Answer unto a Crafy and Sophistical Cavillation, Debate · Confutation of book 4 · Section 8
Winchester.
And yet he goeth about bycause he will make all thing clere, to answer such authors as the papistes (he sayth) bring for theyr purpose.Augustinus. And first he beginneth with S. Augustine who writeth as playnly agaynst this authors mynd, as I would hauehave deuised it. If I had no conscience of truth more then I see some hauehave, and myght with a secret wish hauehave altered S. Augustine as I had lift.… And therfore here I make a playne Issue with this author, that in the searching of S. Augustine he hath trusted his man or his frende ouer negligently in so great a matter, or he hath willingly gone about to deceaue the reader. For in the place of S. Augustine agaynst the Donatistes alleadged here by this author, which he would with ye rest assoyle, S. Augustine hath these format wordes in Latin Corpus dominum & sanguis domini nihilominus erat etiam illis quibus dicebat Apostolus; August. de Bap. lib. 5. Cap. 8.Qui manducat indigne, indicium sibi manducat & bibit. Which wordes be thusmuch in English: It was neuerthelesse the body of our Lord and the bloud of our Lord also vntounto them to whome the Apostles sayd. He that eateth vnworthely, eateth and drinketh iudgement to him selfe. These be S. Augustines wordes, who writeth notably and euidently, that is was neuertheles the body and bloud of Christ to them that receaued vnworthely,The body of Christ to them yt receaue vnworthely. declaring that theyr vnworthines doth not alter the substance of that sacrament, and doth vsus to vnderstand therwith the substaunce of the Sacrament to be the body and bloud of Christ, and neuerthelesse so though the receauers be vnworthy, wherin this author is so ouerseene as I thinke there was neuer learned man before ye durst in a commōwealth where learned men be, publish such an vntruth as this is to be answered in a tongue that all men knew. Yet Peter Martyr wrot in Latin and reioyseth not I think to hauehave his lyes in English. I will bring in here an other place of S. Augustin to this purpose:August. de ver domi. Sermo. 11. Illud etiam, quod ait, Qui manducat carnem meam & bibit sanguinem meum in me manet & ego in illo quo modo intellecturisumus? Nunquid etiamillos sic poterimus accipere, de quibus dixit Apostolus, quod indicium sibi manducent & bibant quum ipsant carnem manducent, & ipsum sanguinem bibant? Nūquid & Iudas Magistri venditor & traditor impius, quamuis primum ipsum manibus eius confectum sacramentum carnis & sanguinis eius cum ceteres discipulis, sicut apertius Lucas Euangelista declarat, manducaret & biberat mansit in Christo, aut Christus, in eo: Multi deni que qui vel corde ficto carnem illam manducant & sanguinem bibunt, vel quum manducauerint & biberint, apostate fiunt, nunquid manent in Christo, aut Christus in eis? Sed profecto est quidem modus manducandi illam carnem & bibendi illum sanguinem, quomodo qui manducauerit & biberit, in Christo manet & Christus in eo. Non ergo quocun que , modo quis que manducauerit carnem Christi, & biberit sanguinem Christi, manet in Christo, & in illo Christus, sed certo quodam modo, quem modum vtique ipse videbat quando ista dicebat. The English of these wordes is this. That same that he also sayth. Who eateth my flesh and drincketh my bloud, dwelleth in me and I in him, how shall we vnderstand it. May we vnderstand also them of whom the Apostle speake that they did eat to themselues, and drincke iudgement, when they did eate the same flesh and drincke the same bloud, the flesh it selfe, the bloud it selfe? Dyd not Iudas the wicked seller and betrayer of his master when he dyd eate and drincke (as Lucas the Euangilest declareth) the firste Sacrament of the flesh and bloud of Christ made with his owne handes, dwell in Christ, and Christ in him? Fynally many that with a fayned hart eate that flesh and drincke the bloud, or when they hauehave eaten and dronken become aposratates, do not they dwell in Christ, or Christ in them? But vndoubtedly there is a certayne manner of eating that flesh & drincking that bloud after which manner whosoeuer eateth and drincketh, dwelleth in Christ and Christ in him. Therfore, not in whatsoeuer maner any man eateth the flesh of Christ and drincketh the bloud of Christ, he dwelleth in Christ and Christ in him, but after a certayn maner, which maner he saw when he sayd these wordes. This is the sense of S. Augustines saying in Latine wherby appeareth the fayth of S. Augustin to be, in the sacrament to be eaten and drō ken the very body