Answer unto a Crafy and Sophistical Cavillation, Debate · Confutation of book 3 · Section 29 – Section 30
Caunterbury.
HEre is such a sleight vsed by you, as is worthy to be noted of all men.A sleight to auoyd aunswering. For I goe not onelyonly about to proue in this place, onelyonly that Christ as concerning his humain nature is in heauē (which I know you deny not) but I proue also that he is so in heauen, that he is not in earth, which you vtterly deny, and it is the chiefe point in contention betwene vsus. But by this crafte of appeaching me of sleight, that I goe about to proue that thing which you deny not (which is vntrue) you hauehave vsed such a sleight, that you passe ouer 8. leaues of my booke together, wherin I proue, that Christ (as concerning his corporall presence) is not here in earth, and you answere not one word to any of my argumentes. And I pray thee note, good Reader, what a strange manner of sleight this is, to passe ouer eight leaues together cleerely vnanswered, and that in the chief point that is in variance betweene vsus, vnderunder pretence that I vse sleight, where in deede I vse none, but proue plainly that Christ is not bodely in heauen and in eareh, both at one time. If he had but touched mine argumēts glauncing by them, it had been somewhat: but vtterly to fly away, and not once to touch them, I think thou wilt iudge no smal sleight and craft therin. And me think in good reason, the matter ought to be iudged against him, for default of answere: who being preseut answereth nothing at all to the matter wherof he is accused, seeing that the Law sayth: Qui tacet, consentire videtur.
Yet Smith is to be commended in respect of you,Smith. who attempteth at the least to see what shiftes he could make to auoyd my profes, and busyeth himself rather thē he would stand mute, to say somthing to them. And yet in deede it had been as good for him to hauehave said nothing at all, as to say that which is nothing to the purpose.
First to the Scriptures by me alleadged particularly,Origen. Augustin. he vtterly answereth nothing. To Origen, and S. Augustine by name, and to all the other Authors by me alleadged, he maketh this brief answere in generall, yt whatsoeuer those authors say, they meane no more, but yt Christ is not here in earth visibly, naturally, & by circumscriptiō, and yet neuerthelesse he is in the sacrament aboue nature, inuisibly, and without circumscription. This suttle distinction hath Smith deuised (or rather followeth other Papistes therin) to answere the Authors which I hauehave alleadged. And yet of Smithes own distinction it followeth, that Christ is not in the sacrament carnally and corporally.Smithes vaine distinction. For if Christ be in the Sacrament but supernaturally, inuisibly, & without circumscription, then he is not there carnally, and corporally, as S. Augustine reasoneth ad Dardanum. But yet Smith onelyonly saith that the Authors so meant, and proueth not one word of his saying, supposing that the old holy writers be like to the Papistes, which write one thing, and when they list not, or cannot defend it, they say they meane another.
For those Authors make no such distinction as Smith speaketh of, affirming diuers and contrary things to be in one nature of Christ in diuers respectes, but their distinction is of the two natures in Christ, that is to say, the nature of his Godhead, and the nature of his manhode. And they affirme plainly that the diuersity wherof they spake, cannot be in one nature (as you say it is) but must needes argue & proue diuersity of natures. And therfore by that diuersity and instinctiō in Christ, they proue against the heretickes, that Christ hath two natures in him, which were vtterly no proofe at all, if one nature in diuers respectes might hauehave that diuersity. For the heretickes should hauehave had a ready answere at hand, that such diuersitie proueth not that Christ had two natures, for one nature may hauehave such diuersity (if it be true that Smith saith.) And so Smith, with other papists which saith as he doth putteth a sword in ye hereticks hands, to fight against the catholick faith. This (good Reader) thou shalt easely perceiue if thou doe no more but read the authors which I hauehave in this place alleadged.
And yet for thy more ready instruction, I shall make a brief rehearsal of the chief effect of them, as concerning this matter.How both these sayinges may be true, that Christ is with vsus, and also gone from vsus. To aunswere this question how it can be sayd that Christ is a stranger, and gone hence into heauen, and yet is also here with vsus in earth, Smith and other Papistes resolue this matter by diuers respectes in one nature of Christ, but the old catholick wryters which I alleadged, resolue the matter by two natures in Christ,The sume of thold authors wryting in this matter. affirming most certainly that such two diuers thinges can not hauehave place both in one nature. And therfore say they that Christ is gone hence, and is absent in his humanitie, who in his Deity is still here with vsus. They say also that as concerning his mannes nature, the Catholicke profession in our Creede, teacheth vsus to beleeue that he hath made it immortall, but not changed the nature of a very mannes body, for his body is in heauen, and in one certain place of heauen, because that so requireth the measure and compasse of a very mannes body.
