Answer unto a Crafy and Sophistical Cavillation, Debate · Confutation of book 3 · Section 61 – Section 62
Caunterbury.
YOu obserue my wordes here concerning Origene so captiously, as though I had gone about scrupulously to translate his sayinges word by word, which I did not: but bicause they were very long, I went about onelyonly to rehearse the effect of his mind brefely and playnly, which I hauehave done faythfully and truely, although you captiously carpe and reprehend the same.
And where as craftely to alter the sayinges of Origene, you goe about to put a diuersitie of the exhibition of Christ in these iii. thinges, in his worde, in baptisme, and in his holy supper, as though in his worde and in baptisme he were exhibited spiritually, & in his holy supper sensibly to be eaten with our mouthes: this distinction you hauehave dreamed in your slepe, or imagined of purpose. For Christ after one sort is exhibited in all these iii. in his worde, in baptisme, and in the Lordes supper: that is to say spiritually, and for so much in one sorte, as before you hauehave confessed your selfe. And Origene putteth no such diuersitie as you here imagine, but declareth one maner of giuing of Christ vntounto vsus in his worde, in baptisme, and in the Lordes supper, that is to say, in all these iii. secundum speciem. That as vntounto the Iewes Christ was geuen in figures, so to vsus he is geuen in specie, that is to say, in rei veritate, in his very nature: meaning nothing els, but that vntounto the Iewes he was promised in figures, and to vsus after his incarnation he is maried and ioyned in his proper kynd, and in his wordes and sacramentes, as it were sensibly geuen.
But how so euer I report Origene, you captiously and very vntruely do report me. For wheras I say, that in Gods word, and in ye sacramēts of baptisme, and of the Lordes supper, Christ is manifested and exhibited vntounto vsus, as it were face to face, and sensibly, you leauing out these wordes (as it were)As it were make a quarell to this word (sensibly) or rather you make that word (sensibly) ye foundation of all your weake building, as though there were no difference betwene sensibly, and as it were sensibly: and as it were all one thing a man to lye sleaping, and as he were sleaping: or deade, and as he were dead. Do not I write thus in my first booke, that the washing in the water of baptisme, is as it were a shewing of Christ before our eyes, and a sensible touching, feeling, and groping of him? And do these wordes import, that we see him & grope him indede? And further I say, that the eating and drinking of ye sacramentall bread and wine, is as it were a shewing of Christ before our eyes, a smelling of him with our noses, and a feeling & groping of him with our handes. And doe we therfore see him indede with our corporall eyes, smell him with our noses, and put our handes in his side and fele his woundes? If it were so indede, I would not adde these wordes, as it were. For what speach were this of a thing that is in dede, to say, as it were? For these wordes as it were, signifie that it is not so indede. So now likewise in this place of Origene, where it is sayd, that Christ in his wordes and sacramentes is manifested and exhibited vntounto vsus, as it were face to face, and sensibly, it is not ment that Christ is so exhibited in dede face to face, and sensibly, but the sence is cleane contrary, that he is not there geuen sensibly nor face to face. Thus it apeareth how vprightly you handell this matter, and how truely you reporte my wordes. But the further you proceade in your aunswer, the more you shew crafty iuggeling, legier de mayne, passe a gods name, to blynd mens eyes, strange speaches, new inuentions not without much impietie as the wordes sound, but what the meaning is, no man can tell but ye maker him selfe. But as the words be placed, it seemeth you meane, that in ye Lordes supper we be not made by Christes spirite participant of the benefyt of his passion: nor by baptisme or Gods word, we be not made participant of his godhead by his humanite: and furthermore by this distinction (which you fayne without any ground of Origene) we receaue not man and God in baptisme: nor in the Lordes supper we be not by meanes of his godhead made participant of the effect of his passion. In baptisme also by your distinction we receaue not a pledge of the regeneration of our flesh, but in the Lordes supper: nor Christ is not truely present in baptisme. Which your sayd differences do not onelyonly derogate and diminish the effect and dignitie of Christes sacraments, but be also blasphemous agaynst the ineffable vnite of Christes person, separating his diuinitie from his humanitie. Here may all men of iudgement see by experience, how diuinity is handled, when it cometh to the discussion of ignoraunt lawyers. And in all these your sayinges (if you meane as the wordes be)Three issues for my part. I make an yssue with you for the price of a fagot. And where you say that our flesh in the generall resurrection shalbe spirituall, here I offer a like yssue:An issue. except you vnderstand a spirituall body to be a sensible and palpable body, that hath all perfect members distinct: which thing in sundrie places of your booke, you seeme vtterly to deny.