and bloud of Christ, which for the substaunce of the sacrament euill men receaue as good men do, that is to say, as S. Augustine doth poynt it out by his wordes, the same flesh and the same bloud of Christ, with such an expression of speach, as he would exclude all difference that deuise of figure might imagine, and therfore sayth Ipsam carnem, ipsum sanguinem, which signifie the selfe same in dede, not by name onelyonly as the author of the booke would hauehave S. Augustine vnderstanded: and when that appeareth as it is most manifest, that Iudas receaued the same being wicked that good men do, how the same is before the recept by godes omnipotencie present in the visible sacrament, and so not receaued by the onelyonly instrument of fayth, which in euill men is not liuely, but by the instrument of the mouth, wherin it entreth with the visible element, and yet as S. Augustine sayth dwelleth not in him, that so vnworthely receiueth, bycause the effect of dwelling of Christ is not in him that receaueth by such a maner of eating as wicked men vse. Wherby S. Augustine teacheth the diuerse effect to ensue of the diuersitie of the eating, and not of any diuersitie of that which is eaten, whether the good man or euill man receaue the sacrament. If I would here encombre the reader, I could bring forth many mo places of S. Augustine to the confusion and reprofe of this Authors purpose, and yet notwithstanding to take away that he might say of me, that I way not S. Augustine: I thinke good to alleadge and bring forth the iudgement of Martyn Bucer touching S. Augustine,Bucerus. who vnderstandeth S. Augustine clere contrary to this author, as may playnly appeare by that the sayd Bucer writeth in few wordes in his epistle dedicatory of the great worke he sent abroad of his enarrarations of the gospelles where his iudgement of S. Augustine in this poynt he vttereth thus: Quoties scribit etiam Iudam ipsum corpus & sanguinem domini sumsisse? Nemo ita que auctoritate S. patrum dicet Christum in sacra Coena absentem esse: Bucerus.The sense in English is this. How often writeth he (speaking of S. Augustine) Iudas also to hauehave receaued the selfe body and bloud of our Lord? No man thefore by the authoritie of the fathers can say Christ to be absent in the holy supper. Thus sayth Bucer who vnderstandeth S. Augustine as I hauehave before alleadged him, and gathereth therof a conclusion, that no man can by the fathers sayinges proue Christ to be absent in the holy supper, And therfore by Bucers iudgement, the doctrine of this Author can be in no wise catholique, as dissenting from that hath ben before taught and beleued, whether Bucer will still continue in that he hath so solemnly published to the world and by me here alleadged, I cannot tell, and whether he do or no, it maketh no matter, but thus he hath taught in his latter iudgement with a great protestation, that he speaketh without respect other then to the truth wherin because he semed to dissent from his frendes he sayth: foreign. which wordes hauehave an imitation of an elder saying, and be thus much to say: Socrates is my frend, truth is my best beloued, and the church most regarded. And with this Bucer closeth his doctrine of the sacrament, after he knew al that Zuinglius & Decolampadius could say in the matter. And here I will leaue to speake of Bucer, and bring forth Theodoretus a man most extolled by this author,Theodoretus in epi. 1. Cor. 11. who sayth playnly in his commentaries vponupon S. Paule, how Christ deliuered to Iudas his precious body and bloud, and declareth further therwith in that sacrament to be the truth. So as this author can hauehave no foundatiō vponupon eyther to maintayne his figuratiue speach, or the matter of this fourth booke, which his wordes playnly impugn. S. Hierom in his commentaries vponupon the prophet Malachie hath first this sentence: Polluimus panem, id est corpus Christi, quando indigne accedimus ad altare, & sordidi, mundum sanguinem bibimus, Hieronimus.We defile the bread that is to say, the body of Christ; when we com vnworthy to the aulter and being filthy drincke the cleane bloud: Thus sayth S. Hierome, who sayth, men filthy drincke the cleane bloud: and in an other place after the same S. Hierom sayth: Polluit Christi misteria indigne accipiens Corpus eius & sanguinem, He that vnworthely receaueth the body and bloud of Christ, defileth, the misteries. Can any wordes be more manifest and euident to declare S. Hieroms mind how in the visible sacrament men receaue vnworthely, which be euell men, the body and bloud of Christ?