THE SECOND BOOK IS AGAINST THE ERROR OF Transubstantiation.: A Defence of the True and Catholic Doctrine of the Sacrament by Thomas Cranmer | AskReformation

Skip to content

And first,¹ that bread and wine remain after the words of consecration, and be eaten and drunken in the Lords supper,² is most manifest by the plain words of Christ him self, when he ministered the same supper unto his disciples. For as the Evangelists write, Christ toke bread, and brake it, and gave it to his disciples, and said. Take, eat▪ this is my body. Here the Papists triumph of these words, wham Christ said: This is my body. which they call the words of Consecration. For (say they) as soon as these words be fully ended, there is no bread left, nor none other substance, but only Christs body. When Christ said (this,) the bread (say they) remained. And when he said (is) yet the bread remained. Also when he added (my) the bread remained still. And when he said (bo-) yet the bread was there still. But when he had finished the whole sentence, This is my body. than (say they) the bread was gone, and there remained no substance but Christs body, as though the bread could not remain, when it is made a sacrament. But this negative, that there is no bread, they make of their own brains, by their Unwritten verities.

And fyrst,¹ that breade and wine remain after the woordes of consecration, and bee eaten and drunken in the Lordes supper,² is moste manyfest by the plaine woordes of Christe hym selfe, whan he ministred the same supper vnto his disciples. For as the Euangelistes write, Christe toke breade, and brake it, and gaue it to his diciples, and sayde. Take, eate▪ this is my body. Here the Papistes triumph of these words, whā Christe saide: This is my body. whiche they call the woordes of Consecration. For (say they) as soone as these woordes be fully ended, there is no breade lefte, nor none other substaunce, but onlye Christes bodye. Whan Christe saide (this,) the breade (saye they) remayned. And whan he sayde (is) yet the breade remained. Also whan hee added (my) the breade remained styll. And whan he sayd (bo-) yet the breade was ther styll. But when hee hadde fynyshed the whole sentence, Thys is my body. than (saye they) the breade was gone, and there remained no substaunce but Christes bodye, as thoughe the breade coulde not remaine, whan it is made a sacramente. But this negatiue, that there is no breade, they make of their owne braynes, by theyr Unwrytten verities.

1Chap. 2.
2The papistical doctrine is contrary to Goddes word. Math. 26. Mark. 14. Luce. 22.The papisticall doctrine is cō trarye to Goddes worde. Math. 26. Mark. 14. Luce. 22.

:87img 23

And that this was the meaning of Christ, appeareth plainly by S Paul, in the tenth chap. to the Corinth.¹ the first epistle, where he (speaking of the same matter) saith: Is not the bread which we break, the communion of the body of Christ? Who understood the mind of Christ better than S. Paul, to whom Christ showed his most secrete counsels? And saint Paul is not afraid, for our better understanding of Christs words, somewhat to alter the same, least we might stand stiffly in the letters and syllables, and •rre in mistaking of Christs words. For where as our saviour Christ brake the bread and said, This is my body: S. Paul saith, that the bread which we break, is the communion of Christs body. Christ •aid, his body: and saint Paul said, the communion of his body: meaning nevertheless both one thing, that they which eat the bread worthily, do eat spiritually Christs very body. And so Christ calleth the bread his body (as the old authors report) because it representeth his body, and signifieth unto them which eat that bread according to Christs ordinance, that they do spiritually eat his body, and be spiritually fed and nourished by him, and yet the bread remaineth still there as a sacrament to signify the same. But of these words of Consecration shall be spoken hereafter more at large.

