Answer unto a Crafy and Sophistical Cavillation, Debate · Confutation of book 1 · Section 10 – Section 15
Caunterbury.
I HaueHave not proued in my booke my iiij. assertions by mine owne wit, but by the collation of holy scripture, and the sayings of the old holy catholike authors. And as for your v. notes, you might hauehave noted thē against your selfe, who by them hauehave much more disaduauntage and hinderance, then I hauehave.
My Catechisme.As concerning the Catechisme by me set forth, I hauehave answered in my fourth booke the 8. chapter, that ignorant men for lack of iudgement and exercise in olde authors, mistake my said Catechisme.
Bertrame.And as for Bertrame, he did nothing els but at the request of king Charles, set out the true doctrine of the holy catholike church from Christ vntounto his tyme, concerning the sacrament. And I neuer heard nor red any mā that condemned Bertrame before this tyme, and therfore I can take no hinderance, but a great aduantage at his handes. For all men that hitherto hauehave written of Bertrame, hauehave much commended him. And seing that he wrote of the sacrament at king Charles request, it is not like that he would write against the receiued doctrine of ye church in those daies. And if he had, it is without all doubt, that some learned man, either in his tyme or fithens, would hauehave written against him, or at the least not hauehave commended him so much as they hauehave done.
Berengarius of himselfe had a godly iudgement in this matter,Berengarius. but by the tiranity of Nicholas the 2. he was constrained to make a diuelish recantation, as I hauehave declared in my first booke, the 17. chapter.
And as for Iohn Wicklif he was a singuler instrument of God in his tyme to set forth the truth of christes gospell,Wickliffe. but Antichrist that sitteth in gods temple, boasting himselfe as god, hath by gods sufferance preuayled against many holy men, and sucked the bloud of martirs these late yeres.
And as touching Martin Luther,Luther. it semeth you be sore pressed, that be faine to pray aide of him, whom you hauehave hitherto euer detested. The foxe is sore hunted that is faine to take his borow, and the wolfe that is fayne to take the lions den for a shift, or to run for succour vntounto a beast which he most hateth. And no man condemneth your doctrine of Transubstantiation, and of the propiciatory sacrifice of the masse, more seuerely and earnestly, then doth Martin Luther.
But it appeareth by your conclusion,The Papistes hauehave bene the cause why the catholike doctrine hath bene hundered, and hath not had good successe these late ye…es. that you hauehave waded so farre in rhetorike, that you hauehave forgotten your logike. For this is your argumēt: Bertrame taught this doctrine and preuailed not, Berengarius attempted the same, and failed in his purpose: Wickliffe enterprised the same, whose teaching god prospered not, therefore god hath not prospered & fauoured it to be receiued at any tyme openly as his true teaching. I will make the like reason. The Prophete Osee taught in Samaria to the ten tribes, the true doctrine of god, to bring them from their abhominable superstitions and idolatry: Ioell, Am…s, and Mitheas attempted ye same, whose doctrine preuailed not, god prospered not their teaching among those people, but they were condemned with their doctrine, therefore god hath not prospered and fauoured it to be receiued at any tyme openly as his true teaching.
If you will aunswer (as you must nedes do) that the cause why that among those people the true teaching preuailed not, was by reason of the aboundant superstition & idolatry that blinded their eies, you hauehave fully answered your own argument, and hauehave plainly declared the cause, why the true doctrine in this matter hath not preuailed these 500. yeares, the church of Rome (which all that time hath borne the chiefe swinge) being ouerflowen and drowned in all kind of superstition and idolatry, & therfore might not abide to heare of the truth. And the true doctrine of the sacrament (which I hauehave set out plainly in my booke) was neuer condemned by no councell, nor your false papisticall doctrine allowed, vntill the deuill caused Antichrist his sonne and heire Pope Nicholas the second, with his monkes and friers, to condemne the truth, and confirme these your heresies.
And where of Gamaliels wordes you make an argument of prosperous successe in this matter, the scripture testifieth how Antichrist shall prosper and preuaile against saintes no short while, & persecute the truth. And yet the counsail of Gamaliel was very discrete and wife. For he perceiued that God went about the reformation of religion growen in those dayes to idolatry, hypocrisie and superstition, through traditions of Phariseis, and therfore he moued the rest of the Councell to beware, that they did not rashly and vnaduisedly condemne that doctrine & religion which was approued by God, least in so doing they should not onelyonly resist the Apostles, but God himselfe, which counsail if you had marked & followed, you would not hauehave done so vnsoberly in many things as you hauehave done.
And as for the prosperitie of them that hauehave professed Christ & his true doctrine they prospered with the Papistes, as S. Iohn Baptist prospered with Herode, and our sauiour Christ with Pilate, Annas and Caiphas. Now which of these prospered best say you? Was as the doctrine of Christ and S. Iohn any whit the worse, because the cruell tirantes and Iewes put them to death for the same?
Winchester.
But all this set apart, and putting aside all testimonies of the olde church, and resortyng onelyonly to the letter of the scripture,These wordes, This is my body agre in sence with the rest of the scripture. Vntrue report. This author hath no wordes of scripture for the ground of his faith. there to search out an vnderstanding, and in doyng therof, to forget what hath bene taught hitherto: How shall this author establish vponupon scripture that he would hauehave beleued? What other text is there in scripture that en…ountreth with these wordes of scripture (This is my body) wherby to alter the signification of them? There is no scripture sayth, Christ did not geue his body, but the figure of his body, nor the geuing of Christes body in his supper, verily and really so vnderstāded, doth not necessarily impugne and contrary any other speach or doyng of Christ, expressed in scripture. For the great power and omnipotencie of God, exclodeth that repugnance, which mans reason would déeme of Christes departyng from this world, and placing his humanitie in the glory of his Father.
