Answer unto a Crafy and Sophistical Cavillation, Debate · Confutation of book 3 · Section 15 – Section 16
Caunterbury.
WHo is so ignoraunt that hath red any thing at all, but he knoweth that distinction of thre eatinges? But no man that is of learning and iudgement, vnderstandeth the 3. diuerse eatings in such sort as you doe but after this manner.3. Manner of eatinges. That some eat only the sacrament of Christs body, but not the very body it selfe, some eat his body and not the Sacrament, and some eat the Sacrament and body both togither. The Sacramēt (that is to say, the bread) is corporally eaten and chawed with the teth in the mouth. The very body is eaten and chawed with faith in the spirite. Ungodly men whē they receaue the Sacramēt, they chaw in their mouthes (like vntounto Iudas) the Sacramētal bread, but they eat not the celestial bread, which is Christ. Faithful Christian people (such as be Christs true disciples) continually frō tyme to tyme record in theyr myndes the beneficiall death of our Sauiour Christ, chawing it by fayth in the cud of their spirit, and digesting it in their harts, feding and comforting themselues with that heauēly meat, although they dayly receaue not the Sacrament thereof, and so they eat Christs body spiritually, although not the sacrament thereof.True sacramē tall eating. But when such men for their more comfort and confirmation of eternall lyfe, geuen vntounto them by Christes death, come vntounto the Lords holy Table, then as before ehey fed spiritually vponupon Christ, so now they feed corporally also vponupon the sacramental bread. By which sacramētal feeding in Christes promises, their former spirituall feding is increased, and they grow and wax continually more strōg in Christ, vntill at the last they shall come to the full measure and perfection in Christ. This is the teaching of the true Catholick Church, as it is taught by Gods word. And therefore S. Paule speaking of them that vnworthely eat, sayth, that they eat the bread, but not that they eat the body of Christ,1. Cor. 11. but their own damnation.
Whether Christ be really eaten without the sacrament.And where you set out with your accustomed rethorical colours a great impudencie in me, that would report of the Papistes that good men eat the body of Christ and drink his bloud only when they receaue the Sacramēt, seyng that I know that the Papistes make a distinction of 3. maner of eatinges of Christes body, whereof one is without the sacrament: I am not ignoraunt in deed, that the Papists graunt a spiritual eating of Christs body without the sacrament, but I mean of such an eating of his body, as his presēce is in the Sacrament, and as you say he is there eatē, that is to say, corporally. Therefore to expresse my mind more plainely to you, that list not vnderstand, let this be the comparison.
They say that after such a sort as Christ is in the sacramēt, and there eaten, so good men eat his body and bloud only, when they receaue the sacrament,The comparisō. so doe they eat, drink, and feed vponupon him continually, so long as they be members of his body.
Now the Papists say, that Christ is corporally present in the sacrament and is so eaten only when men receaue the sacrament. But we say, that the presence of Christ in his holy supper, is a spirituall presence: and as he is spiritually present, so is he spiritually eaten of all faythfull christian men, not only when they receaue the sacrament, but continually so long as they be members spirituall of Christes misticall body.
ReallyAnd yet this is really also (as you hauehave expounded the word) that is to say, in deed and effectually. And as the holy ghost doth not only come to vsus in Baptisme, and Christ doth there eloth vsus, but they doe the same to vsus continually so long as we dwell in Christ, so likewise doth Christ feed vsus so lōg as we dwell in him and he in vsus, and not only when we receaue the sacrament. So that as touching Christ himself, ye presence is all one, the clothing all one, & the feeding al one, although the one for the more comfort and consolation, hauehave the sacramēt added to it, and the other be without the sacrament. The rest that is here spoken, is contentious wrangling to no purpose.