It is also (say they) visible, and hath all the members of a perfecte mannes body. And further they say, that if Christes body were not conteyned within the compasse of a place, it were no body, in so much that if the Godhead were a body, it must needes be in a place, and hauehave quantitie, bignes, and circumscription. For all creatures (say they) visible, and inuisible, be circumscribed, and conteyned within a certain compas, ether locally within one place (as corporall and visible thinges be) or els within the property of their own substance (as angels and inuisible creatures be.) And this is one strong argument, whereby they proue that the holy Ghost is God, because he is in many places at one time, which no creature can be as they teach. And yet they say moreouer, that Christ did not ascend into heauen, but by hys humanitie, nor is not heare in earth but by hys diuinitie, which hath no compasse nor measure. And finally they say that to go to hys father from vsus, was to take from vsus that nature which he receaued of vsus: and therfore when hys body was in earth, then surely it was not in heauen, and now when it is in heauē, surely it is not in earth For one nature can not hauehave in it selfe two sundry and contrary thinges.
All things here rehearsed be written by the old auncient authors which I hauehave alleadged, and they conclude the whole matter in this wise that this is the fayth and Catholique confession, which the Apostles taught, the Martyres did corroborate, and faythfull people keepe vntounto this day. Wherby it appeareth euidently, that the doctrine of Smyth and the Papistes, at that day was not yet sprong, nor had taken no roote.
Wherfore diligently ponder and way (I besech thee gentle reader) the sayinges of these authors, and see whether they say, that one nature in Christ may be both in heauen and in earth, both here with vsus, and absent from vsus at one tyme, and whether they resolue this matter of Christs being in heauen and in earth (as Smith doth) to be vnderstand of his māhoode in diuersitie of these respectes visible and inuisible. And when thou hast well considered the authors sayinges, then geue credite to Smith as thou shalt see cause.
But this allegation of these authors hath made the matter so hote, that the Bishop of Winchester durste not once touch it, and Smith as soone as he had touched it, felt it so scawlding hote, that he durst not abyde it, but shranke away by and by for feare of burning his fingers. Now here what followeth further in my booke.
But now seeing that it is so euident a matter,Cap. 7. An aunswere to the Papists, alleaging for them these wordes, This is my body. both by the expresse words of Scripture, and also by all the old authors of the same, that our Sauiour Christ (as concerning his bodely presence) is ascended into heauen, and is not here in earth. And seeing that this hath been the true confession of the Catholicke faith, euer since Christes ascention, it is now to be considered what mooued the Papistes to make a new and contrary faith, and what Scriptures hauehave they for their purpose. What moued them I know not but their own iniquitie, or the nature and condition of the sea of Rome, which is of al other most contrary to Christ, and therfore most worthy to be called the sea of Antichrist. And as for Scripture they alleadge none but onelyonly one, and that not truely vnderstanded, but to serue their purpose wrested out of tune, wherby they make it to iarre, and sound contrary to all other Scriptures pertaining to the matter.
Christ toke bread (say they) blessed, & brake it, & gaue it to his disciples, saying: This is my body: These words they euer still repeate and beate vponupon,The argumet of the Papists. that Christ sayd this is my body. And this saying they make their shooteanker, to proue therby as well the reall and naturall presence of Christs body in the Sacrament, as their imagined Transubstantiation. For these words of Christ, say they, be most plain, and most true. Then for as much as he said, This is my body, it must needes be true that that thing which the Priest holdeth is his hands is Christs body. And if it be Christes body, then can it not be bread. Whereof they gather by their reasoning, that there is Christes body really present, and noe bread.
The aunswere.Now forasmuch as all their proofe hangeth onelyonly vponupon these wordes, this is my body: the true sence and meaning of these wordes must be examined. But (say they) what neede they any examination? what wordes can be more plain, then to say: This is my body.
The interpretation of these wordes, This is my bodye.Truth it is in deed that the wordes be as plain as may be spoaken, but that the sence is not so plain, it is manifest to eueryevery man that wayeth substantially the circumstances of the place. For when Christ gaue bread to his disciples and said: This is my body. there is no man of any discretiō, that vnderstandeth the english tongue, but he may well know by the order of the speache, that Christ spake those wordes of the bread, callyng it his body: as all the old authors also do affirme, although some of the Papistes deny the same. Wherfore this sentence can not meane as the wordes seeme and purport, but there must needes be some figure or mistery in this speech, more then appeareth in the playne wordes. For by this manner of speeche plainly vnderstand without any figure, as the wordes lye, can be gathered none other sence, but that bread is Christes body, and that Christes body is bread, which all Christian eares do abhorre to heare. Wherefore in these wordes must needes be sought out another sence & meaning then the words of themselues do beare.
