254. CONCERNING THESE DISPUTATIONS
Certain observations or censures given to the reader, upon the disputations of the bishops and doctors above mentioned; declaring what judgment is to be given, as well touching the arguments of the adversaries, and also to the answers of the martyrs.HUS ye have heard, in these aforesaid disputations about the holy supper of the Lord, the reasons and arguments of the doctors, the answers and resolutions of the bishops, and the triumph of the prolocutor triumphing before the victory with Vicit veritas; who rather in my mind should have exclaimed Vicit potestas: as it happeneth always ubi pars major vincit meliorem. For else if potestas had not helped the prolocutor more than veritas, there had been a small victoria. But so it is, where judgments be partial and parties addicted, there all things turn to victory, though it be never so mean and simple: but, contrariwise, all partiality set apart, if censure should be given upon these disputations with upright and indifferent judgment, weighing with the arguments on the one side, the answers on the other, we shall see victory there falsely bragged, where no victory was.
If in these disputations it had so been, that the distinction of the answers had been wiped away or removed by the opposers; or if the arguments, of the opponents' side, had been so strong that they could not be dissolved of the answerer, then would I confess victory gotten. But seeing now all the arguments, brought against the bishops, to be taken away by a plain distinction of Really, Spiritually, and Sacramentally: and this distinction so to stand in force, that the contrary arguments were not able to infringe the same, we must say, Vicit non veritas, sed potestas, that is, He conquered not by truth, but by force.
And, for the reader's sake, to make the matter more largely and evidently to appear, concerning the distinction made of the bishops in this disputation, (whereby they did both repeat the arguments objected, and manfully maintain the verity,) here have we, as in a brief sum or table, expressed, as well their arguments, as the distinctions and answers of the other part to the same.
In these disputations the controversy is of the body of Christ, either to be present with us, or to be eaten of us, or to be united to us; which presence, eating, and uniting of him to us, standeth three manner of ways, Really, Spiritually, and Sacramentally. And these three things must be considered after three divers respects; for the lack of the knowledge and consideration whereof, the papists, who take upon them most to maintain this matter, are much deceived and deceive many; of whom I cannot marvel enough, that they, being so full of distinctions in all their other questions, in this one matter neither will make distinction themselves, nor abide it in others. For who seeth not that the presence of Christ's body is one, to the faith and spirit of man -- which is spiritual; and another to the body of man -- which is bodily.
Besides these two, there is also another presence differing from them both, which is "sacramental." Of things diverse and differing in themselves we must speak diversely, except we will confound things together which nature hath distincted asunder. Now they of the catholic part, as they call themselves, (other men call them papists,) whether for rudeness they cannot, or for wilfulness they will not see, speaking of the real presence of Christ, think there is no other presence of Christ real but in the sacrament; being deceived therein two manner of ways. First, that they consider not the nature of a sacrament; which is, not to exhibit the thing in deed which it doth represent, but to represent effectually one thing by another: for that is the property of a sacrament, to hear a similitude of one thing by another thing; of the which two things the one is represented, the other in deed exhibited. Secondly, that they consider not the operation of faith, which, penetrating up to heaven, there apprehendeth the real body of Christ, no less, yea, and more effectually, than if he were here bodily present to the eye.
To these two, the third error also of these men may be added: in that they seem either not to weigh the operation of Christ's passion enough, or else, not to feel the heavy torment of sin and miserable hunger of man's soul; which, if they did feel, they would easily perceive what a necessary and opportune nourishment to man's conscience, were the body of Christ on the cross broken, and his blood shed.
Wherefore these are to be distincted after their right terms. For that which is sacramental, by and by is not real; and, like as the real presence of Christ's body is to be distincted from the spiritual presence, so is it to be said of the eating, and also of the co-uniting or conjunction, betwixt his body and us: for as there is a real eating, so there is a spiritual eating, and also a sacramental eating.
