Answer unto a Crafy and Sophistical Cavillation, Debate · Confutation of book 3 · Section 19 – Section 20
Caunterbury.
NOte well here reader, how the cuttill commeth in with his darke coulours.
Where I speake of the substaunce of the thing that is eaten, you turne it to the manner and circumstaunces thereof, to blynde the simple reader, and that you may make therof a riddle of yea and nay, as you be wont to make blacke white, and white blacke: or one thing yea and nay, black and white at your pleasure.
But to put away your darke coulours, and to make the matter playne,The fathers did eat Christs flesh and drink his bloud. this I say, that the fathers and prophets did eat Christes body and drinke his bloud in promise of redemptiō to be wrought, and we eat and drink the same flesh and bloud in confirmation of our faith in the redemption all ready wrought.
But as the fathers did eat and drinke, so did also the Apostles at Christ his supper, in promise of redemtion to be wrought, not in confirmation of redēption already wrought. So that if wrought and to be wrought, make the diuersitie of presence and not presence, then the Apostles did not eat and drinke the flesh and bloud of Christ really present, because the redemption was not then already wrought, but promised the next day to be wrought.
And although before the crucifiyng of his flesh and effusion of his bloud our redemption was not actually wrought by Christ, yet was he spiritually and sacramentally present, and spiritually and sacramentally eaten and drunken, not onelyonly of the Apostles at his last supper before hee suffered his passion, but also of the holy Patriarkes and fathers before his incarnation, aswell as he is now of vsus after his ascention.
And although in the manner of signifiyng there be great difference between their sacraments and ours, yet (as S. Augustine saith) both we and they receaue one thing in the diuersitie of Sacraments.The diuersitie of the sacramēts of the new and olde testament. August. in. Ioan. Tract. 26. And our Sacraments contain presently the very things signified, no more then theirs did. For in their sacraments they were by Christ presently regenerated and fed, as we be in ours, although their sacraments were figures of the death of Christ to com, and ours be figurs of his death now past. And as it is al one Christ that was to be borne and to dye for vsus, and afterward was borne in deede and dyed in deede (whose byrth and death be now passed) so was the same Christ, and the same flesh and bloud eaten and drunken of the faithfull fathers before he was borne or dead, and of his Apostles after he was born and before he was dead, and of faithfull christen people is now dayly eaten and drunken after that both his natiuity and death be passed. And al is but one Christ, one flesh & one bloud, as concerning the sustance, yet that which to the fathers was to come, is to vsus passed. And neuerthelesse the eating & drinking is all one, for neither the fathers did, nor we do eat carnally and corporally with our mouthes, but both the fathers did and we do eat spiritually by true and liuely faith.The Fathers did eate Christs body and drinke his bloud before he was borne. The body of Christ was and is all one to the fathers and to vsus, but corporally and locally he was yet borne vntounto them, & from vsus he is gone: and ascended vp into heauē. So that to neither he was nor is carnally, substantially and corporally present, but to them he was & to vsus he is spiritually present and sacramentally also, and of both sacramē tally, spiritually and effectually eaten and drunken, to eternall saluation & euerlasting lyfe.
And this is plainly enough declared in the Scripture, to them that hauehave willing mindes to vnderstand the truth. For it is written in the old Testament Eccle. 24. in the person of Christ thus: They that eat me, shall yet hunger, and they that drinke me shall yet be thirsty.
1. Cor. 10.And S. Paule writeth to the Corinthians, saying: Our fathers did all eat the same spirituall meat, and did all drink the same spirituall drinke, and they drank of that spirituall rock that followed them, which rock was Christ.August. de vtil. paeniten. These words S. Augustine expounding sayth: What is to eat the same meat: but that they did eate the same which wee doe. Who so euer in Manna vnderstood Christ, did eat the same spirituall meat that we do, yt is to say, that meat which was receaued with fayth and not with bodyes. Therefore to them that vnderstood and beleued, it was the same meat and the same drinke. So that to such as vnderstoode not, the meate was onelyonly Manna, and the drinke, onelyonly water, but to such as vnderstood, it was the same that is now. For thē was Christ to come, who is now come. To come and is come, be diuers wordes, but it is the same Christ. These be S. Augustines sayings.
