Answer unto a Crafy and Sophistical Cavillation, Debate · Confutation of book 4 · Section 2 – Section 4
Winchester.
And as for the Scriptures and doctours which this author alleadgeth to proue that only good men receaue the body and bloud of Christ, I graunt it without contention speaking of spirituall manducation and with liuely fayth without the Sacrament. But in the visible sacrament euell men receaue the same that good men do, for the substance of the sacrament is by godes ordinauce all one. And if this author would vse for a profe that in the sacrament Christes very body is not present, bicause euill men receaue it, that shalbe no argument, for the good seed when it was sowen did fall in ye euill ground and although Christ dwelleth not in the euill man, yet he may be receaued of the euill man to his condemnation, bycause he receaueth him not to glorifie him as God, as S. Paule sayth (Non dijudicans corpus domini) not esteming our Lordes body. And to all that euer this author bringeth to proue, that euell men eate not the body of Christ, may be sayd shortly, that spiritually they eat it not, besides the sacrament, and in the sacrament they eate it not effectually to life, but condemnation. And that is and may be called a not eating. As they be sayd not to heare ye word of God, that here it not profitably. And bycause the body of Christ of it selfe is ordeyned to be eaten for life, those that vnworthely eate to condemnation, although they eate in dede, may be sayd not to eate, because they eate vnworthely, as a thing not well done, may be in speach called not done, in respect of the good effect wherfore it was chiefly ordered to be done. And by this rule, thou reader mayst discusse all that this author bringeth forth for this purpose, eyther out of Scriptures or doctors. For euill men eate not the body of Christ to hauehave any fruite by it, as euil men be sayd not to heare gods word to hauehave any frute by it, and yet as they heare the worde of spirite & life and neuerthelesse perish, so euill men eate in the visible sacrament the body of Christ and yet perish. And as I sayd, this aunswereth the Scripture with ye particuler sayinges of Ciprian, Athanase, Basyl, Hierome, and Ambrose.
As for S. Augustine which this author alleageth De ciuitate dei, the same S. Augustine doth playnly say there in this place alledged, how the good and euill receaue the same sacrament, and addeth, but not with like profite, which wordes this author suppresseth, and therfore dealeth not sincerely. As for S. Augustine shall be hereafter more playnly declared. Finally, he that receaueth worthely the body & bloud of Christ, hath euerlasting life, dwelleth in Christ and Christ in him, he that receaueth vnworthely, which can be onelyonly in the sacrament, receaueth not lyfe, but condemnation.
Caunterbury.
IF you graunt without contention that which I do proue, then you must graunt absolutely and franckly without any addition, that onelyonly good men eate and drincke the body and bloud of Christ. For so say all the scriptures and authors playnly, which I hauehave alleadged, without your addition of spirituall manducation: and not one of them all say as you do, that in the visible Sacrament euell men receaue the same that good men do.
But I make no such vayne proofes as you fayne in my name, that in the sacrament Christes very body is not present, bycause euil men receaue it. But this argument were good (although I make no such.) Euell men eate and drincke the sacrament, and yet they eate and drincke not Christes flesh and bloud: Ergo his flesh and bloud be not really and corporally in the sacrament.
And when you say that Christ may be receaued of the euel man to his condemnation, is this the glory that you geue vntounto Christ, that his whole presence in a man, both with flesh, bloud, soule and spirite, shall make him neuer the better? and that Christ shalbe in him, that is a member of the deuell? And if an euill man hauehave Christ in him for a tyme, why may he not then hauehave him still dwelling in him? For if he may be in him a quarter of an houre, he may be also an whole houre, and so a whole day, and an whole yeare, and so shall God and the diuell dwell together in one house. And this is the croppe that groweth of your sowing, if Christ fall in euell men, as good seed falleth in euell ground.
