Answer unto a Crafy and Sophistical Cavillation, Debate · Confutation of book 2 · Section 31
Caunterbury.
I Pitie you, to see how ye swinke and sweate, to confounde this author Gelasius. And yet his woordes be so playne agaynst your Papisticall Transubstantiation, that you hauehave clearely lost all your paynes, labours, and costes. For these be his wordes, spoken of the Sacrament, Esse non desinit substantia vel natura panis & vini, the substaunce or nature of bread and wine ceasseth not to be. But to auoyde and dalye away these wordes, that be so cleare and playne, must needes bee layd on loade of wordes, the wit must be stretched out to the vtmost, all fetches must brought in that cā be deuised, all colours of Rethorike must be sought out, all the ayre must be cast ouer with cloudes, all the water darkned with the cuttyls ynke, and if it could be (at the least asmuch as may be) all mens eyes also must be put out, that they should not see. But I would wish that you stode not so much in your owne conceite, trusted not so much in your inuentions and deuise of wit, in eloquence, and in craftines of speach, & multitude of wordes, looking that no mā should dare encounter you, but that all men should thinke you speake well, bicause you speake much, & that you shuld be had in great reputation among the multitude of them that be ignoraunt, & can not discerne perfectly those that folow the right way of truth, from other that would lead them out of the way into errour & blindnesse. This standyng in your conceite, is nothyng els but to stand in your owne light.
But where you say, that these heresies of Nestorius & Eutiches were not so grosse as I report, that the one should say, that Christ was a perfect man, but not God, and the other should say cleane cōtrary, that he was very God, but not mā: of the grossenes of these two heresies, I will not much contēd. For it might be, that they were of some misreported (as they were in deede if credite be to be giuen to diuers auncient hystories) but this I dare say, that there be diuers authors, that report of them as I do write, and consequently you graunt the same in effect. For you report of the Eutichiās, that they did pernitiously say, that there was but foreign, one nature in Christ. And of the Nestorians you say, that they denyed Christ to be conceiued God or borne God, but onelyonly man, and than could not he be naturally God, but onelyonly man. And therfore neither by ignoraunce nor of purpose do I report them otherwise, than you confesse your selfe, and then I hauehave learned of other that were before my tyme. For S. Augustine in the place which you do cite of him,August, contra hereses. hath these wordes of Nestorius, Dogmatizare ausus est, Dominum nostrum Iesum Christum hominem tantum, he presumed to teach (sayth S. Augustine) that our Lord Iesus Christ was but man onelyonly. And of Eutiches he sayth, Humanitatis in Christo denegauit veritatem, he denied the truth of Christes manhode. And Gelasius writeth also thus. Eutichiani dicunt vnam esse naturam, id est diuinam, ac Nestorius nihilominus memerat singularem, Gelasius aduersus Eutychen & Nestorium.The Eutichians say, that there is but one nature in Christ, that is to say, the Godhead: and also Nestorius sayth, there is but one nature, meanyng the manhode. By which wordes of S. Augustine and Gelasius, appeareth as playnly as can be spokē, the playne contradiction betwene, the Nestorians and the Eutichians, that the one denyed the humanitie of Christ, and the other his diuinitie (as I hauehave writtē in my booke) so that neither of ignoraunce nor of purpose hauehave I fayned any thyng, but you, either of malice, or of your accustomed maner to calumniate and find faulte with eueryevery thyng that misliketh you (be it neuer so well) seeke occasion likewise hereto carpe and reprehend where no fault is: being like vntounto Momus, which when he could finde no fault with Uenus person, yet he picked a quarell to her slipper. And not in this place onelyonly, but throughout your whole booke you vse this fashiō, that when you cā not aunswere to the principall matter, thē you finde fault with some bye matter, wherby it seemeth you intend so to occupy the Readers mynde, that he should not see how craftely you cōuey your selfe, frō direct aūsweryng of the chief poynt of the Argumēt, which when you come vntounto, you passe it ouer slenderly, aūsweryng either nothyng, or very litle, & nothyng to the purpose.
