Answer unto a Crafy and Sophistical Cavillation, Debate · Confutation of book 3 · Section 1 – Section 2
Caunterbury.
NOw the craftes, wiles, and vntruthes of the first booke being, partly detected, after I hauehave also answered to this booke, I shall leaue to the indifferent Reader, to iudge whether it be of the same sort or no. But before I make further answere, I shall rehearse the wordes of mine owne thirde boke, which you attēpt next, (out of order) to impugne. My words be these.
Now this matter of Transubstantiatiō, being (as I trust) sufficiently resolued,Chap. 1. which is the first part before rehearsed, wherein the Papisticall doctrine varieth from the Catholick truth,The presence of Christ in the sacrament. order requireth, next to intreate of the second part which is of the manner of the presence of the body and bloud of our Sauiour Christ in the Sacramēt thereof, wherin is no lesse cōtentiō, thē in the first part.
For a plain explication whereof, it is not vnknowen to all true faithfull christian people, that our Sauiour Christ (being perfecte God, and in all thinges equall, and coeternall with his Father) for our sakes became also a perfect man, taking flesh and bloud of his blessed mother, and virgin Mary, & (sauing sinne) being in all thinges like vntounto vsus, adioyning vntounto his diuinity, a most perfect soul of man: And his body being made of very flesh and bones, not onelyonly hauing all members of a perfect mannes body, in due order and proportion, but also being subiect to hunger, thirst, labour, sweate, werines, cold, heate, and all other like infirmities, and passions of a manne, and vntounto death also, and that the most vile and painfull vponupon the crosse, and after his death he rose againe, with the self same visible, and palpable body, and appeared therewith, and shewed the same vntounto his Apostles, and specially to Thomas, making him to put his handes into his side, and to feele his woundes. And with the selfe same body he forsooke this world, and ascended into heauen, (the Apostles seeing,Christ corporally is ascended into heauen. Act. 3. and beholding his body when it ascended) and now sitteth at the right hand of his Father, & there shall remaine vntill the last day, when he shall come to iudge the quick & dead.
This is the true Catholick faith which the Scripture teacheth, and the vniuersall Church of Christ hath euer beleeued from the beginning, vntill within these 4. or 5. hundreth yeares last passed, that the Bishop of Rome, with the assistance of his Papistes, hath set vp a new faith, and beleefe of their own deuising, that the same body, really, corporally, naturally, and sensibly, is in this worlde still, and that in an hundred thousand places at one time, being inclosed in eueryevery pixe, and bread consecrated.
And although we doe affirme (according to Gods word) that Christ is in all persons that truly beleeue in him,Cap. 2. in such sort, that with his flesh and bloud he doth spiritually nourish and feede them, and geueth them euerlasting life, & doth assure them thereof, as well by the promise of his word, as by the Sacramental bread and wine in his holy supper, which he did institute for the same purpose, yet we doe not a little vary from the hainous errors of the Papists. For they teach that Christ is in the bread and wine, but we say, (according to the truth) that he is in them that worthely eate and drink the bread & wine.The difference betwene the true and papisticall doctrine concerning the presēce of Christes body.
Here it pleaseth you to passe ouer all the rest of my sayinges, and to aunswere onelyonly to the difference betweene the Papists and the true Catholicke faith. Where,The first cōparison. in the first ye finde fault that I hauehave vntruely reported the Papisticall faith (which you call the faith of the Church) which teacheth not (say you) that Christ is in the bread and wine, but vnderunder the formes of bread and wine. But to aunswere you, I say, that the Papists do teach, that Christ is in the visible signes, and whether they list to call them bread and wine, or the formes of bread and wine, all is one to me, for the truth is, that he is neither corporally in the bread and wine, nor in or vnderunder the formes & figures of them, but is corporally in heauen, and spiritually in his liuelye members which be his tēples where he inhabiteth. And what vntrue reporte is this,Misreport of bread and wine for the formes & figures of them. when I speake of bread and wine to the Papistes, to speak of them in the fame sence that the Papistes meane, taking bread and wine for the formes and accidences of bread and wine.
And your selfe also doe teach, to vnderstand by the bread and wine, not their substances, but accidentes. And what hauehave I offended then, in speaking to you after your own māner of speach, which your self doth approue and allow by and by after, saying these wordes. As for calling it bread and wine, a Catholick man forbeareth not that name: If a Catholick man forbeareth not that name, and Catholick men be true men, then true men forbeare not that name. And why then charge you me with an vntruth, for vsing that name, which you vse your selfe, and affirme Catholicke men to vse? But that you be geuen altogether to finde faultes rather in other, then to amend your own, and to reprehend that in me, which you allow in your selfe and other, and purposely will not vnderstand my meaning, because ye would seeke occasion to carpe and controll.
