Marginaliaters? heare you not how that men do dayly speake agaynst the Sacrament of the aultar, deniyng it to be the reall body of Christ?  

VERI. In good soth  

, I haue bene a great whyle abroad, and returned but of late into this contrary   . Wherfore you must pardon me if my aunswere be to seeke in such questions. But go forth in your tale. You haue ben longer here, and are better acquaynted then I. What say they more then this?

CVST. Thē this? why, what cā they possible say more?

VERI. Yes there are many thynges worse then this: For this semeth in some part to be tolerable.

CVST. What? me thinketh you daly  

with me. Semeth it tolerable to deny the Sacrament?

VERI. They denye it not, so much as I can gather by your wordes.

CVST. Nay then fare you well: I perceiue you will take their part.

VERI. I am not parciall, but indifferent  

to all parties: For I neuer go farther then the truth.

CVST. I cā scarsly beleue you. But what is more true then Christ, which is truth it selfe? or who euer was so hardy, before this tyme to charge Christ with a lye, for saying these wordes: This is my body?  

MarginaliaMath. 26.The wordes are euident and plaine: there is in them not so much as one obscure or darke letter: there is no cause for any man to cauill   . MarginaliaChristes wordes:
The Euangelistes:
The olde writers:
The Catholicke Church.And yet that notwithstandyng, where as Christ him selfe affirmed it to be his body, men now a dayes are not abashed to say Christ lyed, it is not his body. The Euangelistes   agree all in one, the olde writers   stand of our syde, the Vniuersall and Catholicke Church hath ben in this mynde these xv. hundreth yeare and more. And shall we thincke that Christ hym selfe, hys Euangelistes, all the whole Catholicke Church hath bene so longe deceyued, and the truth now at length begotten and borne in these dayes?  

[Back to Top]

VERI. You haue moued a matter of great force and waight, and whereto without many wordes I cā make no full aunswere. Notwithstādyng because you prouoke me therto, if you will gyue me licence I will take parte with them of whom you haue made false reporte. MarginaliaThe doctrine of the Papistes commonly stādeth vpon false reportes.For none of them euer reproued Christ of any lie. But cōtrarywise they say that many men of late dayes, not vnderstandyng Christes wordes, haue builded and set vp many fond  

lyes vpon his name. Wherefore first I will declare the meanyng of these wordes: This is my body, and next in what sense the Church and the old fathers haue euermore taken them. MarginaliaThe sense of Hoc est corpus meum  

Commentary     Close

'Hoc est corpus meum': Latin for 'this is my body.'

, expounded.First therfore you shall vnderstād that Scripture is not so to be taken alwayes as the letter soundeth, but as the intent and purpose of the holy Ghost was, by whom the Scripture was vttered.   For if you folowe the bare wordes, you will soone shake downe and ouerthrow the greatest part of the Christian faith. What is playner then these wordes: Pater maior me est: My father is greater then I am? MarginaliaIohn. 14.Of those playne wordes sprange vppe the heresye of the Arrians, which denyed Christ to be equall with his father.   What is more euidēt then this saying: I and my father are both one? MarginaliaIohn. 10.Therof arose the heresy of thē that denyed three distinct persons.   They all had one soule and one hart, MarginaliaActes. 4.was spoken by the Apostles. Yet had ech of them a soule and harte peculiar to hym selfe. They are novv not tvvo but one flesh, is spoken by the man and his wife. Yet hath both the man and the wife his seuerall body. Hee is our very flesh, MarginaliaGen. 37.sayd Ruben by Ioseph his brother, which notwithstandyng was not their reall flesh. I am bread, sayd Christ: yet was hee flesh and no bread. Christ vvas the stone, Marginalia1. Cor. 10.sayth Paul, and was in dede no materiall stone. Melchisedech had neyther father nor mother, and yet in deede he had both. Behold the Lambe of God, sayth Iohn Baptist by Christ: notwithstandyng Christ was a man, and not a Lambe.   Circumcision was called the couenaunt, where as it was but a token of the couenaūt. The Lambe was named the passeouer, and yet was it eaten in remembraunce only of the passeouer. Iacob raised vp an aultar, and called it being made but of lyme and stone, the mightie God of Israell. Moses whē he had conquered the Amalechites, set vp an aultar and called it by the names of God Iehoua,   and Tetragrammatum.   VVe all are one loafe of bread, Marginalia1. Cor. 10.saith Paul, yet were they not thereby turned into a loafe of bread. Christ hangyng vpon the Crosse appoynted S. Iohn to his mother, saying: Loe there is thy sonne, and yet was he not her sonne. So many as be Baptised into Christ (sayth Paul) haue put on Christ: MarginaliaGal. 3.and so many as are baptised into Christ, are vvashed vvith the bloud of Christ: MarginaliaRom. 6.notwithstandyng no man toke the fonte water to be the naturall bloud of Christ. the cup is the nevv Testa-ment, sayth Paul, and yet is not the cuppe in dede the very new Testamēt. MarginaliaFiguratiue speaches most cōmon in Scripture.You see therfore that it is not straūge nor a thyng vnwont in the scriptures, to call one thyng by an others name. So that you can no more of necessitie inforce the chaunging of the bread into Christes body in the Sacrament, because the wordes be playne: This is my body, then the wiues flesh to bee the naturall and reall body and flesh of the husband because it is written: They are not tvvo, but one flesh: or the aultar of stone to bee very God, because Moses wyth euident and playne woordes pronounced it to be the mighty God of Israel. Notwithstanding if you wyll nedes cleaue to the letter, you make for me, and hinder your own cause. For thus I wil reason, and vse your own weapon agaynst you. MarginaliaThe name of bread vsed in scripture.The scripture calleth it bread. The Euāgelistes agree in the same. Paule nameth it so v. tymes in one place. The holy Gost may not be set to schole to learne to speake. Wherfore I conclude by your own argument, that we ought not only to say, but also to beleue that in the sacrament there remayneth bread.