But yet this bye matter (which you bryng in of the grossenes of these two errours) helpeth litle your intēt, but rather helpeth to fortifie my saying agaynst your doctrine of transubstātiation, that your doctrine herein maketh a playne way for the Nestorians & the Eutichians to defend their errours. For if the bread and the body of Christ before the consecration in the Sacrament be two natures, and after the cōsecration in that mysterie is but one nature, and that is the body of Christ, into which the nature of bread in your fantasie is transformed and confounded, and if also this mysterie be an example of the mysterie of Christes incarnation (as the old authours report) why may not then the Eutichians say, that before the adunation in the virgins wombe, the Godhead & manhode were two natures, & yet after the adunation in that mysterie of Christes incarnation, there was but one nature, and that to be the nature of God, into which the nature of man was after their fantasie transfused and confounded? And thus hauehave you made by your transubstantiation a goodly paterne and example for the Eutichians to folow in maintenaunce of their errour.
And yet although the Eutichians sayd, that the nature of God and of mā, before their vniting were two, yet I read not that they sayd, that they were two in the virgines wombe (as you report of thē) which is no great matter, but to declare how ignoraūt you be in the thing, wherof you make so great boast, or how litle you regard the truth, that wittingly wil tell an vntruth. But to say my mynde frankely, what I thinke of your declaration of these two heresies, I thinke a great part thereof you dreamed in your sleape, or imagined being in some traunce or rapt with some Sophisticall vision, and part of your dreame agreeth neither with approued Authours and histories, nor with it selfe. For first as touchyng the Eutichians,Gelasius writeth as well agaynst Nestorius as Eutiches. where you say that Gelasius directeth his Argumētes of the two natures in man, & of the two natures in ye Sacramēt: chiefly agaynst ye Eutichians, to proue the nature of man to remaine in Christ after the adunation, whosoeuer readeth Gelasius, shall finde otherwise, that he directed his Arguments indifferently, as well agaynst Nestorius, as agaynst Eutiches, and no more agaynst the one then agaynst the other. Nor no more did the Eutichians abhorre alius and alius, Alius.(although some gathered so of their wordes) then did the Nestorians, which wordes signifie diuersitie of person, as aliud and aliud signifie diuersitie of nature:Aliud. So as the body & soule in one man be aliud and aliud by reason of diuersitie of natures, & yet be they not alius and alius, bycause that both together make but one person. By meanes of which difference betwene alius and alius, we say, Alius pater, alius filius, alius spiritus sanctus, and not Aliud pater, aliud filius, aliud spiritus sanctus, for asmuch as they be three in persons, and but one in nature and substaunce. And bycause Christ is two in nature, that is to say, of his deitie and humanitie, and but one in person, therefore we say, Aliud & aliud est diuinitas & humanitas, but not Alius, sed vnus est Christus.
And although Nestorius graunted two natures in Christ, yet not (as you say) frō his natiuitie, nor by adunation, but by cohabitation or inhabitatiō, so that he made but one Christ, (although some otherwise take him) and not alium & alium: after which sorte the Godhead is also in other godly men, whom by grace he maketh partakers of his godly nature, although by their naturall generatiō they be but mē, without the diuine nature vnited in person, but after obteined by adoption & grace. As by your example, a man is made Bishop, which by naturall generation is borne but a man.
And that this was Nestorius opinion, that Christ from his Natiuitie was but mā onelyonly, & had his godhead after by adoptiō or accession, is euident of your own wordes, when you say, that the Nestoriās denied Christ cōceiued God, or borne God, & that the Godhead was an accessiō to Christ afterward by merite, and that he was cōceiued but onelyonly man, although shortly after you go from the same, saying that both the Godhead & manhode were alwayes in Christ: such cōstācie is in your dreamed phātasies.
And where you hauehave written thus much (as you say) because it should appeare, that Gelasius by his Argumentes of the Sacrament, and of the two natures of man, went abont to proue that the Godhead remained in Christ after his incarnation, you might hauehave bestowed your tyme better, than to hauehave lost somuch labour, to impugne the truth. For although neither Nestorius nor Eutiches denyed the Godhead of Christ to remaine, yet Gelasius went not about onelyonly to confute thē, but also to set out playnly the true catholicke faith, that Christ being incarnated, was perfect God and perfect man, and how that might be, both the sayd natures and substaunces remainyng with all their naturall proprieties and conditions, without transubstantiation, abolition, or confusion of any of the two natures. And this he declareth aswell by the example of the Sacrament, as of the body and soule of man. Wherfore as true as it is, that the body and soule of man, and Godhead and manhode of Christ, remaine in their proper substaunces, natures and properties, without transubstantiation or perishyng of any of them, so must it be in the Sacrament.
