Answer unto a Crafy and Sophistical Cavillation, Debate · Confutation of book 3 · Section 3 – Section 4
Caunterbury.
IN the first part of this comparison I go not about to tearm the true catholicke faith, for the first part in all the comparisons is the Papisticall faith, which I hauehave tearmed none otherwise, then I learned of their own tearming, and therfore if my tearming please you not (as in deede it ought to please no man) yet lay the blame in them that were the authors and inuentoures of that tearming, and not in me, that against them do vse their owne tearmes, tearming the matter as they doe them selfe, because they should not finde faulte with me (as you doe) that I tearme their teaching at my pleasure.
And as for receauing of the body of Christ with our mouthes, truth it is that S. Augustine, Ambros, Chrysostome, and other vse such speaches, that we receaue the body of Christ with our mouthes, see hym with our eyes, feele hym with our handes, breake hym & teare hym with our teeth, eate him and dygest him (which speach I hauehave also vsed in my catechisme) but yet these speeches must be vnderstand figuratiuely (as I hauehave declared in my fourth booke the eyght chapiter, and shall more fully declare hereafter) for we doe not these thinges to the very body of Christ, but to the bread wherby hys body is represented.
And yet the booke of common prayer,The booke of common prayer. neyther vseth any such speach nor geueth any such doctrine, nor I in no poynt improue that godly booke, nor varye from it. But yet glad I am to heare that the sayd booke lyketh you so well, as noe man can mislike it, that hath anye godlinesse in hym ioyned with knowledge.
But nowe to come to the very matter of this article:That the Papiste say that Christ go… in no …rther thē the mouth or stomacke. it is maruell that you neuer redde, that Christ goeth into the mouth or stomacke of that man that receaueth, and no further, being a lawyer, and seing that it is written in the glose of the law, De-consecrat, dist. 2. Tribus gradibus, in these wordes. It is certayne that assone as the formes be torne with the teeth, so sone the body of Christ is gone vp into heauen. And in the chapiter, Non iste, is an other glose to the same purpose. And if you had redde Thomas de Aquino and Bonauenture (great clearkes and holy Sainctes of the Popes own making) and other schoole authors,Thomas Bonauentura. then should you hauehave knowne what the Papistee do say in this matter. For some say that the body of Christ remayneth so long as the forme and fashion of bread remayneth;Read Smith Fol. 64 although it be in a dog, mouse, or in the iakes. And some say, it is not in the mouse nor sakes, but remayneth onelyonly in the person that eateth it, vntill it be digested in the stomacke, and the fourme of bread be gone. Some say, it remayneth no longer then the Sacrament is in the eating, and may be felt, seene, and tasted in the mouth.
And this (besides Hugo) sayth Pope Innocentius hym selfe,Hugo. Innocentius. 3 li. ca. 25. who was the best learned and the chiefe doer in this matter, of all the other Popes. Red you neuer none of these authors? and yet take vpō you the full knowledge of this matter? Will you take vponupon you to defend the Papistes, and knowe not what they say? Or do you know it, and now be ashamed of it, and for shame will deny it?
And seing that you teache, that we receaue the body of Christ with our mouthes, I pray you, tell whether it go any further then the mouth or no? and how farre it goeth? that I may know your iudgement herein: and so shall you be charged no further, then with your own saying, and the reader shall perceiue what excellent knowledge you hauehave in this matter.
And where you say, that to teach that we receaue Christ at our mouth, & he goeth into our stomack, and no further, commeth out of the mouth of thē that fight against the truth in this most high mistery. Here (like vntounto Caiphas) you prophecy the truth vnwares. For this doctrine commeth out of ye mouth of none, but of the Papistes, which fight against the holy catholicke truth of the aūcient Fathers, saying that Christ tarrieth no longer, then the proper formes of bread and wine remaine, which can not remain after perfect digestion in the stomacke.
And I say not that the Church teacheth so (as you fayne me to say) but that the Papistes say so. Wherfore I should wish you to reporte my words as I say, and not as you imagine me to say, least you heare agayne (as you hauehave heard heretofore) of your wonderfull learning, and practise in the Deuils Sophistrye.
The secōd part.Now as concerning the second parte of this comparison, here you graūt that my saying therein is true, and that eueryevery Catholick man must needes, and doth confesse the same. By which your saying, you must also condemne almost all the schoole authors, and Lawiers, that hauehave written of this matter, with Innocent the third also, as men not Catholick, because they teach that Christ goeth no further, nor taryeth no longer,Innocent. 3. then the formes of bread and wine goe, and remayn in their proper kinde.
And yet now your doctrine (as farre as I can gather of your obscure wordes) is this: That Christ is receaued at the mouth, with the formes of bread and wine, and goeth with them into ye stomack. And although they goe no further in their proper kinds, yet there Christ leaueth them, and goeth him selfe further into eueryevery parte of the mannes body, and into his soule also: which your saying seemeth to me to be very strange. For I hauehave many times heard, that a soule hath gone into a body, but I neuer heard that a body went into a soule. But I weene of all the Papistes, you shalbe alone in this matter, and finde neuer a fellow to say as you doe.
And of these thinges which I hauehave here spoaken, I may conclude, that this comparison of difference is not made of an open vntruth; and a truth disguised, except you wil confesse the Papisticall doctrine to be an open vntruth. Now the wordes of my third comparison be these.
They say that Christ is receaued in the mouth, and entreth in with the bread and wine. We say that he is receaued in the hart, and entreth in by faith.
Winchester.
Here is a pretty sleight in this comparison, where both partes of the comparison may be vnderstanded on both sides, and therfore here is by the Author in this comparison no issue ioyned. For the worthy receauing of Christes body and bloud in the Sacrament, is both with mouth and harte: both in facte and faith. After which sorte, Saynte Peter in the laste Supper, receaued Christes body, where as in the same, Iudas receaued it with mouth, and in facte onelyonly, wherof S. Augustine speaketh in this wise. Non dicuns ista, nisi qui de mensa Domini vitam sumu sumunt,August contra lit. Peti. lib. 2. cap. 47. sicut Tetrus, non iudicium, sicut Indas, & tamē ipsa vtri que fuit vina, sed non vtri que valuit ad vnum, quia ipsi non erant vnum. Which wordes be thus much to say: That they say not so (as was before intreated) but such as receaue life of our Lordes table (as Peter did) not iudgement, (as Iudas) and yet the table was all one to them both, but it was not to all one effect in them both, bycause they were not one. Here S. Augustine noteth the difference in the receauer, not in the Sacrament receaued, which being receaued with the mouth only, and Christ entring, in mysterie onelyonly doth not sanctifie vsus, but is the stone of stumbling, and our iudgement and condemnation, but if he be receaued with mouth and body, with hart and fayth, to such he bringeth lyfe and nourishment. Wherfore in this comparison, the author hath made no difference, but with diuers tearmes, the Catholicke teaching is deuided into two membres with a (But) fashioned neuertheles in another phrase of spéech then the church hath vsed, which is so common in this Author, that I will not hereafter note it any more for a faulte. But let vsus goe further.