Now the papists, whensoever they speak or read of the eating of Christ's body, conceive no other eating of him but only of that in the sacrament, and no otherwise; which is false and the cause of great error, in that they see not, neither do consider, how Christ is eaten, not only with the symbols or sacrament, but also without the sacrament: which eating standeth inwardly by faith, and pertaineth to the spirit of man, in apprehending or digesting with the stomach of faith those things which, by the outward sacrament, are represented. And of the spiritual eating of Christ speaketh the sixth chapter of St. John.
Besides this spiritual eating there is also a sacramental manducation of Christ's body, under, and with, the elements of bread and wine; that is, when both the mouth and spirit of man receive both the bread and the body together, in divers and sundry respects, bread substantially, the body sacramentally. The spirit receiveth the body only and not the bread.
The like distinction also is to be made of the uniting or conjunction betwixt Christ and us, which is both real, spiritual, and sacramental.
Further, here is to be noted, that to this sacramentally uniting, eating, and presence of Christ, in or under the sacrament, belong two things, Mutation and Operation, which the doctors much speak of. This "Mutation" is double, substantial and accidental.
Mutation is called substantial, when one substance is changed into another, as water into wine, the rod of Aaron into a serpent, &c.; and this mutation, which they call "transubstantiation," belongeth nothing to the Lord's supper.
The other mutation, which is accidental, (whereof the doctors entreat,) standeth in three points: that is, where the use, the name, and the honour of the sacramental elements be changed. In use: as, when the use of common bread is changed to a mystical and heavenly use, the name of bread and wine is changed to the name of the body and blood of Christ; the honour, from a not reverent, to a reverent receiving of the same, &c.
About "Operation" the Romish clergy make much ado; thinking there is no other operation but only transubstantiation. And this operation they ascribe to the five words of the priest: saying, that Christ, in calling a thing, maketh the thing so to be.
We affirm also that the words of Christ do work, but not as they do say; to wit, they work effectually in the material bread and wine: not in altering or trans-elementing the substance there, as Harding saith above, but in sanctifying the aforesaid creatures to be a sacrament, which cannot be but only by the virtue of the word and of the Holy Ghost, as St. Augustine saith; for else no priest or creature hath any such power to make a sacrament.
Of these aforesaid distinctions here followeth a brief Table to make the contents hereof more plain.
A Table declaring divers and sundry respects how the holy real body of Christ our Saviour, both in the sacrament and beside the sacrament, is present, eaten, and united to us.
The body of Christ is, really, spiritually, and sacramentally, present, eaten, and united.
The body of Christ is really present.
So was the body of Christ once present here on earth with us, and shall be again at the day of his coming. Otherwise it is not here really present, but only to our faith, really, that is to say truly, apprehending his body in heaven, and here feeding upon the same in earth. And thus is he present only to good men, whether with the symbols or without the symbols.
The body of Christ is really eaten.
Really, not with our bodily mouth, but with the mouth of faith; apprehending the real body of Christ, who suffered for us, and worketh to us nourishment of life and grace, &c.
The body of Christ is really united.
Really and corporally the body of Christ is united to us, by his incarnation, and the partaking of our flesh.
The body of Christ is spiritually present.
Spiritually we say his body to be present, when either the body of Christ is present to our spirit and faith; or when the virtue of his body is present and redoundeth to our bodies and spirits by grace. And this differeth from the other real presence above, in this: that the one hath respect to the body apprehended, the other to the thing that doth apprehend.
The body of Christ is spiritually eaten.
Spiritually we eat the body and blood of Christ, not with mouth and teeth, but with faith only, whensoever we believe on the passion of Christ, being the true bread of life and the only food of man's soul. And thus is he eaten, but only of good men, as well besides the sacrament as with the sacrament; and of this eating speaketh the sixth chapter of John. And so was he eaten in the time also of the old law.
The body of Christ is spiritually united.
Spiritually he is united unto us, when the properties of his holy body, as his innocence, power, glorification, eternity, beatitude, &c., are united to our bodies and spirits, which cometh by our faith in him, according to his words in John xvii. 23, I in them, and thou in me, &c. And this uniting, standing by grace, cometh as well besides the sacrament, as with the sacrament; only to the godly.