And in the sayd heresies (as you say) was some appearāce of the truth, eueryevery one hauyng Scripture, which in sounde of wordes seemed to approue their errours, whereby they deceiued many. But as for your fayned doctrine of Transubstātiation, it hath no pretēce nor appearance of truth by Gods word, for you hauehave not one Scripture that maketh mētion therof, where as I hane many playne & manifest Scriptures, that speaketh in playne termes, that bread is eaten, and wine is dronken. And this Author Gelasius, with diuers other learned men, aswel Greekes as Latins, of the old Catholicke Churche, affirme in no doubtfull wordes, that the bread and wine be not gone, but remaine still. From which Scriptures and Doctours who soeuer dissenteth, declareth him selfe at the least to be ignoraūt, wherby yet he may excuse him selfe of a greater blot & infamy.
And this matter being so cleare, neither your fine disguising, nor your painted colours, nor your gay Rhetorike, nor witty inuentions, can so hyde and couer the truth, that it shal not appeare, but the more you labour to striue agaynst the streame, the more faynt shall you waxe, and at lēgth the truth hath such a violence, that you shall be borne cleane down with the streame therof.
In the end you compare Nestorius and Cyrill togethers, alludyng (as it seemeth) to this contention betwene you and me,A comparison of Nestorius & Cyrill, which comparison if it be throughly considered, hath no small resemblance, although there be no litle diuersitie also. Nestorius (say you) was a great archebishop, and so (say I) was Ciril also. Nestorius (say you) as apeareth had much learnyng, but cloked his heresie craftily. But the Histories of his tyme (who should know him best) describe him in this sorte, that he was a man of no great learnyng, but of an excellent naturall witte and eloquence, and full of craft and subtiltie, by meanes wherof, he was so proude and glorious, that he contemned all men in respect of him selfe, and disdained the old writers, thinkyng him selfe more wise then they all. Now let the indifferent Reader Iudge, whom he thinketh in this your illusion should most resemble the qualities and conditions of Nestorius.
And all this that you hauehave brought in here of these two heresies, although it be to no purpose in the principall matter, yet it serueth me to this purpose, that men may cōiecture whose nature and witte is most like vntounto the description of Nestorius, & also how loth you be to come to the matter, & to make a direct aunswere to Gelasius wordes, who sayth in playne termes, that substaūce or nature of bread & wine remaineth. Euē as glad you be to come to this, as a Beare is to come to the stake, seeking to runne out at this corner or that corner, if it were possible. But all will not helpe, for you be so fast tyed in chaynes, yt (will you, nill you) at length you must come to the stake, although you be neuer so loth. And Gelasius byteth so sore, & hath catched so hard hold of you, that you cā neuer escape, although you attempt all maner of wayes, by tooth and by nayle, to shake him of.
First you would shake him of by this pretēce that he vseth his two Argumentes of the two examples of man, and the Sacrament, agaynst the Eutichians onelyonly. But Gelasius will not so easely leaue his hold. For he speaketh indifferently as well against the Nestorians as the Eutichians, declaring by these two examples, how two differēt natures may remaine in Christ, and that the integritie of Christ can not be, except both the different natures remaine in their properties, which cōdemneth both the foresayd heresies, that affirmed but one nature to be in Christ, the Eutichians his diuinitie, and the Nestorians his humanitie. And yet if he had vsed these examples agaynst the Eutichians onelyonly, they byte you as sore, as if they were vsed agaynst them both. For if he conclude by these two examples, agaynst the Eutichians (as you say hee doth) that the integritie of Christ can not be but both natures different, (that is to say, his manhode and Godhead) must remaine in their propertie, then must it nedes be so in the examples also. And then as Christ had in him two natures, with their naturall properties, neither perishing, but both remainyng, and as man hath in him two natures (the soule and the body) both remainyng still, so must in the Sacrament also, the nature of bread and wine remaine without Transubstantiation, or corruption of any of the natures, accordyng to the sayd wordes of Gelasius, Esse non desinit substantia vel natura panis & vini, the substance or nature of the bread and wine ceasseth not to be.
