"O miracle! O the good-will of God towards us! which sitteth above at the right hand of the Father, and is holden in men's hands at the sacrifice time, and is given to feed upon, to them that are desirous of Him. And that is brought to pass by no subtlety or craft, but with the open and beholding eyes of all the standers-by.” Upon which Cranmer remarked

"Thus you hear Christ is here in earth every day, is touched, is torn with the teeth, that our tongue is red with His blood; which no man having any judgment will say or think to be spoken without trope or figure."-pp. 404 & 5.

Weston then quoted S. Chrys., Hom. 24

"I shew forth that thing on the earth unto thee, which is worthy the greatest honour," &c., and argued (together with Cole and Chedsey) "that the Body of Christ is shewed us upon the earth," in "substance," not in "figure," "not sacramentally only, but in very deed also;" is touched "as Thomas touched Christ," touching whom he touched "the Lord God.'"

Cranmer contended that, though

"in the Sacrament only" was That to be seen which is "worthy greatest honour," yet Christ is not seen "upon the earth" save "with the eyes of our mind, with faith and spirit;" that Christ is touched in the Sacrament in the same sense as Thomas touched God, of whom it is not "sound doctrine to affirm, that God is touched."-pp. 405-7

Cranmer uses the expression "He touched not God, but Him which was God:" yet, looking at the nature of his argument, and considering the unreserved way in which he had just before adopted St. Chrysostom's strong expressions as to the Eucharist, he would seem sufficiently shielded from any accusation of Nestorianism: not to say that elsewhere his writings are an adequate defence.

His opponents then pressed him with Tertullian, De Resurrectione, Carnis, c. viii. "Videamus de propria Christiani hominis forma," &c. and Photius on 1 Cor. xi, 27, arguing from them thus:-

"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."

To which Cranmer answered:

"The Sacrament is one thing; the matter of the Sacrament is another. Outwardly we receive the Sacrament; inwardly we eat

the body of Christ." And again "the flesh, I say, eateth the Sacrament; it eateth not Christ's body. For Tertullian speaketh of the Sacrament; and the place hath not inde thereof,' but de Deo ' of God.'"-pp. 407-9.

After some dispute on a passage of St. Hilary, de Trin. lib. viii. Young said

"Against him that denieth principles we must not dispute. Therefore that we may agree of the principles, I demand whether there be any other Body of Christ than His instrumental Body?

Cranmer. "There is no natural Body of Christ but His organical Body."-p. 414.

An argument then arose touching what Christ did in the Institution of the Eucharist, in the course of which Young asked

"The thing signified in the Sacrament, is it not in that Sacrament?" Cranmer. "It is. For the thing is ministered in a sign. He followeth the letter that taketh the thing for the sign. Augustine separateth the Sacrament from the thing. 'The Sacrament,' saith he, is one, and the thing of the Sacrament another.'"p. 415.

Again, Pie said—

"The words of Christ, as Ambrose saith, are of strength to work. What do they work? Ambrose saith, they make the Blood which redeemed the people :

"Ergo. The natural Blood is made.

"Cranmer. The Sacrament of His Blood is made. The words make the Blood to them that receive it: not that the Blood is in the cup, but in the receiver."

This expression being demurred to, Cranmer referred to S. Ambrose de Sacramentis 1. iv., c. iv. (which Weston quoted) and remarked—

".... But what is that He saith: Thou receivest for a similitude?' I think he understandeth the Sacrament to be the similitude of His Blood."-p. 418.

Again, Chedsey argued―

"As Christ is truly and really incarnate, so is He truly and really in the Sacrament:

"But Christ is really and truly incarnate:

"Ergo. The Body of Christ is truly and really in the Sacra

ment."

"Cranmer. I deny the major."

"

Chedsey. I prove the major out of Justine, in his Second Apology......' As by the word of God Jesus Christ our Saviour

being made flesh had both Flesh and Blood for our salvation; so we are taught, that the meat consecrated by the word of prayer instituted of Him, whereby our blood and flesh are nourished by communion, is the Flesh and Blood of the same Jesus which was made flesh.'" "Cranmer. You have translated it well; but I deny your major. This is the sense of Justin; that that bread is called the Body of Christ, and yet of that sanctified meat our bodies are nourished." Chedsey. Nay, he saith, of that sanctified meat both our bodies and souls are nourished."

66

"Cranmer. He saith not so; but he saith that it nourisheth our flesh and blood: and how can that nourish the soul, that nourisheth the flesh and blood ?"

"Cole. It feedeth the body by the soul."

"Cranmer. Speak uprightly. Can that which is received by the soul and the spirit, be called the meat of the body?"-p. 420.

Cranmer. anmer. We ought not to consider the bare bread; but whosoever cometh to the Sacrament, eateth the true Body of Christ." -p. 421.

Lastly, we shall do well to consider attentively the

"Disputation at Oxford between Dr. Smith, with his other colleagues and Doctors, and Bishop Ridley." A.D. 1555.

"Weston, the Prolocutor. Good Christian people and brethren, we......are entering into a controversy, ....concerning the verity of the Body of our Lord Jesu Christ in the Eucharist.... "Dr. Smith. This day, right learned Master Doctor, three questions are propounded.... to wit:

"First. Whether the natural Body of Christ our Saviour, conceived of the Virgin Mary, and offered for man's redemption on the Cross, is verily and really in the Sacrament by virtue of God's word spoken by the priests, &c.

"Secondly. Whether in the Sacrament, after the words of consecration, be any other substance, &c.