For els what man is so simple that readeth my booke, but he may know well, that I meane not to charge you for affirming of Christ to be in the very bread and wine. For I know that you say ther is nether bread nor wine (although you say vntruely therein) but yet for as much as the accidents of bread and wine, you call bread and wine, and say that in them is Christ, therfore I reporte of you, that you say Christ is in the bread and wine, meaning (as you take bread and wine) the accidentes thereof.
Smyth.Yet D. Smith was a more indifferent Reader of my booke then you, in this place, who vnderstoode my wordes as I meante, and as the Papistes vse, and therefore would not purposely calūniate, and reprehend that was well spoaken. But there is no man so dull, as he that will not vnderstand. For men know that your witte is of as good capacitie, as D. Smithes is, if your will agreed to the same.
But as for any vntrue reporte made by me herein willingly against my conscience (as you vntruely report of me) by that time I hauehave ioyned with you throughout your booke, you shall right well perceiue, (I trust) that I hauehave sayd nothing wittingly, but that my conscience shall be able to defend at the great day, in the sight of the euerliuing God, and that I am able before any learned and indifferent iudges, to iustifie by holy Scriptures, and the auncient Doctors of Christes church, as I will appeale the consciences of all godly men, that be any thing indifferent, & ready to yealde to ye truth, when they reade and consider my booke.
Tee booke of common prayer.And as concerning the forme of doctrine vsed in this church of Englād, in the holy Communiō, that the body and bloud of Christ be vnderunder ye formes of bread and wine, whē you shall shew the place where this forme of words is expressed, then shall you purge your selfe of that, which in the meane time I take to be a plain vntruth.
The secōd part.Now for the second parte of the difference, you graunt that our doctrine is true, that Christ is in them that worthely eate and drunke the bread and wine, and if it differ not from youres, then let it passe as a thing agreed vponupon by both partes. And yet if I would captiously gather of your wordes, I could as well prooue by this second parte, that very bread and wine be eatē and drunken after consecration, as you could prooue by the first, that Christ is in the very bread and wine. And if a Catholick man call ye bread & wine (as you say in the second parte of the difference) what ment you then in the first parte of this difference to charge me with so hainous a crime, (with a note to the Reader) as though I had sinned against the holy Ghost, because I said that the Papistes doe teach that Christ is in the bread and wine: doe not you affirme here yourselfe the same that I reporte? that the Papistes, (which you call the Catholickes) doe not forbeare to call the Sacrament (wherein they put the reall and corporall presence) bread and wine? Let the Reader now iudge, whether you be caught in your own snare or no. But such is the successe of them that study to wrangle in wordes, without any respecte of opening the truth.
But letting that matter passe, yet we vary from you in this difference. For we say not (as you doe) that the body of Christ is corporally, naturally, and carnally, either in the bread and wine, or formes of bread and wine, or in them that eate and drinke thereof. But we say that he is corporally in heauen onelyonly, and spiritually in them that worthely eate and drink ye bread, and wine. But you make an article of the faith, which the olde Church neuer beleeued nor heard of.
And where you note in this second parte of the difference, a sleight and crafte: as you note an vntruth in the first, euen as much crafte is in the one, as vntruth in the other, being neither sleight nor vntruth in either of both. But this sleight (say you) I vse, putting that for a difference, wherein is no difference at all, but eueryevery Catholick man must needes confesse, Yet once againe, there is no man so deafe, as he that will not heare, nor so blinde, as he that will not see, nor so dul, as he that wil not vnderstand. But if you had indifferent eares, indifferent eyes, and indifferent iudgement, you might well gather of my wordes, a plain and manifest difference, although it be not in such tearmes as contenteth your mind. But because you shall see that I meane no sleight, nor crafte, but goe plainly to worke, I shall set out the difference truely as I ment, and in such your own tearmes as I trust shall content you, if it be possible. Let this therfore be the difference.
They say that Christ is corporally vnderunder,The difference. or in the formes of bread and wine: We say, that Christ is not there, neither corporally, nor spiritually, but in them that worthely eate and drinke the bread and wine, he is spiritually, and corporally in heauen.
