Answer unto a Crafy and Sophistical Cavillation, Debate · Confutation of book 1 · Section 24 – Section 25
Canterbury.
HEre before you enter into my seconde vntrueth (as you call it) you finde faulte by the way, that in the rehearsall of the wordes of Christ, out of the Gospell of S. Iohn, I begine a little to lowe. But if the reader consider the matter for the which I alleadge S. Iohn, he shal wel perceiue that I began at ye right place where I ought to begin. For I doe not bring forth S. Iohn for the matter of the reall presence of Christ in the Sacrament, whereof is no mention made in that chapter, & as it would not hauehave serued me for that purpose, no more doth it serue you, althoughe ye cyted the whole Gospell. But I bring saynt Iohn for the matter of eating Christes flesh and drinking his bloud, wherin I passed ouer nothing that pertaineth to the matter, but rehearse the whole fully and faithfully. And because the Reader may the better vnderstand the matter, and iudge between vsus both, I shall rehearse the wordes of my former booke, which be these.
Chap. 1.THe Supper of the Lord, otherwise called the holy communion or sacrament of the body and bloud of our Sauiour Christ, hath been of many men, and by sundry wayes very much abused,The abuse of the Lordes supper. but specially within these four or fiue hundered yeares. Of some it hath beene vsed as a Sacrifice propiciatory for sinne: and otherwise superstitiouslye, far from the intent that Christ did first ordaine the same at the beginning, doing therein great wrong and iniury to his death and passion. And of other some it hath been very lightly estemed, or rather contemned and despiced as a thing of smal or of none effect. And thus betweene both the parties hath been much variance and contention in diuers partes of Christendome. Therefore to the intent that this holy Sacrament or Lords Supper may hereafter neither of the one party be contemned or lightly esteemed, nor of the other party be abused to any other purpose then Christ himselfe did first appoint & ordain the same, and that so the contention on both parties may be quieted and ended the most sure and playn way is to cleaue vntounto holye scripture. Wherein whatsoeuer is found, must be taken for a most sure ground, and an infallible truth, and whatsoeuer cannot be grounded vponupon the same, touching our faith, is mans deuise changeable and vncertain. And therfore here are set forth the very words that Christ him selfe and his Apostle S. Paule spake, both of the eating and drinking of Christs body & bloud, & also of the eating & drinking of the sacramēt of the same. First,Chap. 2. The eating of the body of Christ. Iohn. 6. as concerning the eating of the body, and drinkinge of the bloud of our Sauiour Christ, hee speaketh him selfe in the sixte Chapiter of Saynt Iohn in this wise.
Verely, verely, I say vntounto you, except ye eate the fleshe of the sonne of man and drink his bloud, you hauehave no life in you. who so eateth my flesh and drinketh my bloud, hath eternall life, and I wil rayse him vp at the last day. For my flesh is very meate, and my bloud is very drinke. Hee that eateth my fleshe, and drinketh my bloud dwelleth in me and I in him. As the liuing father hath sent me, and I liue by the father, euen so he that eateth me, shall liue by me. This is the bread which came downe from heauen. Not as your fathers did eate Manna, and are dead. He that eateth this bread, shall liue for euer.
Here hauehave I rehearsed the wordes of Christ faithfully and fully, so much as pertayneth to the eating of Christes flesh, and drinking of his bloud. And I hauehave begun neither to high nor to low, but taking only so much as serued for the matter.
But here hauehave I committed a fault (say you) in the translation for (verely meate) translating (very meat.)The second vntrueth for verely meat, translatyng very meat. And this is another of the euydent and manifest vntruthes by me vttered, as you esteeme it. Wherein a man may see, how hard it is to escape ye reproches of Momus. For what an horrible crime (trow you) is committed here, to call very meat, that which is verely meat? As who should say, that very meat is not verely meate, or yt which is verely meate, were not very meate. The olde Authors say very meate, foreign. verus cibus, Origenes in Leuit. hom. 7. Propterea er go & caro cius verus est cibus, & sanguis eius verus est potus. Et in Math. hom. 12. Caro mea vera est esca, & sanguis meus verus est potus. Hierom. in Eccle. cap. 3. Caro enim verus est cibus, & sanguis eius verus est potus. August. in Psal. 33. Caro mea vera est esca, & sanguis meus vere potus est. Damas. lib. 4. ca. 14. Caro mea verus est cibus, & sanguis meus verus est potus. Euthyimus in lo. cap. 9. Caro mea verus est cibus. & sanguis meas verus est potus.in a hundreth places.
