Answer to Reynolds Book, Chapter 9
CHAP. 9.
Of certeine places of S. Chryſostome touching the Reall preſence.
Two places out of S Chryſoſtome were alledged by M. Martin, pag. 20…. &c.to prooue thereall preſence. The firſt out of his ſecond homilie to the people of Antioch, Chryſt. hom. 2. ad pop. Antio.wherein by an excellent and fit allegorie, he compareth our ſauiour Chriſt to the Prophet Elias. For as Elias aſcending bodelie into heauen, left his cloake with Elizeus his ſcholler, ſo Chriſt the ſonne of God aſ…ending vp, left his fleſh with vsus. S. Chryſoſtomes meaning to anie that readeth the place is euident ynough: & M. R. though he multiplie wordes after his ſimple manner, yet my former anſwere he cannot diſprooue. That Chriſt left vntounto vsus his fleſh in the holie ſacrament, who euer doubted? that therein we receiue his true and natural fleſh, we beleeue, we teach, and alwaies did. But the Real preſence of his fleſh, ſuch as you maintaine S. Chryſoſtome neuer knew and we vtterlie denie.Chriſt left vsus his fleſh: therefore he left it Really. A falſe popiſh argument. For can you reaſon thus, and reaſon trulie, that if Chriſt left vsus his fleſh, he left it in reall preſence? this is the point: this prooue if you can: els you talke to no purpoſe. Chriſt left his fleſh, that is, a ſacrament of his fleſh, wherein is moſt truelie and effectuallie, but ſpiritually offered vntounto vsus, and of vsus receiued, the very fleſh of Chriſt.
Hauing ſpent manie vnprofitable and ſuperfluous ſpeaches, at length you force the compariſon, and ſhew a threefold difference betweene Elias leauing his mantel, and Chriſt leauing his fleſh. And are you indeed in your right vnderſtanding? who, I praie you, M. R. denieth this? you migh alledge not three onley, but three and three points of difference betweene Elias and Chriſts leauing the one his mantel, the other his fleſh. This then being wholy graunted, what is your argument? will you reaſon thus, There is great difference between Elias leauing his cloake, & Chriſt leauing his fleſh:Straunge arguments that M.R. hath learned of late to make. therefore Chriſt left his fleſh vntounto vsus reallie? If this be not your argument, frame an other your ſelfe as you can.
The firſt difference is, that Elias left his cloake, Christ his fleſh. Fleſh indeed differeth from a cloake: & ſo the difference is cleare, but your argument is blinde. How Chriſt left his fleſh, I hauehave ſaid alreadie.
The ſecond, Chriſt left his fleſh with vsus, & yet caried the ſame with him into heauen: Elias leauing his cloake loſt it. And how gather you hereof an argument for reall preſence? Chriſt caried with him into heauen his fleſh in the naturall ſubſtance thereof: Chriſt left with vsus his fleſh in a ſacrament of his fleſh. If you ſtill vrge, that Chriſtes fleſh is there, and Chriſtes fleſh is here, let Chryſoſtome declare his owne meaning, whoſe wordes you ſeeke moſte ſhamefully to abuſe. For that Saint Chryſoſtome ſpake thus, not of the carnall and naturall ſubſtance of Chriſts fleſh, but of the ſpirituall preſence thereof,S. Chryſoſtome in his … ordes dri…e…h awaie all n…es of popiſh Reall preſence. we maie perceaue by his wordes a little before of Elias: Afterwards (ſaith S. Chryſoſtome) Elias was double: there was an Elias aboue, and there was an Elias beneath. Elias touching his naturall ſubſtance of bodie and ſoule, was onelyonly aboue: though in ſome kinde of preſence true alſo it is, that Elias was beneath. Euen ſo our ſauiour Chriſt in carnall preſence of his bodie is aboue: but in an other manner, namelie in ſpiritual preſence of the ſame he is beneath. This is Saint Chryſoſtomes plaine meaning: which God wot maketh full meanlie for proofe of real preſence.