The body of Christ is sacramentally present.
Sacramentally his body is present, by representation of another thing which beareth a similitude or a memorial of his body; and his sacramental presence, pertaining to the outward mouth of the receiver, is common as well to the good as to the evil. And this sacramental presence ought not to be alone, but to be joined with the spiritual presence, &c.
The body of Christ is sacramentally eaten.
Sacramentally we eat with our bodily mouth the mysteries of bread and wine, not being the real body indeed, but representing the real body indeed; id est, Non panem Dominum, sed panem Domini; that is, not the Lord as bread, but the bread of the Lord. And this eating, if it be not joined with the other two above, profiteth nothing; and, so, is eaten only of the evil. If it be adjoined, then is it eaten of the good, and them it profiteth.
The body of Christ is sacramentally united.
The sacrament, as it is not the real body itself of the Lord, so it causeth not itself any real conjunction betwixt Christ's real body and ours, but representeth the same; declaring that as the material bread, digested in our bodies, is united to the same, so the body of Christ, being received by faith, changeth our spirits and bodies to the nature of him.
To the sacramental presence, and eating of Christ, pertain two things chiefly to be considered: Mutation and Operation.
First, Mutation substantial.
Whereby one substance is changed into another: as, water into wine; the rod of Aaron into a serpent, &c. And this "mutation," which they call "transubstantiation," belongeth nothing to the sacrament; for, then, accidents of bread should also be changed, as the accidents of Aaron's rod were changed, with the substance, into a serpent.
Secondly, Mutation accidental.
Of this "mutation" speak the doctors, meaning not of the change of substance but of accidents, which standeth in three things, in the use, in name, and in honour.
First, In use.
As when the use of common bread is changed into a mystical and heavenly use.
Secondly, In name.
When the name of bread and wine passeth away, and is changed into the name of the body and blood of the Lord, and, so, is the name changed.
Thirdly, In honour.
As when the bread and wine which before were received not with honour, are now received with honour and reverence: not that we honour the bread and wine, but the things represented in them, as, in a king's letter and seal, we honour the king and not the seal.
First, Operation in the sacraments.
The operation of the word in the sacraments is this: to change, not the substance of the sacrament, but that the substance thereof remaining may be made the body of Christ, that is, the sacrament of the body of Christ. And this operation cannot come but by the Holy Ghost. Whereof Augustine saith: Panis non sanctificatur in sacramentum tam magnum, nisi operante invisibiliter Spiritu Dei.
Secondly, Operation of the sacraments.
The operation of the sacraments is thought by the papists to give grace, which, in very deed, give not grace of their own work; but only serve as instruments and means of that grace and life which cometh from God. So Peter calleth it the word of life; and St. Paul calleth the gospel of Christ, the power of God unto salvation. Not that they themselves give life and salvation, but that they are certain means and instruments of that life and salvation which cometh to us from God.
To the spiritual presence and manducation of Christ, principally belongeth the sixth chapter of St. John; albeit two sorts of bread are there specified, namely, bodily or sacramental, and spiritual bread.
First, Bodily or sacramental, of the Old Testament; and also of the New Testament.
The bodily or sacramental bread of the Old Teatament signifying Christ to come, as manna, the rock, &c.; and the bodily or sacramental bread of the New Testament signifying Christ being already come, as the holy eucharist.
Secondly, Spiritual bread.
Spiritual bread, which is Christ himself, born for us, and given for the life of the world. John vi. My flesh is meat indeed, &c.
Thus hast thou, gentle reader, in this aforesaid table set forth unto thee the diverse respects how the real body of the Saviour is eaten in the sacrament, and out of the sacrament, &c. By which table, if thou mark it well, thou mayest answer easily to the most part of the arguments which the papists bring. And now these things being premised, let us see and examine the arguments of the aforesaid doctors, here in brief sum repeated again, and, afterwards, annex the resolution of the same.