And because you say, that it is more agreable to the scripture, to say, that the fathers before Christs natiuity did not eat the body and drink the bloud of Christ: I pray you shew me one scripture that so saith. And shew me also one approued author that disalowed S. Augustines mind by me here alleaged, because you say, that all doe not agree to his vnderstanding. And in the 77.August. in psal. 77. Psalme S. Augustine saith also: The stone was Christ. Therefore the same was the meat & drinke of the fathers in the mistery, wich is ours, but in significatiō the same, not in outward forme. For it is one Christ him selfe, that to them was figured in the stone, and to vsus manyfestly appeared in flesh.August. in Ioā. Tract. 26. And saint Augustine sayth playnely, that both Manna and our Sacrament signifieth Christ, and that although the Sacraments were dyuers, yet in the thing by them ment and vnderstand, they were both like. And so after the mynd of S. Augustine it is cleare, that the same thinges were geuen to the faithfull receiuers in the Sacraments of the old Testament, that be geuen in the new: the same to them was circumcisiō, that to vsus is baptisme: and to them by Manna was geuen the same thing, that now is geuen to vsus in the sacramentall bread.
And if I would graunt for your pleasure, that in theyr sacramēts Christ was promised, and that in ours, he is really geuen, doth it not then followe aswell that Christ is geuen in the sacrament of Baptisme, as that he is geuen in the Sacrament of his flesh and bloud? And S. Augustin contra Faustum, August. contra Faustum lib. 19. cap. 16. & 20. cap 21.esteemeth them madde, that think diuersity betweene the things signified in the old and new testament, because the signes be diuers. And expressing the matter playnely, sayth, that the flesh and bloud of our sacryfice before Christs comming, was promised … y sacryfices of similitudes, in his passion was geuen indeed, & after his as…ntion is solemnly put in our memory by the Sacrament.
And the thing which you say S. Augustine noteth to be geuen in the sacraments of the new testament,August. in psal. 73. and to be promised in the sacramentes of the olde, S. Augustine expresseth the thing which he ment, that is to say, saluation and eternall lyfe by Christ. And yet in thys mortall lyfe we hauehave not eternall lyfe in possession, but in promise, as the prophets had. But S. Augustine sayth, that we hauehave the promise, because we hauehave Christ all ready come, which by ye Prophets was promised before that he should come, & therefore S. Iohn the Baptist was called more then a Prophet, because he said:Iohn. 1. Here is the lamb of God already preset, which the Prophets taught vsus to looke for, vntill he came.
The effect therfore of S. Augustins words plainly to be expressed, was this, that the prophets in the old testament Promised a sauiour to come, & redeem the world, (which the sacraments of that tyme testified vntill hys comming): but now he is already come, and hath by his death performed that was promised, which our sacramentes testifie vntounto vsus, as S. Augustine declareth more playnely in his booke De fide ad Petrum, the xix. chapter. So that S. Augustine speaketh of the geuing of Christ to death,August. de fide ad Pet. cap. 19. (which the sacraments of the old testament, testified to come, and ours testify to be done) and not of the geuing of him in the sacraments.
And forasmuch as S. Augustine spake generally of all the sacraments, therefore if you will by his words proue, that Christ is corporally in the sacrament of the holy communion, you may aswell proue, that he is corporally in baptisme. For saint Augustine speaketh no more of the one then of the other. But where saint Augustin speaketh generally of al the sacraments, you restrayne the matter particularly to the sacrament of the Lords supper onelyonly, that the ignoraunt reader should thinke, that saynt Augustine spake of the corporall presence of Christ in the sacramentes, and that onelyonly in the sacraments of bread and wine, where as saynt Augustine himself speaketh onelyonly of our saluation by Christ, and of the sacraments in generall.
And neuerthelesse as the fathers had the same Christ and mediator that we hauehave (as you here confesse) so did they spiritually eat his f…esh and drinke his bloud (as we doe) and spiritually feed of him, and by faith he was present with thē (as he is with vsus) although carnally and corporally he was yet to come vntounto thē, and from vsus is gon vp to his father into heauen.
