faith and godliness. For we speak not here of an efficacy which may bind our salvation to the things of this world. Neither let any man here cry out that seeing this receiving is had by faith, what shall the communicants gain; because if they be faithful, they have Christ already joined unto them? It may be easily answered: In deed he is joined unto them, but he is every day more nearly joined unto us, and while we communicate he is more and more united unto us. Moreover this cometh to pass, that we should satisfy the commandment of the Lord, who commanded that we should eat and drink this Sacrament. Otherwise thou wilt say the very selfsame of Baptism.

For when as a man believeth he is straightway justified, and hath remission of sins, and yet is he not in vain baptized. But if so be thou wilt demand whether this efficacy of the Eucharist is towards all men alike, I answer,

No: but according to the state and measure of the faith of the communicants. Even as Origen said upon the 15th chapter of Matthew: namely, that the matter of this Sacrament profiteth not but by the word and

by obsecration, it may help our minds, according to the quantity and proportion of faith.

81. Another thing there is besides that I would often put these men in remembrance of, that we, by the Communion are incorporated unto Christ.

Which word is not new, but is in Paul to the Ephesians, who saith that the Gentiles are made Coheirs and of the same body, which in Greek is called σύσσωμα. For although we affirm that the apprehension or holding fast of the body of Christ is done by faith, yet upon this fast holding followeth an effect, even a true conjunction with Christ, not a feigned or imagined: the which first belongeth unto the soul, secondly it redoundeth to the body. And the same in the holy scriptures is commended to us by Paul under a metaphor of the head and body, when he calleth us members of one and the selfsame body under Christ the head; and under the state of Marriage, wherein two are made one flesh. The which, that Cyril might express, he brought in a similitude of molten wax, which is mingled with other wax, and so of two is made one: Thus would he have us to be joined with Christ.

And to this purpose specially, make the words unto the Ephesians, wherein we are said to be flesh of his flesh, and bone of his bones: which words if thou look upon at the first view will appear that it ought otherwise to be said: to wit that the son of God is of our flesh, and of our bones, because he assumed flesh of mankind. Howbeit Paul understood not, mere flesh, but flesh clean from sin, capable of resurrection and immortality. The which seeing the faithful have not of themselves, neither drew it from Adam, they claim it unto them by Christ, because they be incorporated unto him by the sacraments and by faith. Wherefore there happeneth a certain entrance of Christ, into us, and a spiritual touching: the which Paul weighed, when he said unto the Galatians, But now it is not I that live, but Christ liveth in me.

Neither is there any need in these respects to draw Christ out of heaven or to disperse his body into infinite places, forsomuch as all this that we teach is spiritual: and yet notwithstanding no feigned thing: for imagined sights,

Idols, or feigned things do not nourish the mind, as here we be certain that it is done. For we have said, and we confirm it, that these signs do both signify, and offer, and most truly exhibit the body of Christ, although spiritually, that is, to be eaten with the mind, not with the mouth of the body. But if thou shalt demand, after what manner the Fathers of the old

Law in their Sacraments could have the same that we have: it is easy to be answered, seeing we have affirmed that in this Sacrament the thing is used spiritually, not corporally. And in the Apocalypse we read, That the Lamb was slain from the beginning of the world. They waited for things to come, we celebrate the memory of them already done. Lastly we have showed that great heed must be taken least that which we speak of spiritual eating be understood as though it destroyed the truth of his presence. For Augustine said upon the 54th Psalm, that the body of the Lord, is in a certain place in heaven, but that the truth of the Lord's body is everywhere. For wheresoever the faithful be, they apprehend that Christ had a true body given for us, and so they do eat him by faith.

82. Wherefore I have now spoken in this sacramental matter that which in my judgment ought to be affirmed, being according to the Scriptures, which I would the godly reader would well consider and take in good part. And God of his goodness grant that at the length the Church of Christ may obtain both truth and quietness as touching this sacrament. Which two things I therefore wish because hitherto I see that the Eucharist whereof we entreat hath been so overwhelmed, buried and defaced with lies, crafty devises and superstitions, as it might rather be judged any other thing than

that which the Lord instituted in the supper. The which least it should easily be cleansed, the Devil which is the most grievous enemy of all peace and truth, hath sown so many opinions, contentions, disagreements, heresies, and controversies, (saving that they be without blood) that scarcely any consent worthy of Christians can in man's reason be hoped for. But these things (alas) we suffer not without cause, who have done double injury unto this Sacrament, partly for that instead of a notable and singular gift of Christ, we have erected an execrable Idol, and partly because we have without sincerity of faith, with a conscience defiled with grievous sins, and without sufficient trial of ourselves abused these most holy mysteries. I beseech the Lord to take pity of so great a calamity, and vouchsafe at length to restore unto his Church a reformed Eucharist, and the right use of the same: through our Lord Jesus Christ. Amen.

↑ Back to top