[Back to Top]

CVST. Me thinketh your aunswere is reasonable: yet can I not bee satisfyed. Declare you therefore more at large, what moueth you to thynke this of the sacrament. For I thynke you woulde not wythstand a doctrine so long holden and taught,  

vnlesse you were inforced by some strong and likely reasons.

MarginaliaThe meaning of Christes wordes examined.VERI. Fyrst, in examinyng the wordes of Christ, I get me to the meanyng and purpose for which they were spoken. And in thys behalfe I see that Christ ment to haue hys death and passion kept in remembraunce. For men of them selues bee and euermore were forgetfull of the benefites of God. And therefore it was behouefull that they shoulde bee admonished and sturred vp wyth some visible and outward tokens, as with the Passeouer Lambe, the brasen Serpent, and other like. For the brasen Serpent was a token that when the Iewes were slynged and wounded with Serpentes, God restored them and made them whole. The passeouer Lambe was a memorye of the great benefite of God, whych when he destroyed the Egyptiās, saued the Iewes whose doores were sprinkled wyth the bloud of a Lambe. So likewise Christ left vs a memoriall and remēbrance of his death and passion in outward tokens  

, that when the Chylde should demaund of his Father what the breakyng of the bread and drynking of the cup meaneth, he might aunswere hym, that lyke as the bread is brokē, so Christ was broken and rent vpon the crosse for to redeme the soule of man: and lyke as wyne fostereth and comforteth the body, so doth the bloud of Christ cherish and relieue the soule. And thys do I gather by the woordes of Christ, and by the institution and order of the Sacrament. For Christ charged the Apostels to doe thys in the remembraunce of hym. Whereupon thus I do conclude:

[Back to Top]

Fes-	Nothyng is done in remembrance of it selfe.
ti-	But the Sacrament is vsed in the remembrance of Christ:
no.	Therefore the Sacrament is not Christ.

Fe-	Christ neuer deuoured hym selfe.
ri-	Christ did eate the Sacrament with his Apostles:
son.	Ergo, the Sacrament is not Christ him selfe.   Commentary     Close Verity employs syllogisms, forms of logical argumentation using three points that often beg more questions than they answer. Catholics would respond to these arguments in a variety of ways; the most simple being 'with God, all things are possible,' along with evidence found in Scripture and Tradition and how the Church has interpreted these modes of divine revelation in regards to the Eucharist since Apostolic times. [Back to Top]

Beside this I see, that Christ ordayned not his body, but a sacramēt of his body. A Sacramēt (as S. Augustine declareth) is an outward signe of an inuisible grace. His wordes are: Sacramentū est inuisibilis gratiæ visibile signū.  

Out of whych wordes I gather two argumentes. The fyrst is thys, the token of the body of Christ is the thing tokened: wherfore they are not one. The second is this.

[Back to Top]

Fe-	One thyng can not be both visible and inuisible.
ri-	But the Sacrament is visible, & the body of Christ inuisible:
son.	Therefore they are not one.

Which thyng S. Augustine openeth very well by these wordes: Aliud est sacramētū, aliud res sacramenti. Sacramētū est quod in corpus vadit: res autē sacramēti est corpus domini nostri Iesu Christi. Moreouer, I remēber þ^t Christ ministred this Sacramēt not to great & deepe Philosophers, but to a sort of ignorant and vnlearned Fishers, whych notwithstanding vnderstoode Christes meaning ryght well, and delyuered it euen as they tooke it at Christes hand, to the vulgar and lay people and fully declared vnto them the meaning thereof. But the lay pople, nor scarcely the Apostles themselues could vnderstand what is ment by transubstantiation, impanation, dimensions, qualitates, quātitates, accidens sine subiecto, terminus a quo, & terminus ad quem, per modum quanti. This is no lear-

[Back to Top]