A Table of the principal arguments brought
against Doctor Cranmer.
I. Chedsey.--"That thing which was given for us, is here contained; from the words of Christ. "The substance of bread was not given for us: Ergo, the substance of bread is not contained in the sacrament."
II. Oglethorpe.--"This word body, being prĉdicatum, doth signify substance.
"But one substance is not predicated, or affirmed, denominatively, upon another: Ergo, it is an essential predication, and, so, it is his true body, and not a figure of his body."
III. Oglethorpe.--"Christ path no less care for his espouse than a father for his household. "No father maketh his will with tropes for deceiving his household: Ergo, Christ used no tropes in making his Will or Testament."
IV. Weston.--"A good heir will not say that the testator did lie.
"Whoso saith, that the testator 'spoke by figures,' saith that the testator did lie: Ergo, he that saith that Christ our testator spake by figures is no good heir."
V. Cole.--"If it be bread it cannot be the body; a disparitis.
"But Christ saith it is his body: Ergo, it cannot be bread."
VI. Weston.--"The same flesh is given us to be eaten, by which be is made our brother and kinsman.
"By his true, natural, and organical flesh, he is made our brother and kinsman: Ergo, he gave us his true and organical flesh to eat."
VII. Weston.--"He gave us the same flesh, which he took of the Virgin.
"He took his flesh of the Virgin not spiritually: Ergo, he gave his true flesh, and not [his flesh] spiritually."
VIII. Weston.--"As mothers nourish their children with their milk, so Christ nourished us with his body.
"Mothers nourish not their infants spiritually with their milk: Ergo, Christ nourisheth us not spiritually with his body."
IX. Weston.--"If Christ gave wine for his blood, then he gave less than mothers to their infants. "Chrysostom saith, 'Christ gave more to us than mothers to their infants:' Ergo, he gave not wine for his blood."
X. Weston.--"That thing which is worthy the highest honour, is showed forth in earth.
"Christ's body is worthy the highest honour: Ergo, Christ's body is showed forth in earth."
XI. Chedsey.--"The soul is fed by that which the body eateth.
"The soul is fed by the body of Christ: Ergo, the body eateth the body of Christ."
XII. Chedsey.--"The flesh eateth Christ's body that the soul may be fed therewith.
"The soul is not fed with the sacrament, but with Christ's body: Ergo, the flesh eateth the body of Christ."
XIII. Tresham.--"As Christ liveth by his Father, so we live by his flesh eaten of us.
"Christ liveth by his Father naturally, not by unity of will: Ergo, we live by eating Christ's flesh naturally, not by faith only and will."
XIV. Young.--"A figurative speech is no working thing; Christ's speech is a working thing: Ergo, Christ's speech is not figurative in this sacrament."
XV. Pie.--"The words of Christ work that, there, which redeemed the people.
"The natural blood of Christ redeemed the people: Ergo, the words of Christ make, there, the natural blood of Christ."
XVI. Chedsey.--"As Christ is truly and really incarnate, so is he truly and really in the sacrament.
"But Christ is truly and really incarnate: Ergo, Christ is truly and really in the sacrament."
XVII. Weston.--"The substance of our flesh could not be increased thereby, except it were the true body and blood of Christ.
"But the substance of our body is increased thereby, which we receive in the sacrament: Ergo, it is the true body and blood, which we receive in the sacrament."
A Table of the principal arguments objected against Dr. Ridley.
XXIII. Smith.--"Christ, after his ascension, was seen really and corporally on earth: Ergo, notwithstanding his ascension, and continual abiding at the right hand of the Father, he may be really and corporally on earth.
"Or thus; Christ's ascension into heaven letteth not, but that he may be, really and corporally, seen on the earth: Ergo, his ascension letteth not, but that he may be, really and corporally, in the sacrament."
XIX. Weston.--"We offer one thing at all times. There is one Christ in all places, both here complete, and there complete: Ergo, by Chrysostom, there is one body both in heaven and earth."