The third difference, Elias ſhed not his blood for his people, but Chriſt ſhed his blood, and imparted the ſame vntounto vsus. And would you hauehave vsus thinke, that becauſe Chriſt imparteth vntounto vsus his blood, therefore we drinke it reallie? what ſhould one anſwere ſuch vnworthie and ſenſeles arguments? Leaue your geaſſes, and ſpeake to the purpoſe
Here you talke,pag. 209. as wel becommeth a man of your profeſſion, falſlie, vilelie, blaſphemouſlie againſt the true doctrine of Chriſts ſacrament. I am vnwilling to anſwere ſuch profane ſpeaches of an opprobrious & ſlaunderous enemie. So much onelyonly wil I ſpeake as ſhall ſerue to ſtoppe the mouth of this railer. Doe we thinke no otherwiſe of our communion, then as of common breade and wine, without all grace, vertue, and ſanctification? M. R. reporteth falſlie of our doctr…ne touching the ſacrament.doe we make it a bare figure of Chriſt abſent? HaueHave we as good figures at our common breakefaſt, din…ers and ſuppers? Thus you ſay, but all the world knoweth you ſay moſte vntrulie. Common bread, common wine,We denie …hriſts bo…y to be Really preſent in the ſupper: Ergo we make the ſupper a bare figure of Chriſt, Thus our papiſtes vnlearnedlie reaſon. bare figure was neuer any part of our doctrine: this is your vnlearned collection of that we deny the reall preſence. For had you but halfe an eye, you might ſee how this ſlaunder is eaſilie diſprooued. In baptiſme, a ſacrament of Chriſts owne ordinaunce, there is not anie reall preſence of Chriſts blood or body, as your ſelues confeſſe. Now if one had as hereticall a iudgement of this ſacrament as you hauehave of the other, he might charge you as iuſtlie for denying Chriſts reall preſence in the ſacrament of baptiſme, as you doe vsus, for denying his reall preſence in the ſacrament of the ſupper. For if you reaſon with anie trueth againſt vsus, that we make it common bread, common wine, a bare figure, without grace, vertue, or ſanctifying power, becauſe we affirme that Chriſt is not preſent carnally & groſſelie therein: then muſt it as truelie and neceſſarilie follow, that the water of baptiſme is common water,The popiſh argument maketh the ſacrament of Baptiſme no better then a bare element. is a bare figure, is void of all ſpirituall effect: becauſe in baptiſme there is no reall preſence. And ſurelie by this your kinde of argument it plainlie appeareth, you hauehave no other opinion thereof, then, as you hauehave ſaid, of common water, wherein is neither grace, nor vertue, nor ſanctification: and of a bare figure, ſuch as you may hauehave enough, whenſoeuer you waſh your hands.
Certaine ſentences of Zuinglius you ſnatch, to prooue we thinke as b…ſely & contemptiblie of the ſacrament, as you report of vsus. Zuinglius ſaieth, it is nothing but a commemoration. Zuinglius meaneth not that the ſacrament is onelie a bare remembrance of Chriſts death: he teacheth and proteſteth the contrarie in a thouſand places. His meaning is no other but to ſhewe, that Chriſt is not offered really in the ſacrament, but that therein is ſet forth vntounto vsus a remembrance of his ſacrifice: he oppoſeth commemoration, not to the ſpirituall preſence, and participation of Chriſt, but to the imagined reall and ſubſtantial preſence of Chriſts body. So when he ſpeaketh of onelyonly figures, nothing but breade, he excludeth not the ſpirituall, but carnall preſence, and that with the breade is not ioyned any materiall thing beſides. Alſo that he compareth the ſacrament to a Kings banner, which is a token of his preſence, ſerueth onelyonly to ſhew that Chriſt is not bodely, but ſpirituallie preſent. And therefore for ought you hauehave alledged, Beza hath truelie ſayd, that there is no coatrarietie betweene the doctrine of theſe moſt excellent men, Zuinglius, OEcolampadius, Caluine, Bez. in. epiſt. 1.touching the ſacramentes. For they taught both ſoundly in trueth, and moſte conſonantlie among them ſelues.
Thus all your notes following of difference betweene Saint Chryſostomes text, and my anſwere is diſcharged: and whatſoeuer els you bable in this place, to no purpoſe in the world, but to ſhew your ignorance.