And that this was the meaning of Christ, appeareth plainly by S Paule, in the tenth chap. to the Corinth.¹ the fyrste epistle, where he (speakinge of the same matter) saithe: Is not the breade whiche wee breake, the communion of the body of Christe? Who vnderstode the mynde of Christ better than S. Paule, to whom Christe shewed his moste secrete counsailes? And saint Paule is not afraide, for our better vnderstandinge of Christes wordes, somewhat to alter the same, least we might stande stiffely in the letters and syllables, and •rre in mistaking of Christes wordes. For where as our sauiour Christ brake the bread and said, This is my body: S. Paule saith, that the bread which we breake, is the communion of Christes body. Christ •aid, his body: and saint Paule said, the cōmunion of his body: meaning neuertheles both one thinge, that thei which eate the breade worthely, do eate spiritually Christes very body. And so Christe calleth the bread his body (as the olde authors report) bicause it representeth his body, and signifieth vnto them whiche eate that bread according to Christes ordinance, that they do spiritually eate his bodye, and be spiritually fed and nourished by him, and yet the breade remaineth still there as a sacrament to signifie the same. But of these words of Consecration shal be spoken hereafter more at large.

1•. Cor. 10.

:98img 25

Now I ask again of the Papists, whether he spake this of the bread consecrated or not consecrated? They can not say that he spake it of the bread unconsecrated, for that is not the communion of Christs body by their own doctrine. And if S. Paul spake it of bread consecrated, than they must needs confess, that after consecration such bread remaineth, as is broken bread, which can be none other than very true material bread. And straight ways after saint Paul saith in the same place, ¹that we be partakers of one bread and one cup. And in the next chapter, speaking more fully of the same matter, four times he nameth the bread and the cup, never making mention of any transubstantiation, or remaining of accidents without any substance, which things he would have made some mention of, if it had been a necessary article of our faith, to believe that there remaineth no bread nor wine. Thus it is evident and plain, by the words of scripture, that after consecration remaineth bread and wine, and that the Papistical doctrine of transubstantiation, is directly contrary to Gods word.

Nowe I aske agayn of the Papists, whether he spake this of the bread consecrated or not cō secrated? Thei can not say that he spake it of the bread vnconsecrated, for that is not the communion of Christes body by their owne doctrine. And if S. Paule spake it of bread consecrated, than they must needes confesse, that after consecracion suche bread remayneth, as is broken bread, whiche can bee none other than very true material bread. And straight wayes after sainct Paule sayth in the same place, ¹that wee be partakers of one bread and one cuppe. And in the next chapiter, speakyng more fully of the same matter, four tymes he nameth the bread and the cuppe, neuer makyng mention of any transubstantiation, or remainyng of accidētes without any substaunce, whiche thynges he would haue made some mencion of, if it had been a necessary article of our fayth, to beleue that there remayneth no bread nor wyne. Thus it is euident and plaine, by the wordes of scripture, that after cō secracion remayneth bread and wyne, and that the Papisticall doctrine of transubstantiation, is directly contrary to Gods worde.

11. Co. 10

:109p. 22

And if there be no trust to be given to our senses ⟨image 27⟩in this matter of the sacrament, why than do the Papists so stoutly affirm, that the accidents remain after the consecration? which can not be judged but by the senses. For the scripture speaketh no word of the accidents of bread and wine, but of the bread and wine them selves. And it is against the nature and definition of accidents, to be alone without any substance. Wherefore if we may not trust our senses in this matter of the sacrament, than if the substance of the bread and wine be gone, why may we not then say, that the accidents begun also? And if we must needs believe our senses, as concerning the accidents of bread & wine, why may we not do the like of the substance, & that rather than of the accidents? Forasmuch as after the consecration the scripture saith in no place, that there is no substance of bread nor of wine, but calleth them still by such names as signify the substances, and not the accidents?

And if there be no trust to be geuen to our senses ⟨image 27⟩in this matter of the sacramente, why than do the Papistes so stoutely affirme, that the accidentes remayn after the consecration? whiche can not be iudged but by the senses. For the scripture speaketh no woorde of the accidentes of breade and wyne, but of the breade and wyne them selues. And it is againste the nature and diffinition of accidentes, to bee alone withoute any substance. Wherefore if we may not truste our senses in this matter of the sacrament, thā if the substance of the bread and wyne be gone, why may we not then say, that the accidentes begon also? And if we must nedes beleue our senses, as cōcernyng the accidents of bread & wine, why may we not do the lyke of the substance, & that rather than of the accidentes? Forasmuche as after the cōsecration the scripture saith in no place, that there is no substance of bread nor of wyne, but calleth them still by suche names as signifie the substances, and not the accidentes?