Answer unto a Crafy and Sophistical Cavillation, Debate · Confutation of book 1 · Section 28 – Section 29
Caunterbury.
The fourth vntruth ye Christ intended not by these wordes, this is my body to make ye bread his body.NOw we be come to the very pith of the matter, and the chiefe pointe wherupon the wholl controuersie hangeth, whether in these words, this is my body: Christ called bread his body, wherin you and Smith agree like a man and a woman that dwelled in Lincolnshere (as I hauehave heard reported) that what pleased the one misliked the other, sauing that they both agreed in wilfulness.The variaunce between you, & Smith. So do Smith and you agree both in this point, that Christ made bread his body, but yt it was bread which he called his body when he sayd. This is my body, this you graunt, but Smith denieth it. And because all Smithes buildinges cleerely fall downe, if this his chiefe foundation be ouerthrowen, therfore must I first proue against Smith,Against Smith that Christ called the materiall bread his body, & the wine which was the fruite of the vine,Christ called bread his body, his bloud. For why did you not prooue this my Lord (sayth Smith) would you that men should take you for a prophet, or for one that could not erre in his sayinges?
First I alleadge against Smithes negation, your affirmation, which, as it is more true in this point then his negation, so for your estimation it is able to counteruail his saying, if there were nothing els: & yet if Smith had well pondered what I hauehave written in the second chap. of my second booke, and in the 7. and 8. chapters of my third book, he should hauehave foūd this matter so fully prooued, that he neither is, nor neuer shalbe able to answere thereto. For I hauehave alleadged the scripture, I hauehave alleadged the consent of the old writers, holy fathers, and martirs, to prooue that Christ called bread his body, and wine his bloud. For the Euangelistes speaking of the Lords supper,Mat. 26. Mark. 14. Luke. 22. say, yt he took bread, blessed it, brake it, & gaue it to his disciples, saying: This is my body: and of the wine he sayd: Take this, deuide it among you, & drinke it: this is my bloud. I hauehave alleadged Irene,Ireneus. saying that Christ confessed bread to be his body, and the cup to be his bloud I hauehave cyted Tertulliā who sayth in many places,Tertullianus. that Christ called bread his body. I hauehave brought in for the same purpose Cyprian,Cyprianus. who sayth that Christ called such bread as is made of many cornes ioyned together, his body: and such wine he named his bloud, as is pressed out of many grapes. I hauehave written the wordes of Epiphanius,Epiphanius. which be these, that Christ speakinge of a loafe which is round in fashion, and can neither see, heare, nor feele, said of it: This is my body. And S. Hierom writing ad Hedibiam, Heironymus.sayth that Christ called the bread which he brake, his body. And S. Augustine sayth,Augustinus. that Iesus called meate, his body, and drinke his bloud. And Cyrill sayth more plainly,Cyrillus. that Christ called the peeces of bread his body. And last of all I brought forth Theodorete,Theodorus. whose saying is this, that when Christe gaue the holy mysteries, he called bread his body, and the cuppe mixt with wine and water, he called his bloud. All these Authors I alleadged, to prooue that Christ called bread his body, and wine his bloud.
Which because they speak the thinge so plainly as nothing can be more, and Smith seeth that he can deuise nothinge to answere these Authors, like a wily fox, he stealeth away by them softly, as he had a flea in his eare saying nothing to all these authors, but that they proue not my purpose. If this be a sufficient answere let the Reader be iudge, for in such sort I could make a short answere to Smithes whol booke in this one sentence that nothing that he sayth proueth his purpose. And as for proofes of his saying, Smith hath vtterly none but onelyonly this fond reason: That if Christ had called bread his body, then should bread hauehave been crucified for vsus, because Christ added these words: this is my body, which shalbe geuē to death for you. If such wise reason shall take place, a man may not take a loafe in his hand made of wheate that came out of Danske, and say this is wheate that grew in Danske, but it must follow, that the loafe grew in Danske. And if the wife shall say: this is butter of my own cow, Smith shall proue by this speach that her mayd milked butter. But to this fantasticall or rather frantike reason, I hauehave spoaken more in mine aunswere to Smithes preface.
How be it, you hauehave taken a wiser way then this, graunting that Christ called bread his body, and wine his bloud: but adding thereto, that Christs calling was making. Yet here may they that be wise, learn by ye way how euil fauoredly you and Smith agree among your selues.