The cloake, you ſay, was a more liuelie figure of Elias, then your bread and wine is of Chriſt. Now this toucheth neither Zuinglius, nor Caluine, but Chriſt himſelfe, whoe appointed theſe to be figures and ſignes of his bodie. If you raile at Chriſt, no maruell though you raile at his miniſters.
By it Elizeus you ſaie, receiued great grace and ſtrength: that your bread ſhoul… giuegive grace is againſt your wholl doctrine. Indeed we ſay that with the bread is not mingled grace; for then both godlie and wicked ſhould be partakers of Chriſts grace: but in the right vſe of the ſacrament, to the faithful perſon is giuen moſte plentifull and excellent grace.
The cloake, you ſay, had a vertue ſurmounting the habilitie of man. Yet I truſt you will not ſaie, this vertue and grace was in the cloake reallie, as you teach that Chriſt is in the ſacrament. That you ſaie, our bread is nothing but a ſigne or banner, as it were a maipole, or token of a tauerne, ſuch wordes doe well be ſeeme your ſpirit, Maſter Rainolds. The time will come, when the mouth of blaſphemie ſhall be ſtopped.
The other place of Saint Chryſoſtome hath leſſe force for proofe of Reall preſence,pag. 214. &c. although Maſter Rainolds decke & garniſh it all he can, as if he would make ſaie thereof. The moſte that Saint Chryſoſtome ſaith is, that Chriſt ſitting with his father aboue at the ſame moment is handled with all mens hands: Chryſoſt. de ſacerdot. l. 3.wherein firſt of all priuate maſſe, vſed in the Popiſh ſynagogues, …eceaueth a blowe. For Chr…ſoſtome ſaith, Chriſt is handled wit… all m…ns hands … the Popiſh maſſe the prieſt onelie h… adl…h all, that is handled. … whoe is ſo …imple not to ſee … m…ni…g of that godlie and eloquent father, in this kinde of ſpeach? Doe all men handle Chriſt with their handes indeed? doth Saint Chryſostome meane a reall handling, as a man handleth bread?The papiſtes will have Chriſts fleſh …andled Really. do yourſelues thinke thus groſlie, …r els for a ſhew pretend you to maintaine the ſame? That Chriſt may thus be handled taken vp, laid downe, broken, eaten, ſwallowed, remoued from place to place, toſſed to and fro, and all this, as you ſpeake, really, is monſtrous, and lothſome doctrine, in the eares and harts of all godlie and reaſonable men. This S. Chriſoſtome once to hauehave imagined, neuer ſhall you ſhew in this world. Chriſoſtome meaneth the ſacrament of Chriſt, which we handle indeede, and which in ſome ſenſe in called Chriſt himſelfe. This to be moſte true, is plaine by Chryſoſtome in the ſame place.S. Chryſoſtome expou…deth his owne meaning. For he ſaith, We ſee the Lord ſacrificed, and the people are ſprinkled, and made red with his blood: and this done plainly without deceit in the ſight of all men. If Chryſoſtome may be allowed to expound himſelfe, your gloſſe of real handling Chriſt in the ſacrament muſt giuegive place. For if he meant, as you meane, that Chriſt is handled indeed, then meant he alſo that Chriſt is ſacrificed indeede in our ſight, that the people are dyed and embrued with blood indeed, that all men ſee the ſame indeed. For theſe ſpeaches are all of one ſtampe, all after one ſorte to be vnderſtood: as one parte is true, ſo is another. Then tel vsus M.R. if Chriſt be ſacrificed indeede, if the people be embrued with his blood indeede, if this be euident to all men indede: you maie not vrge vsus ſo extreamlie in one, and giuegive vsus the ſlip in all the reſt. Let vsus then conſider what replie you make to this anſwere, which to be true and ſufficient you can not denie.pag. 220.217. The papiſtes ſaie they ſee Chriſt Really ſacrificed in their Church.