Here I trust I hauehave satisfied, as well the vntrue report wittingly made, (as you say) in the first parte of the difference against my conscience, as the crafte and sleight, vsed in the second parte. But what be you eased now by this? We say as the scripture teacheth, that Christ is corporally ascended in to heauen, and neuerthelesse he is so in them that worthely eate the bread, & drinke the wine, geuen, and distributed at his holy Supper, that he feedeth and nourisheth them with his flesh and bloud vntounto eternal life. But we say not (as you doe, cleerely without ground of Scripture) that he is corporally vnderunder the formes of bread and wine, where his presence should be, without any profite or commoditie, either to vsus, or to the bread and wine.
And here in this difference,Repugnaunce. it seemeth that you hauehave either cleerely forgotten, or negligently ouershotte yourselfe, vttering that thing vnwares, which is contrary is your wholl booke. For the first parte (which is of the being of Christ in the Sacramentall bread and wine) is of the substance of the Sacrament to be receaued, (say you) where it is true, Christ to be present God and man: the second part (say you) which is of the being of Christ in them that worthely eat and drink the bread and wine, is of Christs spiritual presence. Of your which words I se nothing to be gathered, but that as concerning his substancial presence, Christ is receaued into the Sacramental bread and wine, and as for them that worthely receaue the Sacrament, he is in them none otherwise then after a Spirituall presence: For els why should ye say that the second parte is of Christes spirituall presence, if it be as well of his corporall, as of his spirituall presence? Wherefore by your own words, this difference should be vnderstanded of two different beings of Christ, that in the Sacrament he is by his substance, and in the worthy receauers spiritually, and not by his substance, for els ye differences repugne not, as you obiect against me. Wherfore either you write one thing, & mean another, or els (as you write of other) God so blindeth the aduersaries of the truth, that in one place or other, they confesse the truth vnwares. Now follow my wordes in the second comparison.
The 1. comparison.They say, that when any man eateth the bread, and drinketh the cup, Christ goeth into his mouth or stomacke, with the bread and wine, and no further. But we say, that Christ is in the wholl man, both in body and soule of him, that worthely eateth the bread, & drinketh the cup, & not in his mouth or stomack only
Winchester.
In this comparison, the Author termeth the true Catholick teaching at his pleasure, to bring it in contempte. Which doing, in rude speach would be called otherwise then I will tearme it. Truth it is (as S. Augustine saith) we receaue in the Sacrament the body of Christ with our mouth, and such speach other vse, as a booke set forth in the Archbishop of Canterbury his name, called a Catechisme, willeth children to be taught that they receaue with their bodely mouth the body and bloud of Christ, which I alleadge, because it shall appeare it is a teaching set forth among vsus of late, as hath béene also, and is by the booke of common prayer, being the most true catholicke doctrine of the substance of the sacrament, in that it is there so catholickly spoken of, which booke this Author doth after specially allow, how so euer all the summe of his teaching doth improue it in that pointe. So much is he contrary to him self in this worke, and here in this place, not caring what he saith, reporteth such a teaching in the first parte of this difference, as I hauehave not heard of before. There wes neuer man of learning that I hauehave red, termed the matter so, that Christ goeth into the stomack of the man that receaued, and no further. For that is written contra Stercoranistas, I sect reproued yt were called Stercoranists.is nothing to this teaching, nor the speach of any glose (if there be any such, were herein to be regarded. The Catholicke doctrine is, that by the holy communion in the Sacrament, we be ioyned to Christ really, because we receaue in the holy supper, the most precious substaunce of his glorious body, which is a flesh geuing life: And that is not digested with out flesh but worketh in vsus and attēpereth, by heauēly nuriture, our body and soule beyng partakers of his passion, to be conformable to hys will, and by such spirituall foode to be many more spirituall. In the receauing of which foode, in the most blessed Sacrament, our body and soule, in them that duely communicate, worke together in due order, without other discussion of the mistery, then God hath appointed (that is to say) the soule to beleue as it is taught, and the body to doe as God hath ordered, knowing that glorious flesh by our eating can not be consumed or suffer, but to be most profitable vntounto such as doe accustome worthely to receaue the same. But to say that the church teacheth how we receaue Christ at our mouth, and he goeth into our stomacke and no further, is a reporte which by the iust iudgement of God, is suffered to come out of the mouth of them that fight against the truth in this most high mistery.
Now where this Author in the second parte, by an aduersatiue with a (But) to make the comparison, felleth what he and his say, he telleth in effecte that, which eueryevery catholicke man must néedes, and doth confesse. For such as receaue Christs most precious body and bloud in the Sacrament worthely, they hauehave Christ dwelling in them, who comforteth, both body and soule, which the church hath euer taught most plainly. So as this comparison of difference in his two parties, is made of one open vntruth, and a truth disguised, as though it were now first opened by this Author and his, which manner of handling, declareth what sleight, and shift, is vsed in the matter.