And what skilleth it for the diuersitye of the wordes, where no diuersity is in the sence? And whether we say, very meat, or verely meate, it is a figuratiue speache in this place, and the sence is all one. And if you will looke vponupon the new testament lately set forth in Greeke by Robert Steuens, you shall see that he had three Greeke copyes, which in the said sixt chap. of Iohn hauehave foreign and not foreign. So that I may be bold to say, that you finde faulte here where none is.
And here in this place, you shew forth your olde condition (which you vse much in this booke) in following the nature of a cuttil.The nature of a cuttil Plim. lib. 9. ca. 29. The property of the cuttill saith Pliny, is to cast out a black incke or color when soeuer she spieth her selfe in danger to be taken, that the water being troubled and darckned therewith, she may hide her selfe and to escape vntaken. After like maner do you throughout this wholl booke, for when you see no other way to flye and escape, then you cast out your blacke colors, & maske your selfe so in cloudes, and darcknes, that men should not discerne where you become, which is a manyfest argument of vntrue meaning: for he that meaneth plainly, speaketh plainly:Eccle. 37. Et qui sophisticè loquitur, odibilis est, saith the wise man. For he that speaketh obscurely and darckly it is a token that he goeth about to cast mistes before mennes eyes that they should not see, rather then to open their eyes that they may cleerely see the truth.
And therfore to answere you plainly, the fattie fleshe that was geuen in Christes last Supper,Christ is verely and truely geuē in the Sacrament, but yet spiritually. was geuen also vponupon the crosse, and is geuen daylye in the ministration of the Sacrament. But although it be one thinge, yet it was diuerslye geuen. For vponupon the crosse, Christ was carnally geuen to suffer and to dye. At his last Supper he was spiritually geuen in a promise of his death: and in the Sacrament he is daily geuen in remembraunce of his death. And yet it is all but one Christ that was promysed to die, that died in deede, and whose death is remembred, that is to say, the very same Christ, the eternall word that was made flesh. And the same flesh was also geuen to be spiritually eaten, and was eaten in deede before his supper, yea and before his incarnation also. Of which eating, and not of Sacramentall eating, he spake in the sixt of Iohn. My flesh is very meat, and my bloud is very drincke:Iohn. 6, He that eateth my flesh and drinketh my bloud, dwelleth in me, and I in him.
And Cyrill (I graunt) agreed to Nestorius in the substance of the thing that was eaten (which is Christes very flesh,) but in the manner of eating, they varyed. For Nestorius imagined a carnall eating (as the papistes do) with mouth, and tearing with teeth. But Cyrill in the same place, sayeth:Cyrill Lanathematismo. 11. that Christ is eaten onelyonly by a pure faith, and not that he is eaten corporally with our mouthes; as other meates be. Nor that he is eaten in the Sacrament onelyonly.
Nestorius.And it seemeth you vnderstand not the matter of Nestorius, who did not esteeme Christ to be made of two seuerall natures and seuerall persons, (as you report of him,) but his errour was, that Christ had in hym naturallye, but one nature and one person, affirming that he was a pure man, and not God by nature, but that the Godhed by grace inhabited, as hee doth in other men.
Iniury to baptisme.And where you say that in baptisme we receiue the Spirit of Christ, and in the Sacrament of his body and bloud, wee receeue his very fleshe, and bloud. This your saying is no small derogation to baptisme, wherein wee receaue not only the Spirit of Christ, but also Christ him selfe, whole body and soule, manhoode and Godhead, vntounto euerlasting life, as well as in the holy communion. For S. Paule sayth. Quicunque in Christo baptizati estis, Christū induistis:Galat. 3, as many as be baptized in Christ, put Christ vponupon them: Neuerthelesse, this is done in diuers respectes, for in baptisme it is done in respect of regeneration: and in the holy communion, in respecte of nourishment and augmentation.
