Dr. Thomas Cranmer: "Works of Cranmer" (ed. Cox), 2.59ff.

Wily repeats the Papal line that “is” means “is” ad seriatim et ad infinitum et ad nauseum. When he doubt, the Wily drives over the subject, then puts it in reverse to “walk the cat backwards,” and then “pulling the cat forward.” Dreary and tedious.

 

Dr. Cranmer asserts that Wily the lawyer misrepresents Augustine who believes, “if you believe, you’ve eaten…if you believe, you drunken the cup, etc. Here’s Dr. Cranmer’s punk-slapping of Wily for obstinacy: “And not of like sort, but of like evilness do you handle (in reprehending of my second untruth, as you call it) another place of St Augustine in his book de doctrina de Christiana, where he saith, that the eating and drinking of Christ's flesh and blood Christiana, is a figurative speech: which place you expound so far from St Augustine's meaning, that whosoever looketh upon his words, may by and by discern that you do not, or will not, understand him. But it is most like (the words of him being so plain and easy) that purposely you will not understand him, nor nothing else that is against your will, rather than you will go from any part of your will and received opinion. For it is plain and clear that St Augustine in that place speaketh not one word of the separation of the two natures in Christ; and although Christ's flesh be never so surely and inseparably united unto his Godhead (without which union it could profit nothing), yet being so joined, it is a very man's flesh, the eating whereof (after the proper speech of eating) is horrible and abominable. Wherefore the eating of Christ's flesh must needs be otherwise understanded, than after the proper and common eating of other meats with the mouth, which eating after such sort could avail nothing. And therefore St Augustine in that place declareth the eating of Christ's flesh to be only a figurative speech. And he openeth the figure so as the eating must be meant with the mind, not with the mouth, that is to say, by chewing and digesting in our minds, to our great consolation and profit, that Christ 2 died for us. Thus doth St Augustine open the figure and meaning of Christ, when he spake of the eating of his flesh and drinking of his blood. And his flesh being thus eaten, it must also be joined unto his divinity, or else it could not give everlasting life, as Cyril and the council Ephesine truly decreed. But St Augustine declared the figurative speech of Christ to be in the eating, not in the union. And whereas, to shift off the plain words of Christ, spoken in the sixth of John, " He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, dwelleth in me, and I in him,"you say that dwelling in Christ is not the manducation; you say herein directly against St Cyprian, who saith, Quod mansio nostra in ipso sit manducatio, “That our dwelling in him is the eating:” and also against St Augustine, whose words be these : Hoc est ergo manducare escam illam, et ilium bibere potum, in Christo manere, et ilium manentem in se habere: “This is to eat that meat, and drink that drink, to dwell in Christ, and to have Christ dwelling in him.” And although the eating and drinking of Christ be here defined by the effect, (for the very eating is the believing,) yet wheresoever the eating is, the effect must be also, if the definition of St Augustine be truly given. And therefore, although good and bad eat carnally with their teeth bread, being the sacrament of Christ's body; yet no man eateth his very flesh, which is spiritually eaten, but he that dwelleth in Christ, and Christ in him” (II.60).

 

Dr. Cranmer desires Holy Communion to be a sign and badge of Christian unity, not of discord and contention. Well, that’s rich coming from the English Reformed, but it’s a polite petition for Wily to put down his weapons and give up the “jugglery” and “devilish” discord: “Christ ordained the sacrament to move and stir all men to friendship, love, and concord, and to put away all hatred, variance, and discord, and to testify a brotherly and unfeigned love between all them that be the members of Christ: but the devil, the enemy of Christ and of all his members, hath so craftily juggled herein, that of nothing riseth so much contention as of this holy sacrament…God grant, that all contention set aside, both the parties may come to this holy communion with such a lively faith in Christ, and such an unfeigned love to all Christ's members, that as they carnally eat with their mouths this sacramental bread, and drink the wine, so spiritually they may eat and drink the very flesh and blood of Christ which is in heaven, and sitteth on the right hand of his Father ; and that finally by his means they may enjoy with him the glory and kingdom of heaven! Amen” (II.63).

 

Then, Dr. Cranmer imputes obstinacy, papist training since youth, his legal training, and “Saulish eyes” to Wily. So much for the mild and timid Dr. Cranmer who lays down some smack: “I perceive here how untoward you be to learn the truth, being brought up all your life in papistical errors. If you could forget your law, which hath been your chief profession and study from your youth, and specially the canon law which purposely corrupteth the truth of God's word, you should be much more apt to understand and receive the secrets of holy scripture. But before those scales fall from your Saulish eyes, you neither can nor will perceive the true doctrine of this holy sacrament of Christ's body and blood. But yet I shall do as much as lieth in me, to teach and instruct you, as occasion shall serve; so that the fault shall be either in your evil bringing up altogether in popery, or in your dulness, or froward- ness, if you attain not true 8 understanding of this matter” (II.66)