And where you say, that all that euer I bring, to proue that euell men eate not the body of Christ, may be shortly aunswered, truth it is (as you sayd in one place of me) that all that I hauehave brought may be shortly aunswered, if a man care not what he aunswer: as it seemeth you pas not much what you aunswer, so that you may lay on lode of wordes. For where as I hauehave fully proued as well by authoritie of scripture, as by the testimony of many olde writers, that although euell men eate the sacramentall bread, and drincke the wine (which hauehave the names of his flesh and bloud) yet they eate not Christes very flesh nor drincke his bloud: Your short and whole aunswer is this,That may be sayd not done yt is not well don. that euell men may be sayd not to eate Christes flesh and drincke his bloud, bycause they do it not frutefully, as they ought to do. And that may be called a not eating, as they may be sayd not to heare godes word, that heare it not profitably: and a thing not well done, may be in speach called not done, in the respect of the good effect. I graunt such speaches be sometyme vsed, but very rarely and when the very truth commeth in discussion, then such Paradoxes are not to be vsed. As if it come in question whether a house be builded, that is not well builded, then the diffinition of the matter must not be, that it is not builded, although the carpenters and other workemen hauehave fayled in theyr couenaunt and bargayne, and not builded the house in such sort as they ought to hauehave done. So our sauiour Christ teacheth that all heard the word,Li…. 8. whether the seed fell in the high way, or vponupon the stones, or among the thornes, or in the good groūd. Wherfore when this matter cometh in discussion among the old writers, whether euell menne eate Christes body or no, if the truth had bene that euill men eate it, the olde writers would not so precisely hauehave defined the contrary, that they eate not, but would hauehave sayd they eate it, but not effectually, not frutefully, not profitably. But now the authors which I hauehave alleaged, define playnly and absolutely, that euell men eate not Christes body, without any other addition. But after this sort that you do vse, it shall be an easy matter for eueryevery man to say what liketh him, and to defend it well inough, if he may adde to the scriptures and doctours wordes at his pleasure, and make the sense after his owne phantasye. The scriptures and Doctoures which I alleadge, do say in playne wordes (as I do say) that euell menne do not eate the body of Christ nor drincke his bloud, but onelyonly they that hauehave life therby.
Now come you in with your addition and glose, made of your owne head, putting therto this word (effectually.) Yf I should say that Christ was neuer conceaued nor borne, could not I auoyd all the scriptures that you can bring to the contrary, by adding this word (apparantly) and defend my saying stoutly? And might not the Ualentinians, Marcianistes and other that sayd that Christ dyed not for vsus, defend their errour with addition (as they did,) of this word (putatiue) to all the scriptures that were brought agaynst them? And wat herisie can be reproued, if the heretikes may hauehave ye liberty that you do vse, to adde of their owne heades to the wordes of scripture?Deu. 12. contrary vntounto Godes word directly, who cō maundeth vsus to adde nothing to his word, nor to take any thing away.
And yet more ouer, the authorities which I hauehave brought to approue my doctrine, do clerely cast away your addition, adding the cause why euell men can not eate Christes flesh nor drincke his bloud. And you hauehave taught almost in the beginning of your booke, that Christes body is but a spirituall body, and after a spirituall manner eaten by fayth. And now you hauehave confessed, that who so fedeth vponupon Christ spiritually, must nedes be a good man. How can you than defend now, that euell men eat the body of Christ? except you will now deny that which you graunted in the beginning (and now hauehave forgotten it) that Christes body cannot be eaten but after a spirituall maner by fayth? Wherin it is meruayle, that you hauing so good a memory, should forgette the common prouerbe, Mendacem memorem esse oportet.
And it had ben more conuenient for you to hauehave answered fully to Cyprian, Athanasius, Basyll, Hierom and Ambrose, then when you cannot answer, to wipe your handes of them with this slender answer, saying that you hauehave answered. And whether you hauehave or no, I refer to the iudgement of the reader.
August de ciuit. Dei. lib. 22. cap.And as concerning S. Augustine De ciuitate Dei, he sayth, that euell men receaue the sacrament of Christes body, although it auayleth them not. But yet he sayth in playne wordes, that we ought not to say, that any man eateth the body of Christ that is not in the body. And if the reader euer saw any meare cauilation in all his lyfe tyme, let him read the chapter of S. Augustine and compare it to your answer, and I dare say he neuer sawe the like.
And as for the other places of S. Augustine by me alleadged, with Origen and Cirill, for the more ease you passe them ouer with silence, and dare eate no such meate it is so hard for you to digest. And thus hauehave you with post hast runne ouer all my scriptures and doctours, as it were playing at the post, with still passing and geuing ouer eueryevery game. And yet shal you neuer be able for your part to bring any scripture that serueth for your purpose, except you may be suffered to adde therto such wordes as you please. Than come you to my questions wherin I write thus.
And now for corroboration of Cyrils saying,Chap. 5. I would thus reason with the Papistes, and demaund of them: Whan an vnrepentant sinner receaueth the sacrament, whether he hauehave Christes body within him or no?