"Thirdly. Whether in the mass be a sacrifice propitiatory, &c. "Touching the which questions.... I will essay again to demand your sentence in the first question-whether the true Body of Christ, after the words pronounced, be really in the Eucharist, or else only the figure......-pp. 191-2.

Ridley then protests his submission to the Church, his lack of time and books, and his right to correct his statements afterwards.

"The First Proposition.

"In the Sacrament of the Altar, by the virtue of God's word spoken of the priest, the natural Body of Christ, born of the Virgin Mary, and His natural Blood, are really present under the forms of bread and wine.

Ridley complains (1) that this statement

"is very obscure and dark, by means of sundry words of doubtful signification. And being taken in the sense which the schoolmen teach, and at this time the Church of Rome doth defend, it is false and erroneous...."-p. 195.

(ii.) of the

"ambiguity in this word 'really,' whether it be to be taken as the logicians term it 'transcendenter;' that is, most generally: and so it may signify any manner of thing which belongeth to the Body of Christ, by any means: after which sort we also grant Christ's Body to be really in the Sacrament of the Lord's Supper....or whether it be taken to signify the very same thing, having body, life, and soul, which was assumed and taken of the word of God unto the unity of person. In which sense, since the Body of Christ is really in Heaven, because of the true manner of His Body, it may not be said to be here in the earth."—p. 196. (iii.) of the

"further doubtfulness in these words, ‘under the forms of bread and wine,' whether the forms be there taken to signify the only accidental and outward shews of bread and wine; or therewithal the substantial natures thereof, which are to be seen by their qualities, and perceived by exterior senses. Now the error and falseness of the proposition, after the sense of the Roman Church and Schoolmen, may hereby appear, in that they affirm the bread to be transubstantiated and changed into the flesh assumed of the Word of God ...... and so they gather that Christ's Body is really contained in the Sacrament of the Altar....

―p. 196.

In "Confirmation of the aforesaid Answer," he puts a syllogism, one proposition of which is that

"This doctrine," which he opposes, "maintaineth a real, corporal and carnal presence of Christ's Flesh, assumed and taken of the word, to be in the Sacrament of the Lord's Supper, and that not by virtue and grace only, but also by the whole essence and substance of the Body and Flesh of Christ."-p. 197.

He goes on to argue that

"This carnal presence is contrary 'to' St. John xvi. 7; Acts iii. 21; St. Matt. ix. 15; St. John xvi. 22; xiv. iii.; St. Matt. xxiv. 23, 28.

(ii.) Varies from the Creed "He ascended," &c.

come.

(iii.) "It destroyeth and taketh away the Institution....which was........to be used and continued until the Lord himself shall .....for a remembrance is not of a thing present, but of a thing past and absent..........as one of the Fathers saith 'A figure is in vain when the thing figured is present.'

(iv.) "...... it affirmeth that......the wicked and faithless, mice, cats, and dogs also may receive the very real and corporal Body of the Lord.....

(v.)

"It confirmeth........ that.... cruelty of the 'Anthropophagi......for it is a more cruel thing to devour a quick man than to slay him.

(vi.) "It forceth men to maintain many monstrous miracles," e.g. "that the accidents remain without any subject," also "Christ's Body without His qualities, and the true manner of a body," &c.

(vii.) It gives occasion to such heresies as those of Marcion and Eutyches.

(viii.) "It falsifieth the sayings of the godly Fathers....Justin, Irenæus, Tertullian, Origen, Eusebius, Emissenus, Athanasius, Cyril, Epiphanius, Jerome, Chrysostom, Augustine, Vigilius, Fulgentius, Bertram, and other most ancient Fathers."-pp. 198-201.

Next he proceeds to deny that he intends

"To take away the true presence of Christ's Body in His Supper rightly and duly ministered, which is grounded upon the word of God, and made more plain by the commentaries of the faithful fathers.....'

"I say and confess with the Evangelist Luke, and with the Apostle Paul, that the bread on the which thanks are given, is the Body of Christ in the remembrance of Him and His death, to be set forth perpetually of the faithful until His coming.

"I say and confess, the bread which we break to be the communion and partaking of Christ's Body, with the ancient and faithful fathers.

"I say and believe, that there is not only a signification of Christ's Body set forth by the Sacrament, but also that therewith is given to the godly and faithful the grace of Christ's Body, that is, the food of life and immortality. And this I hold with Cyprian.

66 I say also with St. Augustine, that we eat life and we drink life; with Emissene, that we feel the Lord to be present in grace; with Athanasius, that we receive celestial food, which cometh from above; the property of natural communion, with Hilary; the nature of flesh, and benediction which giveth life, in bread and wine, with Cyril; and with the same Cyril, the virtue of the very flesh of Christ, life and grace of His Body, the property of the Only Begotten, that is to say, life; as He Himself in plain words expoundeth it.

"I confess also with Basil, that we receive the mystical advent and coming of Christ, grace and the virtue of His very nature; the sacrament of His very Flesh, with Ambrose; the Body by grace, with Epiphanius: spiritual flesh, but not that which was crucified, with Jerome; grace flowing into a sacrifice, and the grace of the Spirit, with Chrysostom; grace and invisible verity, grace and society of the members of Christ's Body, with Augustine.

"Finally, with Bertram......I confess that Christ's Body is in the Sacrament in this respect; namely, as he writeth, because there is in it the Spirit of Christ, that is, the power of the word of God, which not only feedeth the soul, but also cleanseth it. Out of these suppose it may clearly appear unto all men, how far we are from

I