XX. Smith.--"He was seen of Paul as being born before his time, after his ascending up to heaven, [1 Cor. xv.]
"But his vision was a corporal vision: Ergo, he was seen corporally on earth, after his ascension."
XXI. Tresham.--"He was seen after such sort that he might be heard: Ergo, he was corporally on the earth, or else how could he be heard."
XXII. Smith.--"He was seen so of him as of others.
"But he was seen of others being on earth, and appeared visible to them on earth: Ergo, he was seen of Paul on earth."
XXIII. Weston.--"Christ left his flesh to his disciples, and yet, for all that, he took the same up with him: Ergo, he is present here with us."
XXIV. Ward.--"He delivered that which he bade them take.
"But he bade them not take material bread, but his own body: Ergo, he gave not material bread, but his own body."
XXV. Weston.--"That which Christ gave we do give.
"But that which he gave was not a figure of his body, but his body: Ergo, we give no figure, but his body."
XXVI. Ward.--"My sheep hear my voice and follow me.
"But all the sheep of Christ hear this voice, This is my body, without a figure: Ergo, the voice of Christ, here, hath no figure."
XXVII. Ward.--"Christ gave us his very and true flesh to be eaten.
"But he never gave it to be eaten but in his last supper and in the sacrament of the altar: Ergo, there is the very true flesh of Christ."
XXVIII. Ward.--"He desired to eat his passover.
"But the Judaical passover was not his: Ergo, he meant not of the Judaical passover."
XXIX. Ward.--"He gave us his flesh to be eaten, which he took of the earth, in which, also, he here walked, &c.
"But he never gave his flesh to be eaten, but when he gave it at his supper, saying, This is my body: Ergo, in the eucharist he gave us his flesh."
XXX. Curtop.--"That which is in the cup is the same that flowed from the side of Christ.
"But his true and pure blood did flow from the side of Christ: Ergo, his true and pure blood is in the cup."
XXXI. Watson.--"Every sacrament hath a promise of grace annexed unto it.
"But bread and wine have not a promise of grace annexed unto it: Ergo, the bread and wine are not sacraments."
XXXII. Smith.--"Every man may bear, in his own hands, a figure of his body.
"But Augustine denied that David could carry himself in his hands: Ergo, Augustine speaketh of no figure of his body."
XXXIII. Tresham.--"Evil men do eat the natural body of Christ: Ergo, the true and natural body of Christ is in the sacrament of the altar."
XXXIV. Weston.--"We worship the selfsame body in the eucharist, which the wise men did worship in the manger.
"But that was his natural real body, not spiritual: Ergo, the real body of Christ is in the eucharist."
Arguments objected against Master Latimer.
Seton's arguments, formed by Weston.--"You say, That which was forbidden in the Old Testament is commanded in the New.
"To drink blood was forbidden in the Old Testament and commanded in the New: Ergo, by your own saying, it is the very blood that we drink in the New."
Cartwright.--"If the true body of Christ be not really in the sacrament, all the whole church hath erred from the apostles' time.
"But Christ would not suffer his church to err: Ergo, it is the true body of Christ."
The argument of Doctor Cranmer objecting against Harpsfield.
Doctor Cranmer.--"Christ's body, in heaven, hath quantity.
"The papists say, Christ's body in earth hath no quantity: Ergo, by the papists Christ hath two bodies, one in heaven, another in earth."
Doctor Cranmer.--"They that do eat the flesh of Christ, do dwell in him, and be in them. "The wicked do not remain in him, nor lie in them: Ergo, the wicked eat not his flesh, nor drink his blood."
Here follow the answers and resolutions to the arguments above mentioned, by number and order of the same;
and first to the arguments objected against Doctor Cranmer.
I. First, to answer to Chedsey's first argument: Cranmer denieth the argument, and may well so do, for the form thereof is faulty; which, being in the first figure, hath his minor negative. Again, he answereth to the major by a distinction, being two ways: How the body may be contained Really,-- and so it is false; Sacramentally,--and so it is true.