And forasmuch as Smith hath not made answere vntounto the Authors by me alleadged in this parte, I may iustly require that for lacke of answere in time and place where he ought to hauehave answered, he may be condemned as one that standeth mute. And being condemned in this his chiefe demur, he hath after nothing to answere at al. For this foundation being ouerthrown all the rest falleth down withall.
Wherefore now will I returne to aunswere you in this matter, which is the last of the euident, and manyfest vntruthes, wherof you appeach me.
I perceaue here how vntoward you be to learn the truth, being brought vp all your life in Papisticall errors. If you could forget your law, which hath been your chief profession and study from your youth, and specially the Canon law which purposely corrupteth the truth of Gods word you should be much more apte to vnderstand and receaue the secretes of holy scripture. But before those scales fall from your sawlish eyes, you neither can, nor will perceaue the true doctrine of this holy sacrament of Christes body & bloud. But yet I shall doe as much as lyeth in me, to teach and instruct you, as occasion shall serue, so that the fault shall be either in your euill bringing vp altogether in popery, or in your dulnes, or frowardnes, if you attaine not true vnderstanding of this matter.
Where you speake of the miraculous workinge of Christ,Gods miraculous workes in the Sacrament to make bread his body, you must first learne that the bread is not made really Christes body, nor the wine his bloud, but sacramētally: And the miraculous working is not in the bread, but in them that duely eate the bread, and drink yt drink. For the marueylous worke of God is in the feeding, and it is Christen people that be fed, and not the bread.
And so the true confession and beleefe of the vniuersall Church, from the beginning, is not such as you many times affirme,Imuty to baptisme. but neuer can proue: for the Catholicke church acknowledgeth no such diuision betweene Christes holy flesh and his spirite, that life is renued in vsus by his holy spirite, and increased by his holy flesh, but the true fayth confesseth that both be done by his holy spirite and flesh iointly together, as well the renouation, as the increace of our life. Wherfore you diminish here the effect of baptisme, wherin is not geuen only Christes spirite, but wholl Christ. And herein I will ioyne an issue with you.Mine issue. And you shall finde, that although you thinke I lacke law where with to follow my plea, yet I doubt not but I shall hauehave helpe of Gods word inough, to make al men perceiue that you be but a simple diuine, so that for lacke of your proofes, I doubt not but the sentence shall be geuen vponupon my side by all learned and indifferent iudges that vnderstand the matter which is in controuersy betweene vsus.
And where you say that we must represse our thoughtes and imaginations, and by reason of Christes omnipotency,Gods omnipotency. iudge his intent by his wil, it is a most certayne truth that Gods absolute and determinate wil is the chiefe gouernour of all thinges, and the rule wherby all things must be ordered, and therto obey. But where (I pray you) hauehave you any such will of Christ, that he is really, carnally, corporally, & naturally, vnderunder the formes of bread and wine: There is no such will of Christ set forth in the scripture as you pretend by a false vnderstanding of these wordes, this is my body. Why take you then so boldly vponupon you, to say that this is Christs will and intent, when you hauehave no warrant in scripture to beare you?
It is not a sufficient proofe in Scripture, to say, God doth it, because he can doe it.Mat. 16. For hee can doe many thinges which hee neither doth, nor will doe. He could hauehave sent moe then twelue Legions of Angels to deliuer Christ from the wicked Iewes,Gen. 1. and yet he would not doe it. He could hauehave created the world and all thinges therin, in one moment of time, and yet his pleasure was to doe it in sixe dayes.
In all matters of our christen faith, written in holy Scripture, for our instruction and doctrin, how farre so euer they seeme discrepant from reason, we must represse our imaginations, and consider Gods pleasure and will, and yeald therto, beleeuing him to be omnipotent: And that by his omnipotent power, such thinges are verelye so as holy scripture teacheth. Like as we beleeue that Christ was borne of ye blessed virgin Mary, without company of man: that our Sauyour Christ the third day rose agayn from death: that he in his humanity ascended into heauen: that our bodyes at the day of iudgement shall rise agayne, and many other such like thinges, which we all that be true christē men, do beleeue firmely, because we finde these thinges written iu Scripture. And therfore we (knowing Gods omnipotency) doe beleue that he hath brought some of ye said things to passe already, and those things that are yet to come, he will by the same omnipotency without doubt likewise bring to passe.