This besides saynt Augustine is plainely set out by Bertrame aboue 6. hundreth yeares passed,Bertram. whose iudgement in this matter of the sacrament, although you allow not (because it vtterly cōdemneth your doctrine therein) yet forasmuch as hytherto his teaching was neuer reproued by none, but by you alone, and that he is commēded of other, as an excellent learned man in holy scripture, and a notable famous man, aswell in liuing as learning, and yt among his excellent works this one is specially praised, which he wrot of the matter of the Sacramēt of the body and bloud of our Lord, therfore I shall reherse his teaching in this point, how the holy fathers and Prophets before the comming of Christ did eat Christes flesh and drink his bloud: So that although Bertrams saying be not estemed with you, yet the indifferent reader may see what was written in this matter, before your doctrine was inuented. And although his authority be not receiued of you, yet his words may serue against Smyth,Smyth. who herein more learnedly, and with more iudgement then you, approueth this author. This is Bertrams doctrine S. Paule saith, that all the old fathers did eat the same spirituall meat, and drinke the same spiritual drink. But peraduenture thou wilt ask, Which the same? Euen the very same that christen people do daily eat and drinke in the church. For we may not vnderstand diuers things, when it is one and the self same Christ, which in times past did feed with his flesh, and made to drink of his bloud, the people that were baptised in the cloude and sea, in the wildernes, and which doth now in the church feed christen people with the bread of his body, and giueth thē to drink the floud of his bloud. When he had not yet taken mans nature vponupon him, whē he had not yet tasted death for the saluation of the world, not redemed vsus with his bloud, neuertheles euen then our forefathers by spiritual meat and inuisible drink did eat his body in the wildernes and drink his bloud, as the Apostle beareth witnesse, saying: The same spiritual meat, the same spiritual drink. For he that now in the church by his omnipotent power doth spiritually conuert bread & wine into the flesh of his body, and into the floud of his owne bloud, he did thē inuisibly so worke, that Manna which came from heauen was his body, and the water his bloud. Now by the thinges here by me alledged, it euidently appereth, that this is no nouelty of speech to say, that the holy fathers and Prophets did eat Christes flesh and drink his bloud. For both the scripture and old authors vse so to speake, how much soeuer ye spech mislike them, that like no fashion but their own.
Ione of Kent.And what doth this further ye pestilent heresy of Ione of Kent? Is this a good argument? The fathers did eat Christes flesh and drinke his bloud spiritually before he was borne, ergo after he was not corporally borne of his mother? Or because he was corporally borne, is he not therefore dayly eaten spiritually of his faithfull people? Because he dwelt in the world corporally from his incarnation vntounto his ascention, did he not therfore spiritually dwell in his holy members before that tyme, and hath so done euer sithens, and will do to the worldes end? Or if he be eaten in a figure, can you induce thereof that he was not borne without a figure? Do not such kynde of argumentes fauour the errour of Ione of Kent? Yea do they not manifestly approue her pestiferous heresy, if they were to be alowed? What man that meaneth the trueth, would bring in such manner of resoning to deface the truth? And yet it is not to be denied, but that Christ is truely eaten, as he was truly born, but the one corporally and without figure, and the other spiritually, and with a figure. Now followeth my 11, comparison.The 11. comparison.
They say, that the body of Christ is eueryevery day many tymes made, as often as there be Masses sayd, and that then and there he is made of bread and wine. We say, that Christes body was neuer but once made, and then not of the nature & substance of bread and wine, but of the substance of his blessed mother.
Winchester.
The body of Christ, is by Gods omnipotency, who so worketh in his word, made present vntounto vsus at such tyme, as the church praye, it may please him so to doe, which prayer is ordred to be made in the booke of common prayer now set foorth.The booke of common prayer in this Realme. Wherin we require of God, the creatures of bread and wine to be sanctified, and to be to vsus the body and bloud of Christ, which they can not be, vnlesse God worketh it, and make them so to be: In which mistery it was neuer taught, as this author willingly misreporteth,Christes body in the sacrament is not made of ye matter of bread. that Christes most precious body is made of the matter of bread, but in that order, exhibited and made preset vntounto vsus, by conuersion of the substaunce of bread into his precious body, not a new body made of a new matter of bread and wine, but a new presence of the body, that is neuer old made present there, where the substāce of bread and wine was before. So as this comparison of difference is meere wrangling and so euident, as it needeth no further aunswere, but a note: Lo how they be not ashamed to trifle in so great a matter, and without cause by wrong termes, to bring the truth in sclander (if it were possible.) May not this be accompted, as a part of Gods punishmēt, for men of knowledge to write to the people such matter seriously, as were not tolerable to be by a scoffer deuised in a play, to supply when his fellow had forgotten his part.