Answer unto a Crafy and Sophistical Cavillation, Debate · Confutation of book 3 · Section 17
Caunterbury.
SUch is the nature of many, that they can finde many knots in a playne rush, and doubtes where no doubtes ought to bee found. So fynd you sleight and craft, where I ment all thinges symply and playnly. And to auoyd such sleight and craft as you gather of my words, I shall expresse thē plainly thus.
The cōparison.The Papistes say, that the body of Christ that is in the Sacramēt, hath his own proper forme and quantity. We say, that the body of Christ hath not his proper forme and quantity, neither in the sacrament, nor in them yt receaue the Sacrament, but is in the sacrament sacramentally, and in the worthy receauers spiritually without the proper forme & quantity of his body. This was my meaning at the first, and no mā that had loked of this place indifferently, would hauehave taken the second part of this comparison to be vnderstanded of Christs diuine nature: for the bread and wyne be sacraments of his body and bloud,Theodoret. dialog. 1. and not of his diuinitie (as Theodoretus sayth) and therfore his diuine nature is not sacramentally in the sacramēt, but his humayne nature onelyonly. And what maner of spech had this ben, to say of Christes diuine nature, that it is in the sacrament without quantity, which hath in it no manner of quantitie where so euer it be? And where I set foorth these comparysons to shew wherein we vary from the Papists, what variance had ben in this comparison, if I had vnderstanded the first part of Christs humanitie, and the second of his diuinitie?
The reader by this one place among many other, may easyly discerne, how captious you be to reprehend what so euer I say, and to peruert eueryevery thing into a wrong sense: So that in respect of you, Smith is a very indifferent taker of my wordes,D. Smith. although in deed he farre passeth the bondes of honesty.
Whether in the Sacrament. Christes body hath his proper forme and quantity.But to come directly to the matter, if it be true that you say, that in the sacrament Christes body hath all the formes and quantities of a naturall body, why say you then that his body is not there present after the manner of quantitie? Declare what difference is betweene forme and quantitie, & the manner of quantitie? And if Christes body in the Sacrament hauehave the same quantitie, that is to say, the same length, breadth, and thicknes, and the same forme, that is to say, the same due order, and proportion of the mē bers and partes of his body, that he had when he was crucified, and hath now in heauen (as he hath by your saying here in this place) then I pray you declare further, how the length, bredth, and thicknes of a man, should be conteined in quantitie, within the compasse of a peece of bread, no lōger nor broader then one or two inches, nor much thicker then one leafe of paper. How an inch may be as long as an elle, and an elle as short as an inch. How length and roundnes shall agree in one proportion: and a thicke and thin thing be both of one thicknes: which you must warrant to be brought to passe, if the forme and quantitie of Christes body be conteined vnderunder the forme and quantity of such bread and wine as we now vse.
But as Smyth in the last comparison did me good seruice against you,D. Smith. so shall you in this comparison do me good seruice against him. For among the fiue lyes, wherewith he chargeth me in these comparisons, he accompteth this for one, that I report of the Papists, that Christes body in the sacrament hath his proper forme and quantity, which you say is a truth. And therefore if I make a lye herein (as Smyth saith I doe) yet I lie not alone, but hauehave you to beare me company. And yet once again more may the reader here note, how the Papists vary among them selues.
And it is vntrue that you say, that good men beleeue vponupon the credit of Christ, that there is truely in the Sacrament, the very true body of Christ. For Christ called bread his body and wine his bloud (which as the old authors say, must needs be vnderstanded figuratiuely) but he neuer sayd that his true body is truely in the Sacrament, as you here report of him.
And the manner of his presence you call so high a mistery, that the carnall man can not reach it. And in deed as you fayne, the matter it is so high a mistery, that neuer man could reach it, but your selfe alone. For you make the manner of Christes being in the Sacrament so spirituall, that you say his flesh, bloud and bones be there really and carnally, and yet you confesse in your booke, that you neuer red any old author that so said. And this manner of handling of so pure a mistery, is neither godly foolishnes nor worldly, but rather a meere fransy and madnesse.
And although the scripture speak of Christes body to be eaten of vsus, yet that is vnderstanded of spiritual and not of corporall eating, and of spirituall not of corporall presence. The scripture sayth,Iohn 16. Mark. 16 Luke. 24.…Act. 1. that Christ hath forspoken the world, and is ascended into heauen. Upon which words S. Augustine Uigilius, and other auncient authors do proue, that as concerning the nature of his manhode, Christ is gone hence, and is not here, as I declared in my 3. booke. the 3.4.5. and 6. chapters.
And where you thinke that this manner of speech was neuer red, that Christ is present in the Sacrament without forme or quantity, I am sure that it was neuer red in any approued author, that Christ hath his proper forme and quantitie in the sacrament. And Duns saith, that his quantitie is in heauen, and not in the Sacrament.
And when I say that Christ is in the Sacrament Sacramentally and without forme and quantitie, who would thinke any man so captious, so ignorant, or so full of sophistry, to draw my wordes to the forme of Christs diuinitie, which I speake most plainly of the forme and quantity of his body and humanitie? as I hauehave before declared. And although some other might be so farre ouerseen, yet specially you ought not so to take my words. Forasmuch as you sayd not past 16. lynes before, that my wordes seeme to implye, that I ment of Christes humayne body.
And because it may appeare how truely and faithfully you reporte my words, you adde this word (all) which is more then I speake,All. and marteth all the wholl matter. And you gather therof such absurdities as I neuer spake, but as you sophistically doe gather, to make a great matter… of nothing.
And where of this word (there) you would conclude repugnaunce in my doctrine,There. that where in other places I hauehave written, that Christ is spiritually present in them that receaue the sacrament, and not in the sacramentes of bread and wine, and now it should seeme that I teach contrary; yt Christ is spiritually present in the very bread and wine, if you pleased to vnderstād my wordes rightly, there is no repugnaunce in my words at al. For by this word (there) I meane not in the Sacraments of bread and wine, but in the ministration of the Sacrament, as the olde authors for the most part, when they speake of the presence of Christ in the Sacrament, they meane in the ministration of the Sacrament.
Which my saying varyeth from no doctrine that I hauehave taught in any part of my booke. Now followeth the tenth comparyson.
They say, that the fathers, and Prophets of the old Testament did not eat the body, or drink the bloud of Christ. We say, that they did eat his body and drink his bloud, although he was not yet borne nor incarnated.