And Gelasius bringeth not this Image and similitude to that purpose that you would draw it, that is to say, to expresse the maner of Christs presēce in the Sacramēt, but to expresse the maner of two natures in Christ, that they both so remaine, that neither is corrupted or transubstantiated, no more then the bread and wine be in the Sacrament. And by this all men may see, that Gelasius hath fastened his teeth so surely, that you can not so lightly cast him of with a shake of your chayne. And if he ment to expresse the maner of Christes presence in the Sacrament (as you fayne he doth) that the maner is onelyonly by fayth (wherof he speaketh not one word) yet are you nothyng at libertie thereby, but held much more faster, thē you were before. For Gelasius speaketh of the action of the mystery, & Christes flesh and bloud be present in the action of the mystery onelyonly by fayth, therfore can they not be present in the bread or wine reserued, which hauehave no fayth at all. And presence by fayth onelyonly requireth no reall, materiall, and and corporall presence.Presence by fayth requireth no corporal presence. For by fayth is Christ present in Baptisme, and by fayth Abraham saw him, & the holy Fathers did eate his flesh and drincke his bloud, before he was borne. And Christ humbling him selfe to take vponupon him our mortall nature,Gala. 3. Ihon. 8. 1. Cor. 10, hath exalted vsus to the nature of his deitie, making vsus to reigne with him in his immortall glory, as it were Gods. And this (sayth Gelasius) God worketh in vsus by his Sacramentes per quae diuinae efficimur consortes naturae, & tamen esse non desinit substantia vel natura panis & vini, that is to say, by the Sacrament of Christes body and bloud we be associate vntounto the diuine nature, and yet ceasseth not the substaunce or nature of bread and wine to be. So that the Sacrament not beyng altered in substaunce, we be altered and go into the diuine nature or substaunce (as Gelasius termeth it,) beyng made partakers of Gods eternitie.
And therfore when he speaketh of the goyng of the Sacraments into the diuine substaunce, he meaneth not, that the substaunces of the Sacraments go into the substaunce of God (which no creature can do) but that in the action of that mystery, to them that worthely receaue the Sacramentes, to them they be turned into diuine substaunce, through the working of the holy Ghost, who maketh the godly receauers to be the partakers of the diuine nature and substaunce. And that this was the intent & meanyng of Gelasius, appeareth by two notable sentences of him, wherof one is this. Surely (sayth he) the Image and similitude of the body and bloud of Christ, is celebrate in the action of the mysterie. The other is, that by the Sacrament we be made partakers of the godly nature: he sayth not, that the Sacramentes be, but that we be made partakers of the nature of Christes Godhead. And if he should meane (as you hauehave most vntruely altered both his wordes & sence at your pleasure) not that the godly receiuers, but that the substaunce of bread and wine should go into the diuine substaunce, then were not they chaunged into his humanitie, but into his deitie, and so were the bread and wine deified, or at the least made partakers of the diuine nature and immortalitie. But for asmuch as Gelasius sayth, that the two natures in Christ remaine, in like case as the natures of the sacraments remayne, for he maketh his argument altogither of the remayning of the natures, by the verbe (permanere) and the participle (permanens) then as you say that the integrity of Christ can not be, except both his natures different remayne in their properties, so can not the integritie of the sacrament be, except the two natures of bread and wine remayne in their properties. For els, seeing that the remayning of the natures is in the Sacrament as it is in Christ, (as Gelasius sayth) then if in the Sacraments remayne but the accidents and apearance of bread and wine, and not the substances of them, how could Gelasius by the resemblance of the two sacraments of bread and wine, proue the two substances and natures of Christ to remayne. Might it not rather be gathered, that onelyonly the appearance of Christes humanity remayneth in accidents, and not the substance of it selfe (as Martion sayth, & as you say it is in ye sacrament) or els that Christes humanity is absorpted vp by his diuinity, and confounded therwith, as the Eutichians say, that the bread and wine is by ye body and bloud of Christ? But the catholique fayth hath taught from the beginning, according to holy scripture, that as the image or sacrament be two diuers natures and different, remayning in their properties (that is to say bread and wine) so likewise in the person of Christ remayne two natures, his diuinity and his humanity.
