Answer unto a Crafy and Sophistical Cavillation, Debate · Confutation of book 3 · Section 31 – Section 32
Caunterbury.
HEre is an other sleight,Another sleight. such as the like hath not lightly bene sene. For where I wrote, that when Christ sayd, This is my body, it was bread that he called his body, you turne the matter to make a descant vponupon these 2. wordes (calling) and (making) that the nundes of the readers should be so occupied with the discussion of these 2. wordes, that in the meane tyme they should forget, what thing it was, that was called and made? Like vntounto men that dare larkes, which hold vp an hoby, that the larks eyes, beyng euer vppon the hoby, should not see the nette that is layd on theyr heades.
And yet finally you graunt that which Smyth denyeth, that it was bread which Christ called hys body, when he sayd: This is my body. And so that which was not hys body in deede, he called hys body, who calleth thynges that be not, as they were the thinges in deede.Rom. 4. Whether Christes calling be making. And if hys calling be making, then hys callyng bread hys body, is making bread hys body: and so is not onelyonly Christes body made presēt, but also the bread is made his body: because it is called hys body, and so must bread be the thing wherof Christes body is made, which before you denyed in the xi. comparison, callyng that saying so foolish, that it were not tolerable to be deuised by a scoffer in a play to supply when hys felow had forgotten hys part. And thus should you conclude your self, if Christs callyng were making, which in deede is not true: for then should Christ hauehave made hym selfe a vine, when he called hymselfe a vine:Ioh. 15. Ioh. 19. Ioh. 15. Mat. 16. and hauehave made S. Iohn the blessed virgine Maries sonne, when he called hym her sonne: and should hauehave made his Apostles vine braunches, when he called them so: and should hauehave made Peter a deuil, when he called him deuill.
After when you come to make aunswere vntounto the authors cited by me in this place, fyrst you skip ouer Irene the eldest author of them all,Irenaeus. because (I think) he is to hard meate for you well to digest, and therefore you will not once taste of hym.
In Tertullian and Cyprian you agree again,Tertullian. Cyprian. that when Christ sayd This is my body, It was bread that he called hys body. And so when he sayd (this) he ment the bread,Whether bread be called Christes body. making demonstration vponupon it: as before you hauehave sayd more at large in your book, which you named the Detection of the deuils sophestrie. And herein you say more truely then the other Papistes do, (which deny that the demonstration was made vppon the bread) although you say not true in the other part, that Christes callyng was makyng.
And if hys calling be chaunging of the bread, and making it the body of Christ, yet then it is not true to speake of the bread,Conuersion 2. maner of waiess. and to say, that it is the body of Christ. For when one thing is chaunged into an other, the first stil remaining, it may be sayd both that it is made the other thing, and that it is the other thing (as when cloth is made a gowne, we may say this cloth is made a gowne, and also this cloth is a gowne) but when the former matter or state remaineth not, it may be said that it is made the other thing, but not that it is the other thing:Iohn 2. As when Christ had tourned water into wine. And likewise although we say, a wicked man is made iust, a sick man is made whole, or an whole man sicke, yet it is no true speach to say, a wicked man is iust, a sicke mā is whole, or an whole man is sicke: because the former state remayneth not. And therefore although it might in speech be allowed, that the bread is made Christes body when the bread is gone, yet can it not be proper and approued speach, to say, it is his body, except the bread remayne still. For of that thing, which is not, it can not be said, that it is Christes body. For if it be his body, it must needes be, by the rule of the Logike, à tertio adiacente, ad secundum adiacens.
And I meruaile how you hauehave ouer shot your selfe in this place, when you teach how and after what maner bread is made Christes body? not that bread (say you) being bread is his body, but that which was bread is now made his body:Christes body made of bread. Iohn. 1. whereof it followeth necessarily, that his body is made of bread. For as the wine in the Cane of Galile was made of water, when the substaunce of water was tourned into the substaunce of wine: so if in the Sacrament the substaunce of bread be tourned into the substaunce of Christes body, then is his body in the sacrament made of bread, which is in the xi. comparison you affirmed to be so foolish a saying, as were not tollerable to be deuised by a scoffer in a play to supply when his fellow had forgotten his part.
Therefore I hauehave not here partly opened the faith of Transubstantiaon (as you say of me) but you hauehave here manifestly opened the wisedome of the Papisticall doctrine, which is more foolish, then were to be deuised by a scoffer in a play.
But what neede I much to contend with you in this place, seing that you graunt the thing for the whiche I cyted all these authors, that is to say that Christ called bread his body,Whether Christ called bread his body. when he said, This is my body?