Now if you can proue that your transubstantiatiō, your fleshly presence of Christes body and bloud, your carnall eating and drinking of the same, your propitiatory sacrifice of the masse, are taught vsus as plainly in ye scripture, as the sayd articles of our faith be, then I will beleeue that it is so in deede. Otherwise, neither I nor any man that is in his right wittes, will beleeue your said articles, because God is omnipotent, and can make it so. For you might so vnderunder pretence of Gods omnipotency, make as many articles of our faith as you list if such arguments might take place, that God by his omnipotent power, can conuert the substance of bread and wine, in to the substance of his flesh and bloud: ergo he doth so in deede.
And although Christ be not corporally in the bread and wine, yet Christ vsed not so many wordes in the mistery of his holy supper, without effectual signification. For he is effectually present, and effectually worketh not in the bread and wine, but in the godly receauers of them, to whom he geeueth his own flesh spiritually to feede vponupon, and his own bloud to quench their great inward thirst.
And here I would wishe you to marke very wel one true sentence which you hauehave vttered by the way, which is: That Christ declared, that eating of him signifieth beleeuing,Eating signifieth beleeuing. and start not from it an other time. And marke the same I pray thee (gentle Reader.) For this one sentence assoyleth almost all the argumentes that be brought by this Lawyer in his wholl booke against the truth.
And yet to the sayd true saying, you hauehave ioyned an other vntruth, & hauehave yoaked them both together in one sentence.3vntruthes vttered by you in this one place. For when Christ had taught of the eating of him, being the bread descended frō heauen there was no murmuring thereat, (say you.) Which your saying I can not but wonder at, to see you so farre deceaued in a matter so plaine and manifest.The first. And if I had spoaken such an euident and manifeste vntruth, I doubt not but it should hauehave beene spoaken of to Rome gates. For the text sayth there plainly, Murmur abant Iudaei de illo, qoud dixisset: Ego sum panis vinus, qui de coelo descendi: Iohn 6.The Iewes murmured at him because he sayd, I am the bread of life that came from heauen. But when you wrote this, it seemeth you looked a litle to low and should hauehave looked higher.
And here by this one place the Reader may gather of your own wordes, your intent and meaning in this your booke, if that be true which you sayd before, that euer where contention is, on what parte the Reader seeth in any one point an open manifest lye, there he may consider (whatsoeuer excuse be made of truth) yet the victory of truth not to be there intended.
An other vntruth also followeth incontinently, that when Christ sayd: The bread which I will geue you,The second… is my flesh, which I will geue for the life of the world.Iohn 6. In these wordes (say you) Christ maketh mention of two gifts But what be those two giftes I pray you? And by what wordes is the diuersitie of those two giftes expressed? If the geuing (as Smith sayth) be geuing to death, then those two giftes declare that Christ dyed for vsus twise. And if one of Christes giftes hauehave liuery and seisyn, why hath not the other likewise? And when was then that liuery and seisyn geuen? And if eating of Christ be beleeuing (as you sayd euen now) then liuerey and seisyn is geuen when we first beleeue, whether it be in baptisme, or at any other time.
But what you mean by these wordes, that Christ gaue in his supper, his body as really to be eatē of vsus, as he did to be crucified for vsus, I vnderstand not, except you would hauehave Christ so really eaten of his Apostles at his supper with their teeth, as he was after crucified, whipped, and thrust to the hart with a speare. But was he not then so really and corporally crucified, that his body was rent and torne in peeces? And was not he so crucified then, that he neuer was crucified after? Was he not so slayn then, that he neuer dyed any more? And if he were so eaten at his supper, then did his Apostles teare his flesh at the supper, as the Iewes did the day following. And then how could he now be eaten agayn? Or how could he be crucified the day following, if the night before he were after that sort eaten all vp? But aptly (say you) and conueniently: Mary Sir, I thanke you: but what is ye aptly and conueniently, but spiritually, and by faith (as you said before) not grosly with the teeth as he was crucified. And so the manner was diuers (I graunt) and the substance all one.