If they say no, than hauehave I my purpose, that euell men although they receaue the sacrament of Christes body, yet receaue they not his very body. If they say yea, Than I would aske them further, Whether they hauehave Christes spirite within them or no?
If they say nay, than do they separate Christes body from his spirite, and his humanitie from his diuinitie, and be condemned by the Scripture as very Antichristes, that diuide Christ.
And if they say yea, that a wicked man hath Christes spirit in him, then the scripture also condemneth them,Rom. 8. saying: that as he which hath not the spirite of Christ, is none of his, so he that hath Christ in him, lyueth bycause he is iustified: And if his spirite that raysed Iesus from death, dwell in you, he that raysed Iesus from death, shall geue life to your mortall bodies, for his spirites sake, which dwelleth in you.
Thus on eueryevery side the scripture condemneth the aduersaries of gods word.
And this wickednes of the Papistes is to be wondred at, that they affirme Christes flesh, bloud, soule, holy spirite, and his deitie to be in a man, that is subiect to sinne and a lim of the deuill, They be wonderful iuglers and coniurers, that with certayne wordes can make God and the diuell to dwell together in one man, and make him both the temple of God, and the temple of the Deuill. It appeareth that they be so blind that they cānot see the light from darknes: Beliall from Christ, nor the table of the Lord from the table of diuels. Thus is cōfuted this third intolerable error & heresie of the Papists, That they which be the limmes of the dyuell, do eate the very body of Christ, and drinke his bloud, manifestly and directly contrary to the wordes of Christ him selfe, who sayth: Who soeuer eateth my flesh and drincketh my bloud, hath euerlasting lyfe.
Winchester.
But to encounter directly with this author, where he opposeth by interogation, and would be answered, whether an vnrepentant sinner that receaueth the sacrament, hath Christes body within him or no. Marke reader this question, which declareth that this author talketh of the sacrament, not as him selfe teacheth, but as the true teaching is although he meane otherwise, for els how could an vnrepentant sinner receaue Christes body, but onelyonly in the sacrament vnworthely? and how could he receaue it vnworthely, and it were not there? but to answer to this question, I answer no: for it foloweth not he receaued him, (ergo) he hath him in him, for the vessel being not meet, he departed from him, because he was a sinner, in whom he dwelleth not. And where this author now become a questionist, maketh two questions, of Christes body, and his spirite, as though Christes body myght be deuided from his spirite, he supposeth other to be as ignoraunt as him selfe. For the learned man will aunswere, that an euell man by force of Gods ordinance, in the substance of the sacrament receaued in deed Christes very body there present, whole Christ God and man, but he taried not, nor dwelled not, nor fructified not in him, nor Christes spirite entered not into that mannes soule bycause of the malice and vnworthines of him that receaued. For Christ will not dwell with Beliall nor abide with sinners. And what hath this author won now by his forked question? wherin he seemeth to glory as though he had imbrased an absurditie that he hunted for, wherin he sheweth onelyonly his ignoraunce, who putteth no difference betwene the entring of Christ into an euell man by Gods ordinance in the sacrament, and the dwelling of Christes spirite in an euell man, which by scripture can not be, ne is by any catholike man affirmed. For S. Paule sayth: In him that receaueth vnworthely remayneth iudgement and condemnation. And yet S. Paules wordes playnly import that those dyd eate the very body of Christ which dyd eate vnworthely, and therfore were gilty of the body and bloud of Christ. Now reader consider what is before written, and thou shalt easely see, what a fond conclusion this author gathereth in the xcvii. leafe, as though the teaching were that the same man should be both the temple of God, and the temple of the deuell, with other termes, wherewith it liketh this author to refresh himselfe, and fayneth an aduersary, such as he would hauehave, but hath none, for no catholike man teacheth so, nor it is not all one to receaue Christ, & to hauehave Christ dwelling in him. And a figure therof was in Christes conuersation vppon earth, who tarieth not with all that receaued him in outward apparaunce: and there is noted a difference that some beleued in Christ, and yet Christ committed not him selfe to them. And the gospell prayseth them that heare the word of God and keep it, signifiing many to hauehave the word of god, and not to keep it, as they that receaue Christ by his ordinaunce in the sacrament, and yet bycause they receaue him not, according to ye entent of his ordinance worthely, they are so much the worse therby through theyr owne malice. And therfore to conclude this place with the author, who soeuer eateth Christes flesh and drincketh his bloud, hath euerlasting lyfe, with S. Paules exposition, if he doth it worthely: or els by the same S. Paule, he hath condemnation.