And in your detection of the Deuils sophestrie (as you call it) you say that Christ spake plainly, This is my body, making demonstration of the bread, when he said, This is my body. But it seemeth you be sory that you hauehave graunted so much, and that you spake those wordes vnaduisedly, before you knew what the Papistes had written in this matter: and now when you perceaue how farre you varie from them, you would fain call your wordes backe agayn, and prepare away for the same, saying thus: When Christ said (This is my body) there is no necessitie, that the demonstratiō (this) should be referred to the outward visible matter, but may be referred to the inuisible substaunce. In these your wordes it semeth you begin to doubt in that thing which before you certainly affirme without all doubt.
And when you hauehave confessed the whole matter that I do here proue, which is onelyonly this, that Christ called bread his body & wine his bloud. when he sayd, This is my body, This is my bloud: yet you conclude your aunswere with an issue of mine ignoraunce, that it is so great, that I vnderstand not what I say, if my knowledge be no better, then is vttered here in my pen. And yet my wordes be so playne, that the least chyld (as they say) in the town, may vnderstand them. For all my study is to speak plain, that the truth may be known, and not with darke speches (as you do) to hide the truth. But when I had made a plaine issue against all the Papists in general, it had bene your part to hauehave ioyned in the sayd issue and not to deuise new issues.
But because neither you nor Smith dare ioyne with me in mine issue I shall repete mine issue againe,Smyth. and take it for confessed of you both, bicause neither of you dare say the contrary, & ioyne an issue with mee therin. My issue is this,Mine Issue. Let all the Papists together shew any one authority, either of scripture or of auncient author, either Greeke 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 giuegive them place, and confesse that they say true. And if they can shew nothing for them of antiquitie, but onelyonly their owne bare wordes, then it is reason that they geue place to the truth, confirmed by so many authorities both of scripture and of auncient writers, which is, that Christ called very materiall bread his body, and very wine made of grapes, his bloud.
Now it shall not be much amisse, to examine here the wise deuise of M. Smith,Smyth. what he can say to this matter, that the opinion of diuers Doctours may be knowen, as well of Doctour Smith, as of Doctour Gardyner. It is very false (sayth Smith to me) that you do say, that as these wordes (This is my body) do lye, there cā be gathered of them none other sence, but that bread is Christes body, and that Christes body is bread. For there can no such thing be gathered of those wordes, but onelyonly that Christ gaue his disciples his very body to eat, into which he had turned the bread, when he spake those wordes. First, Smith vseth here a great and manifest falsehead in reciting of my sentence, leauing out those wordes which should declare the truth of my saying. For I say that by this maner of speache playnly vnderstand without any figure, there can be gathered none other sence, but that bread is Christes body. In which my sentence he leaueth out these wordes (by this maner of spech playnly vnderstand without any figure) which wordes be so materiall, that in them resteth the pith and triall of the whole sentence.
When Christ tooke the v. loaues and ij. fishes,Math. 14. Marc. 6. Luc. 9. Iohn. 6. and looking vp into heauen blessed them, and brake them, and gaue them vntounto his disciples, that they should distribute them vntounto the people, if he had then said, Eate, this is meate, which shall satisfie your hunger: by this maner of speach playnly vnderstand without any figure, could any other sence hauehave been gathered, but that the bread and fishes which he gaue them was meate? And if at the same tyme he had blessed wine, and commaunding them to drinke therof, had sayd: This is drinke, which shall quench your thirst: what could hauehave been gathered of those wordes playnly vnderstand without any figure, but that he called wine drinke? So lykewise when he blessed bread and wine, and gaue them to his disciples, saying: Eate, thys is my body: Drinke, this is my bloud: what can be gathered of this maner of speach playnly vnderstād without any figure, but that he called the bread his body, & wine his bloud? For Christ spake not one word there of any changyng or turning of the substaūce of the bread, no more then he did when he gaue the loaues & fishes. And therfore the maner of speach is all one, and the changing of the substaūces can no more be proued by the phrase and fashion of speach, to be in the one then in the other, whatsoeuer you Papistes dreame of your owne heades without Scripture, that the substaunce of the bread is turned into the substaunce of Christes body.
But Smith bringeth here newes, vsing such strange and noueltie of speache,Smith. as other Papistes vse not, which he doth either of ignoraunce of his Grammar, or els that he dissenteth farre from other Papistes in iudgement. For he sayth, that Christ had turned the bread when he spake these wordes, This is my body. And if Smith remember his Accidence, the preterpluperfect tence signifieth the tyme that is more than perfectly past, so that if Christ had turned the bread when he spake those wordes, then was the turning done before and already past, when he spake those wordes, which the other Papistes say was done after, or in the pronunciation of the wordes. And therfore they vse to speake after this sort, that when he had spoken the wordes, the bread was turned, and not that he had turned the bread when he spake the wordes.
