Answer unto a Crafy and Sophistical Cavillation, Debate · Confutation of book 2 · Section 1
Caunterbury.
IN this booke (which answereth to my second booke rather with taunting wordes then with matter) I will answere the chief poyntes of your intent, and not contend with you in scolding, but will geue you place therin.
First I charge none with the name of papistes, but that be well worthy therof.Papistes were the Authors of Transubstantiation. For I charge not the hearers but the teachers, not the learners, but the inuenters of the vntrue doctrine of Transubstantiation, not the kinges faythfull subiects, but the Popes darlinges, whose fayth and belefe hangeth of his onelyonly mouth. And I call it their doctrine, not onelyonly bycause they teach it, but bycause they made it, and were the first fynders of it.
And as in the third booke, concerning the reall presence of Christes body and bloud in the Sacrament, you hauehave not shewed myne ignorance or wilfulnes, but your owne: so do you now much more in the matter of Transubstantiation: Which word (say you) albeit the same was fyrst spoken of in the generall counsell, where the Byshop of Rome was present, yet the true matter signified by that word was older. Here at the first brunt you confesse, that the name of Transubstantiation was giuen at the counsell. So that either the matter was not before (as it was not in deed) or at the least it was before a namelesse child (as you do graunt) vntill the holy father Innocent the thyrd, which begat it, assembled a company of his frendes as godfathers to name the child. And by what authority the counsayle defined the matter of Transubstantiation, it may easely appeare. For authority of scripture hauehave they none, nor none they do alleadge. And what the authority of the Pope was there, all men may see, being present in the same no lesse then .800. Abbottes and Priours, who were all the Popes owne chyldren, of him created and begotten.
And as for the confession of all the clergy of this Realme in an open counsell,The counsayle in England. the authority of Rome ceasing, you speake here a manifest vntruth wittingly agaynst your conscience. For you know very well (and if you will denie it, there be enough yet aliue can testify) that diuers of the clergy, being of most godly liuing, learning, and iudgement, neuer consented to the articles, which you speake of. And what meruayle was it, that those articles (notwithstanding diuers learned men repugning) passed by the most voyces of the Parliament? seing that although the authority of Rome was then newely ceased, yet the darkenes and blindnes of errours and ignoraunte that came from Rome, still remayned and ouershadowed so this Realme, that a great number of the Parliament had not yet theyr eyes opened to see the truth. And yet how that matter was enforced by some persons, they know right well that were then present. But after, when it pleased almighty God, more clearly to shine vntounto vsus by the light of this word, our eyes by his goodnes were opened, darkenes discussed, and that which was done in ignoraunce and darkenes, was by knowledge and light in publique Counsell rehersed and taken away, as well concerning the doctrine as the hardnes of the law. For if the doctrine had bene true and godly, there is no christen harted man, but he would hauehave desired the establishment and continuaunce therof. But the doctrine being false and such as came onelyonly from Rome, they be not worthy to be likened to those truthes, which came from God, and were vttered by Balaam and Cayphas, but to be numbred among those lyes, which came from his vicar,Iohn. 6. who when he speaketh lyes, ex proprijs loquitur, he speaketh properly of himselfe.
And the Byshop of Rome was not cleane gone out of England, as sone as the lawes were made agaynst his authority, but remayned still by his corrupt doctrine, as I feare me he doeth yet in some mennes hertes, who were the chief procurers and setters forthward of the foresayd law. But yet is all togither to be imputed to the Byshop of Rome, forasmuch as from thens came all the foresayd errours, ignorance and corruption into these parties.
Now where you take vponupon you here, to purge your selfe of Papistry by me and Zuinglius, if you hauehave no better compurgators then vsus two, you be like to fayle in your purgation. For neyther of vsus (I dare say) durst swere for you in this matter, though Zuinglius were aliue. Or if your purgatiō stand to this poynt, that Christ called not bread made of wheat his body (although in a formall and proper speach bread is not in deede his body) you may be as rancke a Papist as euer was, for any purgation you can make by this way. For Christ called bread made of wheate his body as the wordes of the Euangelistes playnly declare, and all old writers teach, and in your booke of the deuils sophistrie, you hauehave confessed, saying that Christ made demonstration of bread, when he sayd, This is my body. And therfore bring some better purgation then this, or els had you bene better not to hauehave offered any purgation, in a matter that no man charged you withall, than by offering a purgation, aud fayling therin, to bring your selfe into more suspition.