Caunterbury.
This is my body, is no proper speach.THe Scripture is playne, and you confesse also, that it was bread that Christ spake of, when he sayd, This is my body. And what nede we any other scripture to encounter with these words, seyng that all men know that bread is not Christes body, the one hauing sense and reason, the other none at all? Wherfore in that speach must nedes be sought an other sence & meanyng, then the wordes of themselues do geue, which is (as all olde writers do teach, and the circumstances of the text declare) that the bread is a figure and sacrament of Christes body. And yet as he geueth the bread to be eaten with our mouthes, so geueth he his very body to be eaten with our faith. And therfore I say, yt Christ geueth himselfe truely to be eaten, chawed, and digested, but all is spiritually with fayth, not with mouth. And yet you would beare me in hand, that I say that thing which I say not: that is to say, that Christ did not geue his body, but the figure of his body. And because you be not able to confute that I say, you would make me to say that you can confute.
Gods omnipotencie. Psal. 115. Rom. 9.As for the great power and omnipotency of God, it is no place here to dispute what God can do, but what he doth. I know that he can do what he will, both in heauen and in earth, & no man is able to resist his wil. But the question here is of his will, not of his power. And yet if you cā ioyne together these two, that one nature singuler shalbe here and not here, both at one time, and that it shalbe gone hence when it is here, you hauehave some strōg syment, and be a cunning Geometrician: but yet you shall neuer be good Logician, that woulde set together two contradictories. For that the scholemen say, God cannot do.
Winchester.
If this author without force of necessitie would induce it, by the like speaches, as whē Christ sayd:An aunswer to the like speaches in apparance. I am the dore, I am the vine, he is Helias, and such other, and because it is a figuratiue speach in them, it may be so here, which maketh no kynd of proofe, that it is so here: But yet if by way of reasoning I would yeld to him therein, and call it a figuratiue speach as he doth,The fayth of this author is but to …eleue a story. what other poynt of faith is there then in the matter, but to beleue the story, that Christ did institute such a supper, wherin he gaue bread and wine for a token of his body and bloud, which is now after this vnderstanding no secret mysterie at all,The Lordes supper hath n… miracle in it by this authors vnderstanding. No promise made to a token in the supper, or in y• 6. of Iohn. or any ordinaunce aboue reason. For commonly men vse to ordeyne in sensible thinges remembraunces of themselues when they dye or depart the countrey. So as in the ordinaunce of this supper, after this vnderstanding Christ shewed not his omnipotencie, but onelyonly beneuolence, that he loued vsus, and would be remēbred of vsus. For Christ did not say: Whosoeuer eateth this token, eateth my body, or eateth my flesh, or shall hauehave any profite of it in speciall, but do this in remembraunce of me.
Caunterbury.
I Make no such vayne inductions as you imagine me to do, but such as he established by scripture, and the consent of all the olde writers. And yet both you and Smith vse such fonde inductions for your proofe of Trā substantiation, when you say, God can do this thing, and he cā make that thing, wherof you would conclude, that he doth clearely take away ye substance of bread and wine, and putteth his flesh and bloud in their places: And that Christ maketh his body to be corporally in many places at one tyme, of which doctrine you hauehave not one iote in all the whole scripture.
And as concerning your argument made vponupon the history of the institution of Christes supper,Iniury to baptisme. like fonde reasoning might vngodly men make of the sacrament of Baptisme, and so scoffe out both these high mysteries of Christ. For when Christ said these wordes after his resurrection, Goe into the whole world, and preach vntounto all people, baptising them in the name of the Father,Math. v …. Mark. vit. the Sonne, and the holy Ghost: Here might wicked blasphemers say: What point of faith is in these wordes, but to beleue the story, that Christ did institute such a sacrament, wherin he commaunded to geue water for a token: which is now after this vnderstanding, no secrete mysterie at all, or any ordinaunce aboue reason: so as in the ordinaunce of this sacrament after this vnderstanding, Christ shewed not his omnipotency: For he sayd not then, Whosoeuer receiueth this token of water, shall receuie remission of sinne, or the holy ghost, or shall hauehave any profite of it in especial, but, Do this.
Winchester.
And albeit this author would not hauehave them bare tokens,Tokens be but tokens howsoeuer they be garnished with gay wordes without scripture. For apparell pag. 30. numero. 9. yet and they be only tokēs, they hauehave no warrāt signed by scripture, for any apparell at all. For the vi of Iohn speaketh not of any promise made, to the eating of a token of Christes flesh, but to the eating of Christes very flesh, wherof the bread (as this author would hauehave it) is but a figure in Christes wordes, when he sayd (This is my body.) And if it be but a figure in Christes wordes, it is but a figure in S. Paules wordes whē he said: The bread which we breake, is it not the communication of Christes body? that is to say, a figure of the communication of Christes body (if this authors doctrine be true) and not the communication in dede.Untrue report. Wherfore if the very body of Christ be not in the supper deliuered in déede, the eatyng there hath no speciall promise,EueryEvery speciall sacrament hath promise annexed and hath a secret hiddē truth. but onelyonly commaundement to do it in remembrance. After which doctrine why should it be noted absolutely for a Sacrament and special mysterie, that hath nothing hidden in it, but a playne open ordinaunce of a token for a remembraunce: to the eating of which token, is annered no promise expressely, ne any holynes to be accompted to be in the bread or wyne (as this author teacheth) but to be called holy, because they be deputed to an holy vse. If I aske the vse, he declareth to signifie. If I should aske what to signifie? There must be a sort of good wordes framed without scripture. For scripture expresseth no matter of signification of speciall effect.