Chap. 8. Christ called bread his body, and wine his bloud.And although the true sense and vnderstanding of these wordes, be sufficiently declared before, when I spake of Transubstantiation, yet to make the matter so playne, that no scrouple or doubt shall remayne, here is occasion giuen, more fully to intreate therof. In whiche processe shalbe shewed, that these sentences of Christ, This is my body, This is my bloud, be figuratiue speches. And although it be manifest inough by the playn wordes of the gospel, and proued before in the processe of Transubstantiation, that Christ spake of bread, when he sayd, This is my body: likewise that it was very wyne, which he called his bloud: yet least the Papistes should say, that we sucke this out of our own fyngers, the same shall be proued by testimony of the old authors, to be the true and old fayth of the catholicke Church. Where as the schole authors and Papistes, shall not be able to shew so much as one word of any auncient author to the contrary.
Ireneus contra Valent. lib. 4. ca 32. cap. 34. cap. 57.First Ireneus, writing against the Valentinians in his fourth booke sayeth, that Christ confessed bread (which is a creature) to be his body, and the cuppe to be his bloud. And in the same booke he writeth thus also: The bread wherin the thanks be geuen is the body of the Lord. And yet again in the same booke he saith, that Christ taking bread of the same sort that our bread is of, confessed that it was his body. Lib. 5.And that that thing which was tempered in the chalice, was his bloud And in the fift booke he writeth further that of the chalice (which is his body) a man is nourished and doth grow by the bread, which is his body.
Turtulli. aduersus Iudaeos.These wordes of Ireneus be most plain, that Christ taking very materiall bread, a creature of God, and of such sort as other bread is which we doe vse, called that his body, when he said: this is my body, and the wine also which doth feede and nourish vsus, he called his bloud.
Tertullian likewise in his booke written against the Iewes, saith that Christ called bread his body. And in his booke against Martian he oftentimes repeateth the selfe same wordes. And S. Cipryan in the first booke of his epistles,Cyprian. ad Magnum. lib. …. epist. 6. saith the same thing, that Christ called such bread as is made of many cornes ioyned together, his body: and such wine he called his bloud, as is pressed out of many grapes, and made into mine. And in his second booke he saith these wordes: Water is not the bloud of Christ, but wine. And againe in the same epistle he saith: that it was wine which Christ called hys bloud, and that if wine be not in the chalice,, then we drinke not of the fruit of the vine. And in the same Epistle he saith: that meale alone, or water clone, is not the body of Christ, except they be both ioyned together to make therof bread.
Epiphanius also saith,Epiphan. in Ancoprato. that Christ speaking of a lofe which is round in fashion, and cannot see, heare, nor feele, said of it: This is my body.
And S. Hierome wryting ad Hedibiam, Hiero ad Hedibiam.saith these wordes: Let vsus marke that the bread which the Lord brake, and gaue to his disciples, was the body of our Sauiour Christ, as he sayd vntounto them: Take and eate, this is my body. And S. Augustine also sayth,Augu de trin. lib. 3. cap. 4. that although we may set forth Christ by mouth, by writing, and by the sacrament of his body and bloud, yet we call neither our toung, nor words, nor inke, letters, nor paper, the body and bloud of christ but that we call the body and bloud of Christ, which is taken of the fruite of the earth, and consecrated by misticall prayer. And also he sayth: Iesus called meat, his body, and drynke his bloud,
Moreouer Cyrill vponupon S. Iohn saith,De verbis apostol … Cy…ill. in Ioanne lib. 4. …. that Christ gaue to his disciples peces of bread saying: Take, eate, this is my body.
Likewise Theoderetus saith, When Christ gaue the holy misteries, he called bread his body, and the cuppe myxt with wine and water, he called his bloud. By all these foresayd authours and places, whith many mo, it is playnly proued, that when our sauiour Christ gaue bread vntounto his Disciples, saying, Take and eate, this is my body, And likewise when he gaue them the cuppe, saying, Diuide this among you, and drinke you all of this, for this is my bloud: he called then the very materiall bread his body, and the very wine his bloud.