II. One substance or disparatum cannot be affirmed of another properly; but figuratively it may: and therefore we say this is a figurative locution: Bread is the body of Christ (meaning bread to be a figure of the body).
III. The minor is false; for, though equivocation of one word sometimes, peradventure, may deceive, yet the whole sense or locution, being tropical, doth not deceive, but rather serveth for beautifying of the oration, and for the better help of the hearers. And if the trope be not perceived of all, the fault is not in the trope, but in their ignorance.
IV. The authority of St. Augustine, De unitate Ecclesiĉ, proveth the major, which we also do allow. For who knoweth not that a man, at his death, will commonly speak the truth? But we deny the minor, That he which speaketh by figure or trope doth lie: that St. Augustine yet hath not proved, nor Dr. Weston either. Christ, after his supper, being more near his death, saith, Let this cup pass from me; calling his passion "the cup," by a metaphor; yet he lied not.
V. Cole saith, "This argument cannot be dissolved." But Cranmer's answer cannot be infringed; for, if one disparatum cannot be affirmed of another by any way than by that rule, "Christ is not the rock;" "Bread cannot be the body" (being disparate one from the other) I grant, speaking properly; but figuratively, or sacramentally, it may.
VI. and VII. Cranmer answereth to the major by a distinction: "The same body is given which was born of the Virgin, but not after the same manner." Of the Virgin, his body was born really: in the sacrament, it is eaten sacramentally and figuratively.
VIII. The nourishment of mothers and of Christ agree in this, wherein they are compared: that is, that they both do nourish their children with their own bodies, but not after one way of nourishing. The mother feedeth her infant by putting her milk into his mouth and body, really; Christ likewise feedeth us with his body broken for us; not in putting his flesh, broken, into our bodies, but in offering the passion of his body to our faith, spiritually; and, in the bread, sacramentally.
IX. The major is false: Christ giveth not only wine for his blood, but giveth both wine and his blood. Wine as a holy sacrament of his blood, to be taken with mouth, wherein, not the wine, but his blood, is to be considered; and also, besides the wine, he giveth his blood to be received with faith, and these two be more than mothers give to their infants.
X. In this argument is a point of false packing; for where Chrysostom hath, Ostenditur in terra, the prolocutor thrusteth in est in terra. And so is the argument answered -- the body of Christ is showed here on earth in a sacrament, and the same body, so showed, is worthy highest honour.
XI. and XII. This argument is to be denied for lack of form, except Chedsey would thus form it: "The soul of man is fed, there, with what the body eateth; The soul of man is fed with Christ's body, and not with sacraments: ergo, the body of man eateth the body of Christ, and not the sacrament," &c.-- First, the major is false as it standeth. And here note the deceit of Chedsey in putting in "therewith," which Tertullian hath not: his words be these, "The flesh feeds on the body and blood of Christ, that the soul may be nourished by God."-- Here Chedsey, for "by God," hath "by it;" which corrupteth the meaning of Tertullian, who saith "by God:" meaning that the soul is fed spiritually, and the body sacramentally. Secondly, to the minor: if the soul be not fed with the sacraments, how is it true then that the papists say the sacraments give grace?
XIII. The major is false and to be denied: for the similitude of Christ's living by his Father, and our living by eating the body of Christ, is not like. For if Christ live, naturally, by his Father, so do not we eat the body of Christ naturally in the sacrament, nor live naturally by eating the same; but naturally we live by Christ, in that he took our natural body -- not that we eat his natural body.
XIV. To the minor it is answered by a distinction: "For the speech of Christ worketh two manner of ways, by making, and by instituting." The speech of Christ, at the supper, worketh, not by making any new substance or by changing theold, but by instituting a sacrament by the power of the word and of the Holy Spirit; of which instituting St. Augustine speaketh: "The bread is not consecrated to so great a sacrament, unless by the unseen work of the Spirit of God."