And where as in fortification of your matter of Transubstantiation, you make your argument thus, That forasmuch as the body of Christ is really in the sacrament, there is of necessity Transubstantiatiō also.Reall presence proueth no Transubstantiation. This your argument hath two great faultes in it. The first is, that your antecedent is false, and then you can not conclude therof a true consequent. The second fault is, that although the autecedent were graunted vntounto you, that the body of Christ is really in the sacrament, yet the consequent can not be inferred therof, that there is of necessity Transubstantiation. For Christ can make his body to be present in the Sacrament, as well with the substance of the bread, as without it, and rather with the substance of bread then with the accidents: forasmuch as neyther Christes body there occupieth any place, (as you say yourselfe) nor no more doth the substance of bread by it selfe, but by meanes of the accidentes, as you say also.
Now forasmuch as you say, that you will passe ouer the vnreuerent handling of Christes wordes, which you heard me once more seriously reherse in solemne open audience,I erred once in this matter. I knowledge that not many yeares passed, I was yet in darkenes concerning this matter, being brought vp in scholasticall and Romish doctrine, wherunto I gaue to much credite. And therfore I graunt, that you hauehave heard me stand and defend the vntruth, which I then tooke for the truth, and so did I heare you at the same tyme. But prayse be to the euerliuing God, who hath wiped away those Saulish scales from myne eyes, and I pray vntounto his diuine maiesty with all my hart, that he will likewise do once the same to you.Act .…. Thy will be fulfillid O Lord.
But forasmuch as you passe ouer my handling of Christes wordes (as you vse commonly to passe in post, when you hauehave no direct answer to make) I shall here repete my wordes agayne, to the intent that the indifferent reader may presently see how I hauehave handled them, and then iudge whether you ought so slenderly to pas them ouer as you do.
My wordes be these
¶The second booke
THus hauehave you heard declared fower thinges,Chap. 1. The confutation of the errour of Transubstā tiation. wherin chiefly the Papisticall doctrine varieth from the trew word of God, and from the olde catholique Christian fayth in this matter of the Lordes supper.
Now (least any man should thinke that I fayne any thing of myne owne head without any other grounde or authority) you shall heare by Gods grace as well the errors of the Papistes conf…ted, as the catholique truth defended, both by gods most certayne word, and also by the most old approued authors and Martirs of Christes Church.
And first, that bread and wine remayne after the wordes of consecration,Chap. 2. The papistiente doctrine is contrary to Gods word. and be eaten and drunken in the Lordes supper, is most manifest by the playn wordes of Christ himselfe, when he ministred the same supper vntounto his desciples. For as the Euangilistes write, Christ tooke bread, and brake it, and gaue it to his disciples, and sayd: Take, eate, this is my body.Math. 16. Marc. 14. Luc. 22.
Here the Papistes triumph of these wordes, when Christ sayd: This is my body, which they call the wordes of Consecration. For (say they) assone as these wordes be fully ended, there is no bread left, nor none other substance, but onelyonly Christes body. When Christ sayd (this) the bread (say they) remayned. And when he sayd (is) yet the bread remayned. Also whan he added (my) the bread remayned still. And when he sayd (bo) yet the bread was there still. But when he had finished the whole sentence: This is my body, then (say they) the bread was gone, and there remayned no substance but Christes body, as though the bread could not remayne, when it is made a Sacrament. But this negatiue, that there is no bread, they make of theyr owne braynes, by their vnwritten verities, which they most highly esteme.
Oh good Lord, how would they hauehave bragged if Christ had sayd: This is no bread? but Christ spake not that negatiue, This is no bread, but sayd affirmingly, This is my body not denying the bread, but affirming that his body was eaten, (meaning spiritually) as the bread was eaten corporally.
1. Cor. 10.And that this was the meaning of Christ, appeareth playnly by S. Paule, in the tenth chap. to the Corinth. the first epistle, where he (speaking of the same matter) sayth: Is not the bread which we breake, the communion of the body of Christ? Who vnderstood the mynd of Christ better then S. Paule, to whom Christ shewed his most secret counsailes? And S. Paule is not afrayd, for our better vnderstanding of Christes wordes, somewhat to alter the same, least we might stand stiffely in the letters and sillables, and erre in mistaking the sense and meaning. For where as our Sauiour Christ brake the bread, and sayd, This is my body: S. Paule sayth, that the bread which we breake, is the communion of Christes body. Christ sayd, His body: and S. Paule sayd, the communion of his body: meaning neuerthelesse both one thing, that they which eate the bread worthely, do eate spiritually Christes very body. And so Christ calleth the bread his body (as the old authors report) bycause it representeth his body, and signifieth vntounto them which eat that bread according to Christes ordinance, that they do spiritually eate his body, and be spiritually fed and nourished by him, and yet the bread remayneth still there as a Sacrament to signifie the same. But of these wordes of Consecration shall be spoken hereafter more at large.