In the sixt chapiter of Iohn, Christ spake not of corporall eating.But your vnderstanding of the sixt chapiter of Iohn is such as neuer was vttered of any man before your time, and as declareth you to be vtterly ignoraunte of Gods misteries. For who euer sayd or taught before this time, that the Sacrament was the cause why Christ sayd: If we eate not the flesh of the sonne of man, we hauehave not life in vsus.Iohn. 6: The spirituall eating of his flesh, and drincking of his bloud by faith, by digesting his death in our mindes, as our onelyonly price, raunsome, and redemption from eternall damnation, is the cause wherefore Christ sayd: That if we eate not his flesh, and drincke not his bloud, we hauehave not life in vsus: and if we eate his fleshe, and drincke his bloud, we hauehave euerlasting life. And if Christ had neuer ordayned the Sacrament, yet should we hauehave eaten his flesh, and droncken his bloud, and hauehave had thereby euerlasting life, as al the faithfull did before the the Sacrament was ordeyned, and doe dayly when they receaue not the Sacrament. And so did the holy men that wandered in the wildernesse, and in all their life tune very seldome receaued the Sacrament, and many holy Martyres, either exyled, or kept in prison, did dayly feede of the foode of Christes body, and drancke dayly the bloud that sprange out of his side, or els they could not hauehave had euerlasting life, as Christ him selfe sayd in the gospell of S. Iohn, and yet they were not suffered with other Christen people to hauehave the vse of the Sacrament. And therefore your argument in this place, is but a, fallax a non causa, vt causa, which is another tricke of the deuils sophistry.
And that in the sixt of Iohn, Christ spake neither of corporall, nor sacramentall eating of his flesh, the time manifestly sheweth. For Christ spake of the same present time that was then, saying: The bread which I will geue is my flesh:Iohn. 6. And: He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my bloud, dwelleth in me, and Im him, and hath euerlasting life. At which time the sacramentall bread was not yet Christs flesh. For the Sacrament was not then yet ordayned, and yet at that time all that beléeued in Christ, did eate his flesh, and drinke hys bloude, or els they could not hauehave dwelled in Christe, nor Christ in them.
Iohn. 8.Moreouer, you say your selfe that in the sixt of S. Iohns gospell, when Christ sayd,Iohn. 1. the bread is my flesh. By the word (flesh) he ment his wholl humanity, (as is ment in this sentence: The word was made flesh,) which he ment not in the word (body) when he said of bread, this is my body. Where by he ment not his wholl humanitye, but his flesh onelyonly, & neither his bloud nor his soule. And in the vi. of Iohn, Christ made not bread his flesh, when he said, the bread is my flesh: but he expounded in those wordes, what bread it was that he ment of, when he promised them bread that should geue them eternall life. He declared in those wordes, that himselfe was the bread that should geue life, because they should not hauehave their fantasies of any bread made of corne. And so the eating of that heauenly bread could not be vnderstanded of the Sacrament, nor of corporall eating with the mouth: but of spirituall eating by faith, as all ye olde authors do most cleerely expound and declare. And seeing that there is no corporall eating, but chawing with the teeth or swallowing (as all men doe know) if we eate Christ corporally, thē you must confesse that we either swallow vp Christes flesh, or chaw & teare it with our teeth (as pope Nicholas constrained Berengarius to confesse,) which S. Augustine saith, is a wicked & hainous thing. But in few words to answere to this second euident & manifest vntruth (as you obiect against me) I would wish you as truely to vnderstand these words of the sixt chap. of Iohn, as I hauehave truely translated them.
Winchester.
Now where the author to exclude the mistery of corporall manducatiō, bringeth forth of S. Augustine such wordes as intreat of the effect and operation of the worthy receauing of the Sacrament. The handling is not so sincéere as this matter requireth. For as hereafter shalbe intreated, that is not worthely and well done, may (because the principall intent fayleth) be called not done, and so S. Augustine saith: Let him not thinke to eate the body of Christ, that dwelleth not in Christ, not because the body of Christ is not receaued, which by S. Augustines minde, euill men doe to their condemnation, but because the effecte of life fayleth. And so the Author by steight, to exclude the corporall mā ducation of Christes most precious body, vttereth such wordes, as might sound Christ to hauehave taught the dwelling in Christ to be an eating: which dwelling may be without this corporall manducation in him that cannot attayn the vse of it, and dwelling in Christ is an effect of the worthy manducation, and not the manducation it selfe which Christ doth order to be practised in the most precious Sacrament institute in his supper. Here thou Reader mayst sée how this doctrine of Christ (as I hauehave declared it) openeth the corporal manducation of his most holy flesh, and drincking of his most precious bloud, which he gaue in his supper vnderunder the formes of bread and wine.