That bread (I say) that is one of the creatures here in earth among vsus, and that groweth out of the earth, and is made of many graynes of corne beaten into flower, and mixed with water, and so baken aud made into bread, of such sort as other our bread is, that hath neither sence nor reason, and finally that feedeth and nourisheth our bodies, such bread Christ called his body, when he sayd, This is my body, And such wine as is made of grapes pressed togither and thereof is made drinke, whiche nourishe the body, such wine he called his bloud.
This is the true doctrine, confirmed as well by the holy scripture, as by all auncient authours of Christes Church, both Greekes and Latines, that is to say, that whē our Sauiour Christ gaue bread and wine to his disciples, & spake these words, This is my body, This is my bloud, it is very bread & wine which he called his body and bloud.
Now let the Papistes shew some authority for their opinion, either of scripture, or of some aunciant author. And let them not constrayne all men to follow their fond deuises, only because they say, It is so, without any other groūd or authoritie, but their owne bare wordes. For in such wise credite is to be geuen to Gods word only, and not to the word of any man. As many of them as I hauehave red (the byshop of Winchester onelyonly excepted) do say, that Christ called not bread his body, nor wine his bloud, when he sayd, This is my body, This is my bloud. And yet in expoūding these wordes, they vary among them selues: which is a token that they be vncertaine of their own doctrine.
For some of them say, that by this pronoune demonstratiue (this) Christe vnderstoode not the bread and wine, but his body and bloud.
And other some say, that by the pronoune (this) he ment neither the bread nor wine, not his body nor bloud, but that he ment a particuler thyng vncertain, which they call Indiuiduum vagum, or Indiuiduum in genere, I trowe some Mathematicall quiditee, they can not tell what.
But let all these Papistes togyther shew any one authoritie, eyther of scripture, or of auncient author, either Greke or Latine, that sayth as they say, that Christ called not bread and wine his body and bloud, but Indiuiduum vagum, and for my part I shall gyue them place and confesse that they say true.
And if they can shew nothing for them of antiquitie, but onelyonly theyr own bare wordes, then it is reason that they geue place to the trueth confirmed by so many authorities, bothe of scripture and of auncient writers, which is, that Christ called very materiall bread his body, and very wine made of grapes, his bloude.
Winchester.
After this the author occupieth a great number of leaues, that is to say, from the lvii. leafe vntounto the lxxiiii, to proue Christs words. This is my body) to be a figuratiue spech. Sleight and shift is vsed in the matter without any offectuall consecution, to him that is learned.
First the author sayth Christ called bread his body, Confessed bread his body. To this is aunswered, Christes calling is a making, as S. Paule sayth.Rom. 4. Vocat ea quae non sunt, tan que ea quae sint, He calleth that be not as they were. And so his calling (as Chrisostome and the greke commentaries say,Chrisost. in epist. a. Ro. cap. 4. is a making, which also the Catechisme teacheth, trnslated by Iustus Ionas in Germany, and after by this author in english. Tertullian saith,Tertulian aduersus Marnonem lib. 4. Ciprianus de cena Domini. Christ made bread his body, & it is all one spech in Christ being god, declaring his ordinaunces, whither he vse the word call, or make, for in his mouth to call is to make.
Cypryan saith according hereunto hows bread is by Gods omnipotency made fleshe, whereupon also this spech (bread is flesh) is as much to say as made flesh, not that bread beyng bread is flesh, but that was bread is flesh by Gods omnipotency, and so this author entreating this matter as he doth, hath partly opened the fayth of transubstantiaon. For in dede bread beyng bread is not Christes body, but that was bread, is nowe Christes body because bread is made Christes body, and because Christ called bread his body which was in Christ to make bread his body. When Christ made water wine the spech is very proper to say, water is made wine. For after like manner of spech we say Christ iustifieth a wicked man, Christ saueth sinners, & the phisitiō hath made the sicke man whole, & suche dyet will make an whole man sicke. Al these speches be proper and playn, so as the construction be not made captious and Sophisticall, to ioin that was to that now is, forgetting the meane worke.
When Christ said (This is my body) there is necessitie that the demonstration (this) should be referred to the outwarde visible matter, but may be referred to the inuisible substaunce. As in the spech of God the father vpō Christ in Baptisme: This is my son.
An issue.And here whē this auctor taketh his recreation to speak of the fainyng of the papists I shal ioyn this Issue in this place that he vnderstandeth not what he saith, and if his knowledge be no better then is vttered herein the penne, to be in this point clerly cōdē ned of ignoraunce.