And where you make this difference betwene baptisme, and this sacrament,The third issue. that in baptisme Christ is not really present, expounding Really present to signifie no more, but to be indede present, yet after a spirituall manner, if you deny that presence to be in baptisme, yet the third fagot I will aduenture with you, for your strange and vngodly doctrine within xx. lines togither: who may in equalitie of errour contend with ye Ualentines, Arrians, or Anabaptistes.
But when you come here to your lies (declaring the wordes,Aduerbes in lye. sensibly really, substancially, corporally, and naturally) you speake so fondly, vnlearnedly, and ignorantly, as they that know you not, might thinke that you vnderstood neither grammer, english, nor reason. For who is so ignoraunt but he knoweth that aduerbes that ende in (ly) be aduerbes of quallity, and being added to the verbe, they expresse the manner, forme and fashion how a thing is, and not ye substance of it. As speaking wisely, learnedly, and playnly, is to speake after such a forme and manner as wise men learned, and playn men do speake. And to do wisely and godly is to do in such sort and fashion, as wise, and godly men do. And sometyme the aduerbe (ly) signifieth the maner of a thing that is indede, and sometyme the maner of a thing that is not. As when a man speaketh wisely, that is wise indede. And yet somtyme we say, fooles speake wisely, which although they be not wise, yet they vtter some speaches in such sorte, as though they were wise. The King we say vseth him selfe princely in all his doinges (who is a prince in dede) but we say also of an arrogant wilfull and proude man, that he vseth him selfe princely and Imperiousely, although he be neither Prince nor Emperoure: and yet we vse so to speake of him, bicause of the maner, forme and fashion of vsing him selfe. And if you aunswer foolishly and vnlearnedly, be you therfore a foole and vnlearned? Nay, but then your aūswers be made in such wise, maner, sort, and fashion, as you were neither learned nor wise. Or if you send to Rome or receaue priuate letters from thence, be you therfore a Papist? God is iudge therof, but yet do you Popishly, that is to say, vse such maner and fashion as the Papistes do. But where the forme and maner lacketh, there the aduerbes of qualitie in (ly,) hauehave no place, although the thing be there indede. As when a wise man speaketh not in such a sorte, in such a fashion, and wise, as a wise man should speake: not withstanding that he is wise in dede, yet we say not that he speaketh wisely,2. Re. 1…. but foolishly. And the godly King Dauid, did vngodly when he took Bersabe, and slew Urye her husband, bicause that maner of doing was not godly. So do all English men vnderstand by these wordes sensibly substancially, corporally, naturally, carnally, spiritually, and such like, the maner and forme of being, and not the thing it selfe without the sayde formes and maners. For when Christ was borne, and rose from death, and wrought miracles, we say not that he did these thinges naturally, bicause the meane & maner was not after a naturall sort, although it was the selfe same Christ in nature: But we say that he did eat, drinke, sleepe, labour, and sweat, talke, and speake naturally, not bicause onelyonly of his nature, but bicause the maner and fashion of doing was such as we vse to do.Lu…. 4. Likewise when Iesus passed through the people, and they saw him not, he was not then sensibly and visibly among them, their eyes being letted in such sort, that they could not see and perceaue him. And so in all the rest of your aduerbes, the speach admitteth not to say that Christ is there substancially, corporally, carnally, and sensibly, where he is not after a substanciall, corporall, carnall, and sensuall forme and maner. This the husband man at his plough, and his wife at her rock is able to iudge, and to condemne you in this poynt, and so can the boyes in the gramer schole, that you speake neither according to the english tonge, grammer, nor reason, when you say that these wordes and aduerbes (sensibly, corporally and naturally) do not signifie a corporall, sensible, and naturall maner. I hauehave bene here somewhat long and tedious, but the reader must pardon me: for this subtill and euill deuise of your owne brayne without ground or authoritie, contayneth such absurdities, and may cast such mistes before mens eies to blind them that they should not see, that I am constrayned to speake thus much in this matter, and yet more shall do, if this suffice not. But this one thing I wonder much at, that you being so much vsed and accustomed to lye, do not yet know what lye meaneth.
But at length in this mater (when you see none other shift) you be faine to flye to the church for your shotte anker. And yet it is but the Romish church. For the olde & first Church of Christ is cleerely agaynst you. And Origen sayth not as you do, that to vnderstand the sayd wordes of Christ spiritually, is to vnderstand them as the spirite of God hath taught the church: but to vnderstand them spiritually, is to vnderstand them otherwise then the wordes sound: for he that vnderstādeth them after the letter (sayth Origen) vnderstandeth them carnally, and that vnderstanding hurteth and destroyeth. For in playne vnderstanding of eating and drinking without trope or figure, Christes flesh cannot be eaten nor his bloud dronken. Next followeth in order S. Cyprian, of whom I write thus.