And I pray you, what danger is it to say, that Christes body is in the sacramentall bread, but as in a figure? should that emply, that his body is in his person, but as in a figure? That should be euen as good an argument as this: Christ was in the brasen serpent, but in a figure, ergo he is now in heauen but in a figure. For the forme of argumentation is all one in the one and the other. And if Christ be in vsus by vertue and efficacie, although in the sacraments representing the same (as Gelasius sayth) he be but sacramentally, figuratiuely, and significatiuely, what perill is it to vsus? And what auayleth it vsus his being in ye sacrament, and not in vsus.
And the two natures in the Sacrament (which Gelasius taketh for the image and similitude of the two natures in Christ) be bread and wine, which as they remayne, and that truely in their natures and substances, so do the two natures in Christ. And yet be the bread and wine Sacraments of the terrestriall nature of Christ, that is to say, of his body and bloud, but not of his celestiall and diuine nature, as you imagine. And they be called Sacraments, bicause they be figures, which if they were no figures, they were no Sacraments. But it is not required, that the thing represented by the figure, should be really and corporally present in the figure when ye figures ordeyned to represent a thing corporally absēt, & ye figure were in vayne, as Lactansius sayth,Lactantius institut. lib. 2. c. 1. if the thing were present.
And at the least wise in this place Gelasius vseth the natures and substances of bread and wine (which be Sacraments of Christes flesh and bloud) to be images and similitudes in this poynt, not of his flesh and bloud, but of his diuine and humayne nature, that as the bread and wine in the Sacrament remayne still in theire proper kindes, without violation, adnihilation, confusion, commixtion or Transubstantiation, so is it in the two natures of Christes manhode and his godhead. So that Gelasius vseth this similitude for the incarnation of Christ, not for the consecration of the sacrament, as you would peruert his meaning.
And bicause you would hauehave all your thinges strange (as it were one that had come out of a strange cuntry, where he had learned a strange fashion of speach, neuer heard of before, or rather deuised it himselfe) you call the colours of bread and wine, the matter of bread and wine, bicause colours onelyonly be visible after your teaching. And then must the naturall property of colours be, to signify our feeding spirituall by the body and bloud of Christ, that as they feede vsus spiritually, so do the colours corporally. And then making the argument ab opposito consequentis, ad oppositum antecedentis, as colours feede not our bodyes, so Christ feedeth not our soules. This is the conclusion of your goodly new deuised diuinity.
And to like effect cometh your other saying in the same sentence, (bicause you were loth to commit but one horrible errour in one sentence) that Gelasius calleth Christes body and bloud his diuine substance.
This is a goodly hearing for the Eutichians, who say, that in Christ is no moe natures but his diuine substance, which by your interpretation must be true. For if his godhead be a diuine substance, and his body and bloud also a diuine substance, why should Eutiches be reprehended for denying in Christ to be any other than diuine substaunce? And so shall we bring to passe, that either Christ hath but one substaūce, or two diuine substaunces (although not of like sorte) and so not one humaine substaunce. And is it like, that Gelasius, (who so long contēded agaynst Eutiches for two distinct substaūces in Christ, humaine and diuine) would in the conclusion of his disputation so much yeld vntounto the hereticke, to graunt that Christes humaine substaunce should be a diuine substaunce?
Substaunce or nature.And it is worthy to be noted, and double noted, how you wrāgle with the wordes of Gelasius, & wrast them cleane out of tune. For where Gelasius sayth, that there remaineth the substaunce or nature of bread and wyne (to declare thereby the remainyng of two natures in Christ) you say that Gelasius saying may be verified in the last, and not in the first, that is to say, that the nature of bread and wine remaineth. And nature (say you) is there taken for the proprieties,Nature for propertie. which you call accidentes. And so you make Gelasius a goodly teacher, that should so ambiguously speake of two thyngs, when he meaneth but of one. For when he sayth, that the substaunce or nature remayneth, you say, he meaneth that onelyonly the nature remaineth. And were this tollerable in a learned man, when he meaneth the nature to remaine, & not the substaunce, to expresse it by these termes, The substaunce or nature remaineth? And if Gelasius meane that the substaunce of bread and wine remaineth not, but the natures, and then if by nature he vnderstode the accidentes (as you vntruely surmise of him) and make them the Image and similitude, to proue Christes two natures, thē they proue no more, but that the accidentes of Christes natures remayne, and not the substaunce, whiche saying, whether it be a fauouryng of the Eutichians, Nestorians, Ualentiniās, Martionistes, Apolinaristes, and other of that sort, let the learned be iudge.