XV. To the major, being grounded upon the words of Ambrose, the archbishop answereth, That there is the same blood which redeemed the people, but not after the same manner; for, on the cross, the blood of Christ was there, simply and really: at the supper and in the cup, it is sacramentally and by a similitude. As Ambrose saith himself in another place, "As thou hast received the similitude of his death, so also thou drinkest the similitude of his precious blood."
XVI. As concerning this argument here is to be noted, that the archbishop found fault with Chedsey for false translating of Justin, Cibum ilium consecratum per sermonem: whereas the Greek text of Justin hath not ιερευθεισαν hprvOswav, but ευχαριστηθεισαν; that is non consecratum, meat not consecrated; but meat only over which thanks be given. Then to the argument; If Christ be so truly in the sacrament, as he was truly incarnate of the Virgin, then can there be no transubstantiation; for, as the Word was made flesh, not by changing the substance of the Word into the substance of flesh, so is not the substance of bread changed into the body.
XVII. To the XVIIth, the major, as it standeth, is not to be granted: "The substance of our flesh may be nourished and increased with that which is received, though it be not the true and real body of Christ; for the bread, being a sacrament of Christ's real body, may feed the body of man, and so doth the real body of Christ properly feed the soul and not the body; as Tertullian saith, 'The body is nourished by the symbolical bread, the soul by the body of Christ.'"
Next follow the answers and resolutions to the arguments objected against Dr. Ridley; wherein the less labour shall need to be taken, because he, being more practised in the schools, hath sufficiently and fully answered the same before.
XVIII. Argument: This argument doth not hold; and that for three causes, as Dr. Ridley in his answers seemeth to infer. First, that the presence of Christ may be upon earth according to any thing which belongs to the body of Christ, and not according to his real or corporal substance; and so he granteth his ascension not to let his presence to be in the sacrament. Secondly, if Christ, after his ascension, was seen here in earth, as to Paul, Stephen, and Peter, &c., yet, whether he appeared from heaven to them on earth, or whether their eyes from earth were rapt up to him in heaven, it is doubtful; and of things doubtful no certain judgment can be given. Thirdly, though he had so manifested himself at certain times to be seen as pleased him, yet by that is proved that he was, and not that he is present here now in earth; and therefore, as this, his abiding in heaven, is no let but that he may be in the sacrament if he list, so this his appearing sometimes on the earth, is no proof that he list now to be in the sacrament when he may.
XIX. To the antecedent: "One Christ is complete at all times, and in all places;" but Chrysostom saith not, that one body of Christ is in all places.
XX. and XXI. It may be that Christ might appear to Paul, not he coming down from heaven -- but that the eyes of Paul, rising up to heaven, there might apprehend him. Again it may be, that the power and glory of Christ might appear to Paul, and yet the body of Christ remain still in heaven; but, if his body was then really present on earth, yet his body was not at one time both in heaven and earth together. But what should we say then to the pix? If the body of Christ be so often on the altar and so long in the pix as they make him, then, by this reason, Christ's body is either seldom, or never, lightly, in heaven.
XXII. He answereth to the minor by a distinction: If the being or appearing of Christ here on the earth be referred as to a place, so he denieth that Paul or others did see him corporally being here on earth; but if it be referred as to the verity of his person, so he granteth it may be. And yet, as is said, whether he descended down, or their spirits ascended up, it is doubtful: certes, to whomsoever he appeared, yet his appearing was in the air above, and not on the earth.
XXIII. The force of this argument is grounded upon Chrysostom, "Christ both left his flesh to us, and ascended having it with him." To the which it is thus answered: That Christ both took his flesh and left the same with us; but not after the same manner: for he took up his flesh really, and left the same behind sacramentally. And therein he did more than Elias, for he, as he left his mantle behind him really, so he took the same with him no manner of way.