Therfore to returne to the purpose; that the bread remayneth, and is eaten in this Sacrament, appeareth by the wordes of Christ, which he spake before the consecration.Math 16. For that Christ tooke bread, and brake it, and gaue it to his disciples, and sayd: Take, eate. All this was done and spoken before the wordes of Consecration. Wherfore they must nedes be vnderstood of the very bread, that Christ tooke bread, brake bread, gaue bread to his disciples, commaunding them to take bread, aud eate bread. But the same is more playne and euident of the wine that it remayneth, and is drunken at the Lordes supper, as well by the wordes that goe before as by the wordes that follow after the consecration. For before the wordes of consecration, Christ tooke the cup of wyne, and gaue it vntounto his disciples, and sayd: Drincke ye all of this. Math. 16. Marc. 14.And after the wordes of consecration followeth, They dranke all of it.
Now I aske all the Papistes, what thing it was, that Christ commaunded his disciples to drincke, when he sayd, Drincke ye all of this. The bloud of Christ was not yet there by theyr owne confession, for these wordes were spoken before the consecration: Therfore it could be nothing els but wine that he commaunded them to drincke.
Then aske the Papistes once agayne, whether the disciples dranke wine or not? If they say yea, then let them recant theyr errour, that there was no wine remayning after the consecration. If they say nay, then they condemne the Apostles of disobedience to Christes commaundement, which dranke not wine as he commaunded them, Or rather they reproue Christ as a Iuggler, which commaūded his Apostles to drincke wine, and when they came to the drincking therof, he himselfe had conuayed it away. Moreouer, before Christ deliuered the cup of wine to his disciples, he sayd vntounto them: Deuide this among you.Luc. 11.
Here I would aske the Papistes an other question, what thing it was that Christ commaunded his disciples to deuide among them? I am sure they will not say, it was the Cup, except they be disposed to make men laugh at them. Nor I thinke they will not say, it was the bloud of Christ, as well because the wordes were spoken before the consecration, as bicause the bloud of Christ is not deuided, but spiritually giuen whole in the sacrament. Then could it be vnderstand of nothing els but of wine, which they should deuide among them, and drincke all togither.
Also when the Communion was ended, Christ sayd vntounto his Apostles: Verily I say vntounto you, that I will drincke no more henceforth of this frute of the vine, Math. 16. Marc. 14.vntill that day, that I shall drincke it new with you in my fathers kingdome.
By these wordes it is cleare, that it was very wine that the Apostles dranke at that godly supper. For the bloud of Christ is not the frute of the vine, nor the accidents of wine, nor none other thing is the frute of the vine, but the very wine onelyonly.
How could Christ hauehave expressed more playnly, that bread and wine remayne, then by taking the bread in his handes, and breaking it him selfe, and geuing it vntounto his disciples, commaunding them to eate it? And by taking the cup of wine in his handes, and deliuering it vntounto them, commaunding them to deuide it among them, and to drincke it, and calling it the frute of the vine? These wordes of Christ be so playne, that if an angell of heauen would tell vsus the contrary, he ought not to be beleued. And then much lesse may we beleue the subtill lying Papistes.
If Christ would hauehave had vsus to beleue (as a necessary article of our fayth) that there remayneth neyther bread nor wine, would he hauehave spoken after this sort, vsing all such termes and circumstaūces, as should make vsus beleue, that styll there remayneth bread and wine?
What maner of teacher make they of Christ, that say he ment one thing, when his wordes be cleane contrary? What christen hart can paciently suffer this contumely of Christ?
But what crafty teachers be these Papistes, who deuise phantasies of theyr owne heades, directly contrary to Christes teaching, and then set the same abroad to christen people, to be most assuredly beleued as Gods owne most holy word? S. Paule did not so, but followed herein the manner of Christes speaking, in calling of bread, bread, and wine, wine, and neuer altering Christes wordes herin.1. Cor. 10. The bread which we breake (sayth he) is it not the Communion of Christes body?
Now I aske agayne of the Papistes, whether he spake this of the bread consecrated or not consecrated? They can not say that he spake it of the bread vnconsecrated, for that is not the communion of Christes body by their owne doctrine. And if S. Paule spake it of bread consecrated, then they must nedes confesse that after consecration, such bread remayneth, as is broken bread, which can be none other, then very true materiall bread.1. Cor. 10. And strayght wayes after, S. Paule sayth in the same place, that we be partakers of one bread and one cup. And in the next chapiter, speaking more fully of the same matter, foure tymes he nameth the bread and the cup, neuer making mention of any Transubstantiation, or remayning of accidentes without any substance, which thinges he would hauehave made some mention of, if it had bene a necessary article of our fayth, to beleue that there remayneth no bread nor wine. Thus it is euident and playne, by the wordes of scripture, that after consecration remayneth bread and wine, and that the Papisticall doctrine of Transubstantiation, is directly contrary to gods word.