The aunswere to Cyprian li. 2. epist. 3.And likewise ment Ciprian, in those places which the aduersaries of the truth allege of him, concerning the true eating of Christes very flesh and drinking of his bloud. For Ciprian spake of no grose and carnall eating with the mouth, but of an inward spirituall and pure eating with hart and mind: which is to beleue in our hartes that his flesh was rent and torne for vsus vponupon the crosse, and his bloud shed for our redemption: and that the same flesh and bloud now sitteth at the right hand of the father, making continuall intercession for vsus: and to imprint and digest this in our mindes, putting our whole affiance and trust in him, as touching our saluation: and offering our selues clearly vntounto him, to louelove and serue him all the dayes of our life. This is truely, sincerely, and spiritually to eat his flesh, and to drincke his bloud.
And this sacrifice of Christ vponupon the crosse, was that oblatiō which Cipriā sayth was figured and signified before it was done,Gen…. … Gen…. 14. by the wine which Noe dranke, and by the bread and wine which Melchisedech gaue to Abraham, and by many other figures which S. Cyprian there reherseth. And now when Christ is come, and hath accomplished that sacrifice, the same is figured, signified, and represēted vntounto vsus, by that bread and wine, which faythfull people receaue dayly in the holy communion. Wherin like as with their mouthes carnally they eate the breade and drincke the wine, so by their fayth spiritually they eate Christes very flesh and drincke his very bloud. And hereby it apeareth that S. Ciprian clearly affirmeth the most true doctrine, and is wholy vponupon our side.
And agaynst the papistes he teacheth most playnly, that the Communion ought to be receaued of all men vnderunder both kindes: and that Christ called bread his body, and wine his bloud: and that there is not transubstantiation (but that bread remayneth there as a figure to represent Christes body, and wine to represent his bloud) and that those which be not the liuely members of Christ, do eat the bread and drincke the wine, and be not nourished by them, but the very flesh and bloud of Christ they neither eate nor drincke.
Thus hauehave you declared the mynd of S. Cyprian.
Winchester.
As touching Ciprian,Cyprianus. this author maketh an exposition of his owne deuise, which he would hauehave taken for an answer vntounto him. Where as Ciprian of all other, like as he is auncient within 250. yeares of Christ, so did he write very openly in the matter and therfore Melancthon in his epistle to Decolampadius did chuse him for one,Melancthon. whose words in the affirmation of Christes true presence in the sacrament had no ambiguitie And like iudgement doth Hippinus in his book before alleaged geue of Cyprianus faith in the sacrament,Hippinus. which two I allege to counteruayle the iudgement of this author, who speaketh of his owne head as it liketh him, playing with the words, grosse, and carnall, and vsing the word represent, as though it expressed a figure only. Hippinus in the sayd booke alleadgeth Cyprian to say, Lib, 3. ad Quirinum that the body of our Lord is our sacrifice in flesh,Ciprian. li. 3 ad quirinum. meaning, as Hipinus sayth, (Eucharistiam,) wherin S Augustin (as Hippinus saith further) in the praier for his mother, speaking of the bread and wine of Eucharistia, sayth that in it is dispensed the holy host and sacrifice, whereby was cancelled the byl obligatory that was agaynst vsus. And further Hippinus sayth, that the olde men called the bread and wine of our Lordes supper, a sacrifice, an host, and oblation for that specially, because they beleued & taught the true body of Christ and his true bloud to be destribute in the bread and wine of Eucharistia, and as S. Augustin sayth ad Ianuarium, Augustinus.to enter in & be receiued with the mouth of them that eat. These be Hippinus very words, who because he is I thinke in this authors opinion taken for no Papist, I rather speake in his words then in myne owne, whom in an other part of this worke, this author doth as it were for charity by name sclaunder to be a Papist. Wherfore the sayd Hippinus wordes shalbe as I thinke more weighty to oppresse this authors talke then mine be, and therfore howsoeuer this author handleth before the wordes of S. Cyprian (De vnctione chrismatis) and the word (shewing,) out of his epistles, yet the same Cyprians fayth appeareth so certayne otherwise, as those places shall need no further aunswere of me here, hauing brought forth the iudgement of Hippinus & Melancton how they vnderstand S. Cyprians fayth, which thou reader oughtest to regard more then the assertion of this Author, specially when thou hast red how he hath handled Hilray, Cyrill, Theophilact, and Damascene, as I shall hereafter touch.