And although it be not necessary the exāples to be in all partes equall (as you alledge of Rusticus Diaconus) yet they must needes be like in yt point, wherfore they were takē to be examples, for els they were none examples. And therefore seyng that the bread and wine were of Gelasius brought for examples of Christes two natures, for this intēt, to proue that the two natures of Christ remaine in their substaunce, it must needes be so in the bread and wine or els they serued nothyng to that purpose.
And the transition that Gelasius ment of, is in the persons that receaue the Sacramentes, whiche be transformed into the diuine nature, (as Gelasius sayth) by efficacie & vertue represented by the Sacraments, but the transition is not in the bread and wyne (as you and your Thomas imagine of transition) whiche remaine in the Sacrament without substāciall mutatiō, conuersiō, transitiō, transelementatiō, or trāsubstantiatiō. For if in the mystery of the Sacrament were transition, mutation, conuersion, and transelementation of the substaunce of bread and wine, how could that mystery be an example of the principall mystery of Christes incarnation, to proue thereby that there is no transition, mutation, conuersion, or transelementation, of the two substaunces of Christ in his incarnation? Doth not the remainyng of substaunce in the Sacrament, proue the remainyng of substaunce in the Incarnation? For how can the not remainyng of substaunce, be an example, image, and similitude to proue the remainyng of the substaunce? But here appeareth what it is to wrastle agaynst the truth, & to defend an euell cause, & what absurdities wit & eloquence be driuen vntounto, when they striue agaynst God and his word.
And where you think your selfe ouer sore pressed with this argument and similitude of bread and wine to the two natures in Christ, I must needes presse the argument and wordes so farre, as pertayneth to the remayning of the natures and substance, for to that end was the image and similitude brought in by Gelasius. And then by argument from the cause, wherfore the resemblance was made, if the substance and nature of the bread and wine remayne not in the Sacrament, it followeth that the two natures and substance of Christ remayne not in his person, which is no sound teaching, wherfore to make the argument agree with the catholike teaching, we must needes say, that as in the person of Christ remayne the two natures and substance, of his godhead and manhod, so in the sacrament remayne the natures and substances of bread and wine, that the comparisons may agree with themselues and with the catholike fayth. Like as it is also in the other example of the body and soule, which two natures must needes remayne in the person of man, without transubstantiation of any nature if they shall resemble the remayning of the two natures in Christ. And how do the two natures in the Sacrament remayne in their property (I pray you declare) if the nature of bread and wine be gon? And how doth not the diuine nature swallow vp the earthly nature, if the nature of bread and wine be so turned into the diuine nature, that it remayneth not, but is clearly extinct.
If you may purge your selfe in handling of this author by confession of your ignorance, you must obtayne it by great fauor of them that will so accept it. For els in this one author is affirmed by you many great errors, with wilfull deprauation of the authors mynd, to geue weapons to them that be enemies to the truth, and to the subuersion of the catholike fayth. And no les hauehave you done in Theodoretus next folowing, bicause you would handle them both indifferently, and do no more Iniury to the one than to the other. And as for Ciprian, Ambrose, Theophilact and Emissene, I hauehave answered to them before. It is tyme now to heare Theodoret.
Theodoretus in dialogis.Theodoretus also affirmeth the same, both in his first and in his second dialoge. In the first he sayth thus: He that called his naturall body, wheate and bread, and also called himselfe a vine, the selfe same called bread and wine his body and bloud, and yet changed not their natures.
And in his second dialogue he sayth more playnly. For (sayth he) as the bread and wine after the consecration lose not their proper nature, but keepe their former substance, forme, and figure, which they had before, euen so the body of Christ, after his ascention, was changed into the godly substance.
Now let the Papistes choose, which of these two they will graunt (for one of them they must needes graunt) eyther that the nature and substance of bread and wine remayne still in the Sacrament after the consecration, (and than must they recant their doctrine of Transubstantiation) or els that they be of the errour of Nestorius, and other, which did say, that the nature of the Godhead, or of the manhod remayned not in Christ after his incarnation or ascension. For all these olde authors agree, that it is in the one, as it is in the other.