The third.But when Christ sayd, the bread which I will geue is my flesh, which I will geue for the life of the worlde,That Christ fulfilled not his promise to geue vsus life at his supper. if he had fulfilled this promise at his supper (as you say he did) then what needed he after to dye that we might liue, if he fulfilled his promise of life at his supper? Why said the Prophets, that he should be woūded for our iniquities, and that by his wounds we should be healed if we had life, and were healed before he was wounded?Iohn. 6 Esay. 53. Rom. 32 Heb. 9. Gal. 6. Why doth the catholick faith teach vsus to beleue that we be redeemed by his blud sheading, if he gaue vsus life (which is our redem…ion) the night before hee shed his bloud? And why sayth S. Paule that there is no remission without bloud sheading? Yea why did he say: Absit mihi gloriari, nisi in cruce, God forbid that I should reioyce, but in the crosse onelyonly. Why did he not rather say? Absit mihi gloriari, nisi in caena Domini. God forbid that I should reioice, but in ye Lords supper: wherat as you say, ye promise of life was fulfilled. This is godly doctrine for such men to make, as being ignorant in Gods word, wander in fantasies of their own deuises,Rom. 1. and putantes se esse sapientes, stulti facti sunt. But the true faithfull beleeuing man professeth, that Christ by his death, ouercame him that was the Author of death, and hath reconcyled vsus to hys Father,Hebr. 2. Eph. 1. Iohn. 3. making vsus his children, and heires of his kingdome: that as many as beleue in him, should not perish, but hauehave life euerlasting. Thus saith the true christian man, putting his hope of life and eternall saluation, neither in Christes supper, (although the same be to him a great confirmation of his faith) nor in any thing els, but with S. Paul faith: Mihi absit gloriari, nisi in cruce Domini nostri Iesus Christi: Gal. 3.God saue me that I reioyce in nothing, but in the crosse of our Lord Iesu Christ.
And when this true beleeuing man commeth to the Lordes Supper, & (according to Christes commaundement) receaueth the bread broaken, in remembrance that Christes body was broaken for him vponupon the crosse, and drinketh the wine in remembrance of the effusion of Christes bloud for his sinnes, and vnfaynedly beleeueth the same, to him the words of our Sauyour Christ be effectuous and operatory.Mat. 16. Marck. 14. Luke. 22. Take, eate, this is my body, which is geuen for thee: And drinke of this, for this is my bloud which is shed for thee, to the remission of thy sinnes. And as S. Paul saith, the bread vntounto him is the communion of Christes body,1. Cor. 10. and the wine the communiō of his bloud. For the effect of his godly eating (as you truely herein gather of S. Paules wordes) is the communication of Christes body and bloud, but to the faithfull receauer, and not to the dumme creatures of bread and wine, vnderunder whose formes the catholick faith teacheth not the body and bloud of Christ inuisibly to be hidden. And as to the godly eater, (who duely esteemeth Christes body, and hath it in such price and estimation as he ought to hauehave) the effect is the communication of Christes body: so to the wicked eater, the effect is damnation, and euerlasting woe.
And now I am glad that here your selfe hauehave found out a warrante for the apparrell of bread and wine,A warrant for apparrell. that they shall not goe altogether naked, & be nude and bare tokens, but hauehave promyses of effectuall significatiō, which now you hauehave spyed out both in the wordes of Christ, and S. Paule.
Now for the ambiguity of Christes speeches, it is not alwayes true,Christes ambiguous speechess were not alwayes opened by the Euangelistes. that such speaches of Christ as might hauehave ambiguity, the Euangelistes either plainly or by circumstāces open them. For Christ speaking so many things in parables, similies, allegories, metaphores, and other tropes and figures, although sometime Christ himselfe, and sometime the Euangelistes open ye meaning, yet for the most parte the meaning is left to the iudgement of the hearers, without any declaration. As when Christ sayd:Luke. 12. gird your loines, and take light candles in your handes. And when he sayde: No man that setteth his hand to the plough,Luke 9. Iohn. 12. and looketh behind him, is meet for the kingdome of God. And when he sayd: Except the grayne of wheate falling vponupon the ground, dye, it remayneth sole. And as S. Mathew sayeth:1 Math. 13. Christ spake not to the people without parables, that the Scriptures might be fulfilled, which prophecyed of Christ,Psal. 77. that he should open his mouth in parables.
And although some of his parables,This is my body, is no proper speech. Christ opened to the people, some to his Apostles onelyonly, yet some he opened to neither of both, as can appeare, but lefte them to be considered by the discretion of the hearers. And when Christ called Herod a Foxe, Iudas a Deuill, himself a Dore, a way, a Uine, a well: Neither he nor the Euangelistes expounded these wordes, nor gaue warning to the hearers that he spake in figures: For eueryevery man that had any manner of sence or reason, might wel perceaue, that these sentences could not be true in playn forme of wordes as they were spoaken. For who is so ignorant, but he knoweth that a mā is not a Foxe a Deuil, A Dore, a Way, a Uine, a Well.
