Answer unto a Crafy and Sophistical Cavillation, Debate · Confutation of book 3 · Section 21
Caunterbury.
Christ is present when so euer the church praieth vntounto him, and is gathered togither in his name. And the bread and wine be made vntounto vsus ye body and bloud of Christ,The booke of common prayer (as it is in the book of common praier) but not by chaunging the substaunce of bread and wine into the substance of Christes naturall body and bloud, but that, in the godly vsing of thē, they be vntounto the receauers Christes body and bloud. As of some the Scripture saith, yt their riches is their redemption, and to some it is their damnatiō:Prouerb. 23. Rom. 1. 1. Cor. 1. 2. Cor. 2. Iac. 8. Esay. 1. Math. 22. 1. Pet. 2. Iohn. 11. And as Gods word to some is life, to some it is death and a snare (as the prophet saith.) And Christ himself to some is a stone to stumble at, to some is a raysing frō death, not by conuersion of substances, but by good or euill vse: that thing which to the godly is saluation; to the vngodly is damnation. So is the water in baptism, and the bread and wine in the Lords supper, to the worthy receauers, Christ himselfe and eternall life, and to the vnworthy receauers euerlasting death and damnation, not by conuersion of one substance into an other, but by godly or vngodly vse thereof. And therfore in the book of the holy communion we do not pray absolutely, that the bread and wine may be made the body and bloud of Christ, but that vntounto vsus in that holy mistery they may be so, that is to say,Domin. 3. post Trin. Secret Muneram libidinem quibus oblata sanctifica, vt tui, nobis vnigeniti corpus & sāguis fiant ad medelā. that we may so worthely receaue the same, that we may be partakers of Christes body and bloud, and that therwith in spirit and in truth we may be spiritually nourished. And a like praier of old time were all the people wont to make at the communion, of all such offerings, as at that time all the people vsed to offer, praying that their offerings might be vntounto them the body and bloud of Christ.
And where you say, it was neuer taught as I say,Whether the body of Christ be made of bread. that Christs body is made of the matter of bread, you knowingly and willingly misreport me. For I say not, of the matter of bread, but of bread, which when you deny that the Papists so say, it semeth you be now ashamed of the doctrin; which the Papistes hauehave taught thys 4. or 5. hundred yeres. For is it not playnely written of all the Papists, both lawyers and scholl authors, that the body of Christ in the sacramēt is made of bread, and his bloud of wine? And they say not that his body is made present of bread & wine, but is made of bread and wine. Be not their books in print ready to be shewed? Do they not say, that the substance of the bread neither remaineth still nor is turned into nothing, but into the body of Christ? And do not your selfe also say here in this place, that the substance of bread is conuerted into Christes precious body? And what is that els, but the body of Christ to be made of bread, and to be made of a new matter? For if the bread doe not vanish away into nothing, but be turned into Christes body, then is Christs body made of it, and then it must needes follow that Christes body is made of new, and of an orher substance then it was made of in his mothers wombe. For there it was made of her flesh and bloud, and here it is made of bread and wine. And the Papistes say not (as you now would shift of the matter) that Christes body is made present of bread, but they say plainly without addition, that it is made of bread. Can you deny that this is the plain doctrine of the Papists Ex pane fit Corpus Christi, of bread is made the body of Christ, and that the substance of bread is turned into the substance therof… And what reason, sentence, or english, could be in this saying, Christes body is made present of bread? Marye to be present in bread might be some sentence, but ye speeche will you in no wise admitte.
And this your saying here (if the reader mark it wel) turneth ouer quite and cleane all the wholl Papisticall doctrine in this matter of the Sacrament,Pugnat cum alijs Papistis. as well touching transubstantiation, as also the carnall presence. For their doctrine with one whol consent and agreement is this. That the substance of bread remaineth not, but is turned into the substance of Christes body, and so the body of Christ is made of it. But this is false (say you) and not tollerable to be by a scoffer deuised in a place, to supply when his fellow had forgotten his part. And so the wholl doctrine of the papists, which they hauehave taught these 4. or 5. hundreth yeares, doe you condemne with condigne reproches, as a teaching intollerable, not to be deuised by a scoffer in a play. Why doe you then take vponupon you to defend the Papistical doctrine, if it be so intollerable? Why doe you not forsake those scoffers and players, which hauehave iugled with the world so long, and embrace the most certayne truth, that Christs body is not made of bread? And seeing that you embrace it here in this one place, why stand you not constantly therin but goe from it againe in all the rest of your booke, defending the Papisticall doctrine cleane contrary to yours in this pointe, in that they teach that Christes body is made of bread.
And you varry so much from your selfe herein, that although you deny the Papistes sayinges in wordes, that Christes body is made of bread, yet in effect you graunt and maintayn the same, which you say is intollerable, and not to be deuised by a scoffer in a play. For you say, that Christ calleth bread his body, and that his calling is making. And then if he make bread his body, it must needes follow that he maketh his body of the bread: moreouer you say,Making by conuersion. that Christes body is made present by conuersion, or turning of the substance of bread, into the substance of his precious bodye, where of must follow, that his body is made of bread. For when so euer one substāce is turned into another, thē the second is made of the first. As, because earth was turned into the body of Adam,Gen. 2. we say that Adam was made of earth and that Eue was made of Adams ribbe: And the wine in Galily made of water,Iohn. 2. because the water was turned into wine, and the ribbe of Adames side into the body of Eue. If the water had beene put out of the pottes, and wine put in for the water, we might hauehave saide that the wine had been made present there, where the water was before: But then we might not hauehave said that the wine had been made of the water, because ye water was emptied out, and not turned into wine. But when Christ turned the water into the wine, then by reason of that turning, we say that ye wine was made of the water. So likewise if the bread be turned into the substance of Christ his body, we must not only say that the body of Christ is present, where the bread was before, but also that it is made of the bread, because that the substance of the bread is conuerted and turned into the substaunce of his bodye. Which thing the papists saw must needes follow, and therfore they plainly confessed, that the body of Christ was made of bread, which doctrine (as you truely say in this place) is intollerable, and not to be deuised by a scoffer in a play, when his fellow had forgotten his parte. And yet you so far forget your selfe in this booke, that throughout the same (what so euer you say here) you defend the same intollerable doctrin, not to be deuised by a scoffer.
And where Smith accounteth here my fourth lye, that I say,D. Smith. that the Papistes say, that Christes body is made of bread and wine. Here Smith and you agree both together in one lye. For it is truth and no lye, that the Papistes so say and teach, as Smith in other parts of his booke saith, that Christes body is made of bread, and that priestes doe make Christes body. My 12. comparison is this.
They say that the masse is a Sacrifice satisfactory for sinne, by the deuotion of the Priest that offreth, and not by the thing that is offered. But we say that their saying is a most haynous, yea and detestable error against the glory of Christ: for the satisfaction for our sinnes, is not the deuotion nor offering of the Priest, but the only host and satisfactiō for all the sinnes of the world, is the death of Christ, and the oblation of his body vponupon the Crosse, that is to say: The oblation that Christ him selfe offred once vponupon the crosse, and neuer but once, not neuer any but he. And therfore that oblation which the Priestes make dayly in their papisticall masses, cannot be a satisfaction for other mennes sinnes by the Priests deuotion: but it is a mere illusion, and suttle crafte of the Deuil, wherby Antichrist hath many yeares blinded and deceiued the world.