Firſt you ſaie, I am ignorant of the catholike faith. For in the Church catholike we ſee Chriſt offered. Then you maintaine that S. Chryſoſtome, in ſaying we ſee Chriſt ſacrificed, ſpeaketh properlie: for this, you ſaie, is ſeene in the catholike Church. The godly, I graunt, ſee in ſpirit this ſacrifice of Chriſt: & thus the oblation of Chriſt is ſeene in the catholike Church. But we ſpeake of a real ſacrifice of Chriſt, which no man ſeeth, nor euer ſhal ſee. For a reall ſacrifice prooueth a real death: & ſo Chriſt when he was ſacrificed reallie, died alſo reallie. But no man ſeeth Chriſt dying, who died but once, & now liueth for euer. And they that really ſacrificed our ſauiour Chriſt, did in that acte really & wickedly murther him: & ſo your Prieſts if they be reall ſacrificers of Chriſt, are in the ſame action alſo reall murtherers of Chriſt. Take both, or refuſe both: if you take vppon you the one, you muſt not, nor cannot denie the other. Murtherers of Chriſt you wil not be accounted, & yet you profeſſe your ſelues to be ſacrificers of Chriſt, & that openly: which is al one, as if the Iewes ſhould confeſſe, that they crucified Chriſt, but yet they murthered him not: wherefore it is in a word an hereſie & blaſphemie, to ſaie Chriſt is ſacrificed in the Church, otherwiſe then in a ſacrament & remembrance of that one ſacrifice, as both Chryſoſtome, & the fathers write commonlie: in which manner, and no other, he is ſeene to be ſacrificed in the Church. That you adde of ſeeing god, is poore diuinitie: & being admitted that we ſee Chriſt in the Catholik Church, how followeth your reaſon, therefore we ſee him ſacrificed: if you hauehave either wit, or religion, your ſelfe may ſee you ſpeake without al wit and religion.
Secondlie you anſwere,…. that I am ignorant of the Lutheranes doctrine: and then, as you are wont, you rehearſe certaine places out of Luther, wherunto I hauehave no nede to anſwere. How cunning you your ſelfe are of that doctrine, let others iudge, when you ſaie,Vntruthes boldlie ſet downe by M. Rainolds. they acknowledge bread to be the bodie of Chriſt. Doth Luther or anie Lutheran teach that bread is the bodie of Chriſt? Do they adore it, as you alſo affirme? This to be falſe whoe knoweth not? They neither acknowledge the bread to be God, nor giuegive any godlie honour to it. And that might Kemuitius hauehave taught you in the ſame place that your ſelfe alledge. He ſaith we adore in spirit & truth, Kemnit. exam. pars 2. de Euchar. cap. 6.not the bread, but Chriſt in the action of the Lordes ſupper. And ſo doe we alſo acknowledge & teach that Chriſt in the ſupper is to be worſhipped, & adored in ſpirit & truth of all Chriſtians.
That you alledge out of Maſter Caluine for your third anſwere,pag. 223. as it is of vsus entirelie allowed, ſo it notably detecteth the falſhood of your ſlaunder, when you write and beare your reader in hand, that we make the ſacrament a bare ſigne and figure. For we teach, and euer did,Caluin de coena Domini. as Caluine doth in this place, that it is ioyned to his truth and ſubſtance: and not onelie repreſenteth, but alſo exhibiteth vntounto vsus the bodie of Chriſt. Now then this being our doctrine touching the ſacrament, as your ſelfe may ſee in theſe wordes of Caluine plainly declared, ceaſe for ſhame hereafter contrary to your owne knowledge and conſcience to charge vsus for making the ſacrament a naked and onelie figure. But now Maſter Rainolds draw theſe things to the point, and match them with your concluſion, and then ſee what agreement there is betweene them. Can you gather of that Caluine ſaith, we ſee the body of Chriſt in a ſacrament, that therefore we ſee Chriſt viſiblie ſacrificed in the Church? ſuch reaſons are too lamentable, as here, and euerie where you bring vsus.
Then Maſter Rainolds admitting this to be indeede a phraſe of ſpeach,pag. 224. asketh whether it follow, that therefore it is a phraſe of ſpeach alſo to ſay, that Chriſts body is there at all. I anſwere expounding Chryſoſtome by Chryſoſtome, and that in the ſame place and words, as Chriſt is handled with all mens hands,S. Chryſoſtome rightly expounded. ſo is he viſiblie ſacrificed, and ſo are the people made red with his blood: that is, by way of a ſacrament. Therefore ſet your heart at reſt M. R. out of this place ſhall you neuer prooue your reall preſence. That you adde of figuratiue expoſitions, is ſuperfluous.