XXIV. This argument of Master Ward, as the terms stand, is neither a right figure nor mode. Again, there is a fallax a dicto secundum quid ad id quod simpliciter: and therefore the minor is well denied. For Christ, in giving them his body to eat, did not give his body simpliciter to be eaten, but after a certain manner, that is, sacramentally his body, and materially his bread; and so both bread and his body, in sundry respects.
XXV. The minor of this argument standeth upon Theophylact, "He did not not say it is a figure of my flesh, but it is my body;" which author, as he is not to be numbered among the most ancient, so neither among the most sound of writers. He was about that time, when this controversy about transubstantiation began first to grow, and when the contention was between the Greek church and the Latin about the proceeding of the Holy Ghost, &c. But, to let authority stand: this place upon St. Mark is answered by another place of the said author upon St. John, cap. vi.: Attende quod panis in mysteriis non est tantum figuratio quĉdam carnis Domini, sed ipsa caro Domini, &c.; meaning that here, which he speaketh above: That the sacrament is not only a figure, (that is, no bare and void figure,) but a reverend sacrament of the body, and, after a manner, the body itself, of Christ.
XXVI. The minor hereof is untrue, if it stand universally for all the true sheep of Christ.
XXVII. The major of this argument, taken out of Justin, maybe taken two ways: for the giving of the body of Christ, may be understood either really, and so the major is false; or spiritually, and so the minor faileth: for he gave his flesh, not only in the supper, but also on the cross.
XXVIII. The major is false: The Judaical passover is not strange from Christ, for that he is the Lord of all.
XXIX. The minor is denied: for he gave his flesh to be eaten, both in the eucharist and also otherwise; as is before declared: In the eucharist, sacramentally to be eaten; on the cross, and also in the world, spiritually.
XXX. To the major he answereth: The true blood, and the same blood which issued out of his side, is in the cup; but not after the same manner. From his side it streamed, really and substantially. In the cup it is sacramentally, that is, by way and condition of representation, so by him ordained. The question is not of being, for that is granted on both parties, but of the manner of being, which now in heaven is really; in the receivers is spiritually; in the eucharist is sacramentally.
XXXI. The minor is thus to be understood: Bread and wine, as it is common bread and common wine, have no promise; but, as they be sanctified into a sacrament of the Lord's body and blood, they have promise of grace annexed; but so annexed, that not they themselves have or give the grace, but they are only as instruments whereby the grace cometh, not for their sake, but for that thing which they represent.
XXXII. This argument of Dr. Smith lacketh its right shape and form, having four terms, &c.
Further, to the sequel, which he inferreth upon this argument: "But Christ bare himself in his own hands: ergo, he bare no figure of his body," &c. To this is answered by a distinction really and sacramentally. Really, neither David nor Christ did bear himself in his own hands; sacramentally, David could not bear himself, but Christ so did at the supper; and that Augustine meaneth, adding this word, quodam modo, after a certain manner; expounding thereby his words before. And this Dr. Smith, falsely and craftily, leaveth out, in alleging the doctor's words.
XXXIII. Evil men do eat the natural body of Christ, he granteth, but only sacramentally; that is, that thing which beareth a sacrament of the natural body of Christ: but good men eat the same, both sacramentally and spiritually.
XXXIV. To the major he answereth: We worship the same natural body of Christ, which the wise men did worship, but not after the same mariner; that is, not really here present to our bodies, as he was to theirs, but spiritually or sacramentally; and, so we worship Christ spiritually in his word and Scriptures, and yet we say not that he is really present in the Scriptures.
Resolutions to the arguments objected against Master Latimer.
XXXV. To the major of this argument, Master Latimer answereth himself sufficiently before. As touching drinking of blood, it is forbidden in the Old Testament; and commanded in the New, as touching the matter, but not as touching the manner of the thing, &c.
XXXVI. First he denieth the major; secondly he distincteth the word "church" in the minor; for as there is the true church of Christ which he never suffereth to err, in the whole, from the apostles' time, (although it may, in part, sometime,) so there is the popish church, and that erreth and hath erred; which first begat the error of transubstantiation in the time of Pope Innocent the Third about the year 1215.