Answer unto a Crafy and Sophistical Cavillation, Debate · Confutation of book 3
THE CONFVTATION OF THE THIRD BOOKE.
IN the beginning of the third booke, the author hath thought good to note certain differences, which I wil also particularly consider. It followeth in him thus.
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 drinke the bread and wine.
Untrue report.Note here (Reader) euen in the entry of the comparison of these differences, how vntruly the true faith of the Church is reported, which doth not teach that Christ is in the bread and wine (which was the doctrine of Luther) but the true faith is, that Christes most precious body and bloud, is by the might of his word, and determination of his will, which he declareth by his word, in his holy Supper present vnderunder forme of bread and wine. The substance of which natures of bread and wine, is conuerted into his most precious body & bloud, as it is truely beleeued & taught in the Catholick church, of which teaching this Author cannot be ignorant. So as the Author of this booke reporteth an vntruth wittingly against his conscience, to say they teach (calling them papists) that Christ is in the bread and wine, but they agrée in forme of teaching with that, the Church of England teacheth at this day,The teaching hetherto euen at this day of the church of England agreeth wt that this author calleth papistes. in the distribution of the holy Communion, in that it is there said, the body and bloud of Christ to be vnderunder the forme of bread and wine. And thus much serueth for declaration of the wrong, & vntrue report, of the faith of the Catholick Church, made of this Author, in the setting forth of this difference on yt parte, which it pleaseth him to name Papistes.
And now to speake of the other parte of the difference on the Authors side, when he would tell what he and his say, he conueyeth a sence craftely in wordes to serue for a difference,Crafty conueiance of spech by this Author. such as no Catholick man would deny. For eueryevery Catholick teacher graunteth, that no man can receaue worthely Christes body and bloud in the Sacrament, vnles he hath by faith and charity, Christ dwelling in him: For otherwise, such one as hath not Christ in him, receaueth Christs body in the Sacrament vnworthely, to his condemnation. Christ cannot be receued worthely,Worthy receauing of Christs precious body & bloud. but into his own temple, which be ye (S. Paul saith) and yet he that hath not Christes Spirite in him, is not his. As for calling it bread and wine, a Catholick man forbeareth not that name, signifiyng what those creatures were before the consecration in substance. Wherefore appeareth, how the Author of this booke,1. Cor. 6. in the lieu and place of a difference, which he pretendeth he would shew, bringeth in that vnderunder a (But) which eueryevery Catholick man must néedes confesse, that Christ is in them who worthely eate and drinke the Sacrament of his body and bloud, or the bread, and wine, as this Author speaketh.
But as this Author would hauehave speaken plainly, and compared truely the difference of the two teachinges,A difference should be of contraries. he should in the second parte hauehave said from what contrary to that the Catholick Church teacheth, which he doth not, and therfore as he sheweth vntruth in the first report, so he sheweth a sleight, and shifte in the declaration of the second parte, to say that repugneth not to the first matter, and that no Catholicke man will deny, considering the said two teachinges be not of one matter, nor shoote not (as one might say) to one marke. For the first parte is of the substance of the Sacrament to be receaued, where it is truth, Christ to be present, God and man. The second parte is of Christes Spirituall presence in the man that receaueth, which in déede must be in him before he receaue the Sacrament, or he cannot receaue the Sacrament worthely, as before is sayd, which two partes may stand well together without any repugnancy, & so both the differences thus taught, make but one Catholick doctrine. Let vsus sée what the Author saith further,