Of Saint Chryſoſtomes vehemencie in amplifications,pag. 226. knowen to all that knowe Chryſoſtome, this place hath a liuely example, peruſe it your ſelfe, Maſter Rainolds, compare one ſpeach with an other, and ſay, if you can, otherwiſe. That you aske, whether he amplifie a lie or truth, I anſwere, his amplification is true, as he meant it, and as it muſt of neceſſitie be expounded. Of Prieſts and ſacrifice enoughe hath bene ſpoken before. Such prieſts as Chryſoſtome after the common manner of ſpeach ſpeaketh of, we acknowledged, which were the Biſhops and Paſtours of the Church. And concerning the amplification, which you ſay it is impoſſible to interprete of our communion, if you had wil, this thing is poſſible and eaſie enough. We ſay therefore with Saint Chryſoſtome, we ſee Chriſt, that is, we ſee a ſacrament of Chriſt. For Chriſt him ſelfe I thinke you wil not ſay is ſeene. We ſee Chriſt ſacrificed, that is, we ſee the ſacrament of Chriſts ſacrifice adminiſtred, wherein Chriſts ſacrifice is recorded according to his cōmaundement. The Prieſt is bent to the ſacrifice, that is, the miniſter of Chriſt miniſtreth the ſacrament of the ſacrifice, & offereth the ſacrifice of prayers and thanks giuing. The people receiue the precious blood. nay M.R.S. Chryſoſtomes words are more vehement then ſo: he ſaith, the people are ſprinckled & imbrued with his blood: belike S. Chryſoſtome was here ſomewhat too vehement in your iudgement. The expoſition I leaue to your ſelfe, & tell vsus withal how the people are thus ſprinckled in your Church, that come not once neere the cuppe. Holy water ſprinckling you hauehave enough amongſt you: but this ſprinckling of blood, whereof S. Chriſoſt. ſpeaketh, you muſt needes confeſſe cannot belong to the people amongſt you. Chriſt ſitting in heauen is receiued in the Church, & who ſeeth not the meaning, that Chriſt ſitting in heauen as touching his bodilie preſence, is in the ſacrament ſpirituallie receiued? This Doctrine is the Doctrine of our Church: and for this no man amongſt vsus needeth to feare the controlement of anie cōmiſſioner, ſo his meaning be ſound, as Chryſoſtomes was, to declare a true ſpirituall preſence and communication of Chriſt in the ſacrament, not to …ſi…ate a ca…nal being and receiuing of Chriſt therein, which Saint Chryſoſtome in manie places moſte plainly confuteth, and which he neuer thought anie man once ſo fond to imagine.
That Chryſoſtome compareth this ſacrifice, with the Leuiticall ſacrifices,…. …29. and that of Elias, prooueth not yet a Reall ſacrifice of Chriſt in the ſacrament.An…ther … argument of M.R. Let your reaſon thus be framed according to your minde. Chryſoſtome compareth and preferreth the ſacrament of Chriſts ſupper, wherein the ſacrament of Chriſts death is repreſented and re…orded, to the ſacrifices of the L…uiticall Prieſts, and of Elias: therefore as they offered ſome Real ſacrifice of a beaſt, ſo the Prieſt nowe offereth a Reall ſacrifice of Chriſt. This concluſion holdeth not, Master Rainolds, it is too weake. Were you not at Rhemes, you might ſee the force of Saint Chryſoſtomes compariſon to lie herein, that the olde Prieſts were appointed to ſacrifice onelie a lambe, or goate, or kowe, or ſome other brute beaſt: but now the ſonne of God himſelfe is moſte liuely, yet ſpirituallie, not reallie, ſacrificed in the Church, when the ſacrament of this ſacrifice according to his inſtitution is receiued. Your eloquence in the end is nothing els but childiſh rayling, neceſſarie for ſuch a cauſe as you hauehave taken in hand to maintaine, which cannot otherwiſe be vpholden, or continue in anie reaſonable account.