An other noueltie of speach Smith vseth in the same place, saying that Christ called his body bread, bycause he turned bread into it, it semeth and appeareth still to be it, it hath the qualitie and quantitie of bread, and bycause it is the foode of the soule as corporall meate is of the body. These be Smithes wordes: which if he vnderstād of the outward forme of bread, it is a noueltie to say, that it is the foode of the soule: and if he meane of the very body of Christ, it is a more strange noueltie to say, that it hath the quantitie and qualitie of bread. For there was neuer man (I trow) that vsed that maner of speach, to say that the body of Christ hath the quātitie and qualitie of bread, although the Papistes vse this spech, that the body of Christ is conteined vnderunder the forme, that is to say, vnderunder the quātities and qualities of bread.
Now when Smith should come to make a direct answere vntounto the authorities of the old writers, which I hauehave brought forth to proue that Christ called bread his body when he sayd, This is my body: Smith answereth no more but this: the Doctors which you my Lord alledge here for you, proue not your purpose. Forsoth a substantiall answer, and well proued, that the Doctours by me alledged proue not my purpose, for Smith sayth so. I looked here that Smith should hauehave brought forth a great number of authors to approue his saying, and to reproue mine, specially seing that I offered fayre play to him, and to all the Papists, ioyned with him in one trowpe.
For after that I had alledged for the proofe of my purpose, a great many places of old authors, both Greekes and Latines, I prouoked the Papistes to say what they could to the contrary. Let all the Papistes together (sayd I) shew any one authoritie for them, either of Scripture or auncient Author, eyther Greeke or Latin, and for my part I shall giuegive them place. And if they can shew nothing for them of antiquitie, then is it reason that they giuegive place to the truth, confirmed by so many authorities, both of Scripture and of auncient writers, which is, that Christ called very materiall bread his body, and very wine made of grapes, his bloud.
Now I referre to thy iudgement, indifferent reader, whether I offered the Papistes reason or no? and whether they ought not, if they had any thing to shew, to hauehave brought it forth here? And for as much as they hauehave brought nothing, (being thus prouoked with all their counsayle) whether thou oughtest not to iudge, that they hauehave nothing in deede to shew, which if they had, without doubt we should hauehave hard of it in this place. But we heare nothing at all, but these their bare wordes, not one of all these Doctors sayth as ye do, my Lord, Which I put in thy discretion, indifferent Reader, to vew the Doctours wordes by me alleaged and so to iudge.
But they say not that there is onelyonly bread in the Sacrament (sayth Smith) and not Christes body: what then? What is that to purpose here in this place, I pray you? For I goe not about in this place to proue that onelyonly bread is in the sacrament, and not Christes body: but in this place I proue onelyonly, that it was very bread, which Christ called his body, and very wine which he called his bloud, when he sayd, This is my body: This is my bloud. Which Smith with all his rablement of the Papistes deny, and yet all the old Authors affirme it with Doctor Steuen Gardiner, late Bishope of Winchester also, who sayth that Christ made demonstration vponupon the bread, when he sayd, This is my body. And as all the old Authors be able to counteruayle the Papistes: so is the late Bishope able to matche Smith in this mater, so that we hauehave at the least a Rowland for an Oliuer. But shortly to comprehend the aunswere of Smith: where I hauehave proued my sayinges, a dosen leaues together, by the authoritie of Scripture and old catholike writers, is this a sufficient aunswer, onelyonly to say without any proofe, that al my trauayl is lost? and that all that I hauehave alleadged is nothing to the purpose? Iudge indifferently gentle Reader, whether I might not by the same reason cast away all Smithes whole booke, and reiect it quite & cleane with one word, saying, All his labore is lost and to no purpose. Thus Smith and Gardiner being aunswered, I will returne agayne to my booke, where it followeth thus.
Now this being fully proued, it must needes folow consequently, that this manner of speaking is a figuratiue speach.Cap. 9. Bread to my body. Wyne to my bloud, be figuratiue speaches. For in playne, and proper speach, it is not true, to say that bread is Christes body, or wine his bloud. For Christes body hath a soule, lyfe, sence, and reason: but bread hath neither soule, lyfe sence, nor reason.
Lykewise in playne speche it is not true, that we eate Christes body, and drinke his bloud. For eating & drinking in their proper and vsuall signification, is with the tongue, teeth, and lyppes, to swallow, diuide, and chawe in peeces: which thinge to do to the flesh and bloud of Christ, is horrible to be heard of any Christian.
So that these speaches, To eate Christes body and drinke his bloud,Cha. 10. To eate Christes flesh and drinke his bloud be figuratiue speaches. to call bread his body, and wine his bloud, be speches not taken in the proper signification of eueryevery worde, but by translation of these wordes, (eating, and drinking,) from the signification of a corporall thing, to signifie a spirituall thing: and by calling a thing that signifieth, by the name of the thing which is signified thereby. Which is no rare nor straunge thing, but an vsuall manner, and phrase in common speech. And yet least this faulte should be imputed vntounto vsus, that we do fayne thinges of our owne heades without auctoritie, (as the papistes be accustomed to do,) here shall be cited sufficient authoritye, as well of Scriptures, as of olde auncient authors, to approue the same.