And so likewise when Christ brake the bread, and commaunded his disciples to eate it, and sayd: This is my body: and of the wine he said: Deuide it among you, drinke it, this is my bloud. No man that was there present was so fond, but he knew well that the bread was not Christes body, nor the wine his bloud. And therfore they might well know that Christ called the bread his body, and the wine his bloud for some figure, similitude, and property of the bread and wine vntounto his flesh and bloud: For as bread and wine be foodes to nourish our bodies, so is the flesh and bloud of our Sauyour Christ, (being annexed vntounto his Deity,) the euerlasting food of our soules.
And although the Euangelistes in that place doe not fully expresse the words in this sence, yet adioyning the sixt chapter of Iohn (speaking of the spirituall manduratiō of Christ) to the circumstances of the text in the three Euangelistes, (reciting Christs last Supper) the wholl matter is fully gathered as olde authors of the Church hauehave declared. For doe not the circū stances of the texte, both before and after the eating and drinking, declare that there is very bread and wine? Is not that which is broken and eaten, bread? And that which is deuided, dronken? And the fruit of the vine, is it not very wine? And doth not the nature of Sacramentes require that the sensible elements should remain in their proper nature, to signifie an higher mistery, and secret working of God inwardly, as the sensible elementes be ministred outwardly? And is not the visible and corporall feeding vpō bread and wine, a conuenient and apte figure and similitude to put vsus in remembraunce, and to admonish vsus how we be fedde inuisibly and spiritually, by the flesh and bloud of Christ, God, and man? And is not the Sacrament taken away, when the element is taken away? Or can the accidents of the element be the Sacrament of substanciall feeding? Or did euer any olde author say, that the accidentes were the Sacramentall signes without the substances?
But for the conclusion of your matter, here I would wish that you would once truely vnderstand me. For I doe not say that Christes body & bloud be geuen to vsus in signification, and not in deed. But I doe as plainly speake as I can, that Christes body and bloud, be geuen to vsus in deede, yet not corporally, and carnally, but spiritually, and effectually, as you confesse your selfe within twelue lines after.
Winchester.
The Author vttereth a great many wordes, from the eyght to the seuententh chapiter of the fyrst booke, declaryng spirituall hunger and thirst, and the releuing of the same by spyrituall feeding in Christe, and of Christe, as we constantly beleue in him, to the confirmation of whiche beliefe, the author would hauehave the Sacramentes of Baptisme, and of the body and bloud of Christ, to be adminicles as it were, & that we by them be preached vntounto, as in water, breade and wyne, and by them all our sinnes (as it were) spoken vntounto, or properly touched, which matter in the grosse, although there be some wordes by the way not tollerable, yet if those wordes set apart, the same were in the summe graunted, to be good teachyng and holsome exhortation, it contayneth so no more but good matter, not well applyed. For the Catholicke churche that professeth the truth of the presence of Christes body in the Sacramēt, would therewith vse that declaratiō of hunger of Christ, and that spirituall refreshing in Christ, with theffect of Christes passion and death, and the same to be the onelyonly meane of mans regeneratio, and feeding also, with the differēces of that feeding, from bodilye feeding, for continuing thys earthly lyfe. But thys toucheth not the principal poynt that should be intreated. Whether Christ so ordered to feede such as be regenerate in him, to geue to them in the Sacramēt the same his body, that he gaue to be crucified for vsus. The good man is fed by fayth, and by merites of Christes passion, being the mean of the gift of that fayth, and other giftes also, and by the suffering of the body of Christ, and shedding of his most precious bloud on the altar of the Crosse: which worke and passion of Christ is preached vntounto vsus, by wordes aud Sacramentes, and the same doctrine receaued of vsus by fayth, and theffect of it also. And thus farre goeth the doctrine of this author.
But the Catholicke teaching, by the scriptures, goeth further, cōfessing Christ to feed such as be regenerate in him, not onelyonly by his body and bloud, but also with his body and bloud, deliuered in this Sacrament, by hym in deede to vsus which the faythfull, by his institution and commaūdement, receaue with their faith and with their mouth also, and wt those special deinties, be fed specially at Christs table: And so God doth not onelyonly preach in his Sacraments, but also worketh in them, and wt them, and in sensible thinges geueth celestiall giftes, after the doctrine of eche Sacramēt, as in baptisme the spirite of Christ, and in the Sacrament of the altar, the very body and bloud of Christ, accordinge to the playne sence of his wordes whiche he spake: This is my body. &c. And this is the Catholicke fayth, agaynst which, how the Author will fortifye, that he woulde hauehave called Catholick, and confute that he improueth, I intend hereafter more particularly to touche in discussion of that is sayd.