But now commeth in Smith with his 5. egs,Smyth. saying that I hauehave made hete 5. lyes in these comparisons. The first lie is (saith he) that the Papists doe say, that good men do eat and drink Christs body and bloud only when they receaue the sacrament, which thing Smyth saith the Papists do not say, but that they then onelyonly do eat Christs body, and drinke his bloud corporally, which sufficeth for my purpose. For I mean no other thing, but that the Papistes teach such a corporall eating of Christes body as indureth not, but vanisheth away, and ceaseth at the furthest within few houres after the Sacramēt is receaued. But for as much as Smith agreeth here with you, the answere made before to you, wil serue for him also. And yet Smith here shall serue me in good stede against you, who hauehave imputed vntounto me so many impudent lyes made against the Papistes in the comparisons before rehearsed: and Smith saith that this is the first lye, which is in the 8. comparison. And so shal Smith (being mine aduersary and your frend) be such a witnes for me, as you cannot except against, to prooue that those thinges which before you said were impudent lies, be no lies at all. For this is ye first lye saith Smith, and then my sayinges before must be all true, and not impudent lies. Now to the ninth comparison.
They say that the body of Christ that is in the Sacramēt, hath his own proper forme and quantitie. We say that Christ is there Sacramentally and spiritually, without forme or quantitye.
Winchester.
In this comparison is both sleight and crafte, in the first parte of it, which is that they say, there is mention of the body of Christ, which is proper of the humanity of Christ.Christes body is vnderstanded of his humanity In the second parte, which is of (we say) there is no mention of Christes body but of Christ, who in his diuine nature is vnderstanded present without a body. Now the Sacrament is institute of Christes body and bloud, and because the diuine nature in Christ continueth the vnity with the body of Christ, we must néedes confesse where the body of Christ is there is wholl Christ God and man. And when we speake of Christes body, we must vnderstand a true body, which hath both forme and quantitie, and therefore such as confesse the true Catholick faith, they affirme of Christes body all truth of a naturall body, which although it hath all those truthes of forme and quantity, yet they say Christes body is not present after the manner of quantitie, nor in a visible forme as it was conuersant in this present life: but that there is truely in the Sacramēt, the very true body of Christ, which good men beléeue vponupon the credit of Christ that sayd so, and knowledge therwith the maner of that presente to be an high mistery, and the maner so spirituall, as the carnall man cannot by discourse of reason reach it, but in his discourse shalt (as this author doth) think it a vanitie and foolishnes: which foolishnes neuerthelesse, ouercommeth the wisedome of the world. And thus hauehave I opened what they say on the Catholick part.
Now for the other parte whereof this author is, and with his faith (we say) the words séeme to imploy, that Christes humain body is not in the Sacrament, in that it is sayd: Christ to be there Sacramentally and spiritually, without forme or quantitie, which saying hath no Scripture for it.I meruailous saying of this … ther without Scripture. For the Scripture speaketh of Christes body which was betraied for vsus, to be geuen vsus to be eaten. Where also Christes diuinity is present, as accompanyng his humanity,Christ in thinstitution of the Sacrament, spake of his humanity, saying. This is my body. which humanitie is specially spoken of, the presence of which humanitie, when it is denyed, then is there no text to proue the presence of Christes diuinity specially, that is to say, other wise then it is by his omnipotency presēt eueryevery where, And to conclude this peece of comparyson, this maner of speach was neuer I thinke red that Christ is present in the Sacrament without forme or quantity. And S. Paule speaketh of a forme in the Godhead. (Qui quam in forma Dei esset.) Who when he was in the forme of God. So as if Christ be present in the sacrament without all forme,Phil. 4. then is he there, neither as God nor man, which is a straunger teaching then yet hath bene heare or red of, but into such absurdities in déed do they fall, who intreat irreuerently and vntruly this high mistery. This is here worthy a spesyall note, how by the maner of the spéech in the latter part of this difference, the teaching semeth to be, that Christ is spiritually present in the Sacrament, because of the word (there) which thou reader mayest compare how it agréeth with the rest of this authors doctrine.There. Note this contrariety in the Author. Let vsus go to the next.