First when our Sauiour Christ in the sixt of Iohn sayd, that he was the bread of lyfe, which who so euer did eate, should not dye, but liue for euer: and that the bread which he would geue vsus, was his flesh: and therefore who so euer should eate his flesh, and drinke his bloud, should hauehave euerlasting lyfe: and they that should not eate his flesh, and drinke his bloud, should not hauehave euerlasting lyfe. When Christ had spoken these wordes, with many moe, of the eating of his flesh, and drinking of his bloud, both the Iewes, and many also of his disciples were offended with his wordes, and sayd: This is an hard saying. For howe can hee geue vsus his flesh to be eaten? Christ perceiuing their murmuring hartes (because they knew none other eating of his flesh, but by chawing, and swallowing) to declare, that they should not eate his body after that sort, nor that he ment of any such carnall eating, he sayd thus vntounto them: What yf you see the sonne of man ascend vp where he was before? It is the spirite that geueth life, the flesh auaileth nothing: the words which I spake vntounto you, be spirite and lyfe.
These wordes our Sauiour Christ spake, to lift vp their mindes from earth to heauen, and from carnall to spirituall eating, that they should not phantasy, that they should with their teeth eate him present here in earth: for his flesh so eaten (sayth he,) should nothing profite them. And yet so they should not eate him, for he would take his body away from them, and ascend with it into heauen: and there by fayth, and not with teeth, they should spiritually eate him sitting at the right hand of his father. And therefore (sayth he,) The wordes which I do speake, be spirite and lyfe: That is to say, are not to be vnderstand, that we shall eate Christ with our teeth, grossely, and carnally, but that we shall spiritually, and gostly with our fayth, eate him, being carnally absent from vsus in heauen. And in such wise, as Abraham and other holy fathers did eate him, many yeares before he was incarnated, and borne, as Saint Paule sayth,1. Cor. 20. that all they did eate the same spirituall meate that we doo, and drinke the same spirituall drinke: that is to say, Christ. For they spiritually by their fayth, were fed and nourished with Christes body and bloud, and had eternall lyfe by him, before he was borne, as we hauehave now, that come after his ascention.
Thus hauehave you heard the declaration of Christ himselfe, and of Saint Paul that the eating, and drinking of Christes fleshe, and bloud, is not taken in the common signification, with mouth, and teeth, to eate, and chaw a thing being present, but by a liuely fayth in hart and minde, to chaw, and digest a thing being absent, either ascended hence into heauen, or els not yet borne vpō earth.
Winchester.
In the lx. leaf the auctor entreateth whether it be a plaine spéech of Christ to say (eate and drincke) speaking of his body and bloud. I answer, the spéech of it selfe is propre: commaunding them present to eate and drincke that is proponed for them: and yet it is not requisite that the nature of man should with like cōmon effect worke, in eating and drinking that heauenly meate & drincke, as it doth in earthly and carnall meates. In this mistery man doth as Christ ordeined, that is to say, receyue with his mouth, that is ordered to be receiued with his mouth, graunting it neuerthelesse of that dignitie and estimation, that Christes wordes affirms: and whether he so doth or no, Christes ordinaunce is as it is in the substaunce of it selfe alone, whereof no good man iudgeth carnally or grosely, ne discusseth the vnfaythfull question (how) which he can not conceiue, but leaueth the déepenes thereof, and doth as he is bidden. This misterie receiueth no mans thoughtes. Christes institution hath a propertie in it, which can not be discussed by mans sensuall reason. Christes wordes be spirite and life, which this auctor wresteth with his owne glose, to exclude the truth of the eating of Christes flesh in his supper. And yet for a shifte, if a man would ioyne issue with him, putteth to his speach the wordes (grossely) and (carnally) which wordes in such a rude vnderstanding, be termes méeter to expresse how dogges deuoure paunches, then to be inculked in speaking of this high mystery. Wherein I will make the issue with this author, that no catholike teaching is so framed with such termes, as though we should eate Christs most precious body grossely, carnally, ioyning those wordes so together. For els (carnally) alone may hauehave a good signification, as Hillary vseth it: but contrariwise speaking in the Catholique teaching of the maner of Christes presence, they call it a spirituall maner of presence, and yet there is present by gods power the very true naturall body and bloud of Christ, whole God & man, without leauing his place in heauen: and in the holy supper men vse their mouthes, and téeth, following Christes commaundement in the receiuing of that holy Sacrament, being in fayth sufficiently instruct, that they can not ne do not teare, consume, or violate that most precious body and bloud, but vnworthely receiuing it, are cause of their owne iudgement and condemnation.