Answer unto a Crafy and Sophistical Cavillation, Debate · Confutation of book 3 · Section 41 – Section 42
Caunterbury.
ON what a wrangling and wrasting is here made? What crookes be cast?Tertullian saith not, an only figure. what leaping about is here, to auoyde a foyle? And yet I refer to any indifferent man that shall reade the place of Tertullain, to iudge whether you hauehave truely expounded him, or in the wrastling with him be quite ouerthrowen, and hauehave a flat fall vponupon your backe. For Tertullian sayth not, that the bread was a figure of Christs body only in the prophet. (as you expound Tertullian) but sayth, that bred and wine were figures in the old testament, and so taken in the prophets, and now be figures agayne in ye new testament, & so vsed of Christ himself in his last supper.
And where Tertullian sayth, that Christ made bread his body, he expoundeth him self how Christ made bread his body, adding by and by these wordes, That is to say, a figure of his body. But if thou caust forbear good reader (when thou readest the fond handling of Tertullian by this ignorant and subtill lawyer) I pray thee laugh not, for it is no matter to be laughed at, but to be sorowed, that the most auncient authors of Christes church should thus be eluded in so weighty causes. O Lord, what shall these men answer to thee at the last day, whan no cauilations shall hauehave place? These be Tertullians words. Iesus taking bread, and distributing it amōg his disciples, made it his body, saying: This is my body, that is to say a figure of my body.
Heare Tertullian expoundeth not the saying of the Prophet, but the saying of Christ, this is my body. And where Tertullian hath but once the word (This) you say (the first this). And so you make a wise speach to say (the first,) where is but one. And Tertullian speaketh of (this) in Christes wordes, when he sayd, This is my body, and you referre them to the Prophets wordes, which be not there, but the spoken of long after. And if you had not forgotten your gramer, and all kind of speach, or els hurled away altogether purposely to serue your owne wilfull deuise, you would hauehave referred the demonstration of his antecedent before, and not to a thing that in order commeth long after. And bread in the prophet was but a figuratiue speach, but in Christes wordes was not onelyonly a figuratiue speach, but also a figuratiue thing, that is to say, very materiall bread, which by a figuratiue speach Christ ordeyned to be a figure and a sacrament of his body. For as the Prophet by this word (bread) figured Christes body so did Christ himsef institute very materiall bread, to be a figure of his body in the sacrament. But you referre (this) to the bread in the Prophet, which Christ spake (as Tertullian sayth) of the bread in the gospell. And Christes wordes must needes be vnderstanded of the bread which he gaue to his Apostles, in the time of the gospell after he had ended the supper of the law. And if Christ made the bread in the prophet his very body, which was no materiall bread, but this word, (bread) then did Christ make this word bread his body, and conuerted this word bread in to the substaunce of his body. This is the conclusion of your subtell sophistication of Tertullians wordes.
Now as concerning Saynt Ciprian (whome you here alledge) he spake of a sacramentall and not of a corporall and carnall conuersion, as shall be playnly declared, when I come to ye place of Ciprian, and partely I hauehave declared alredy in myne other booke.
And Tertullian proued not in that place the veritie of Christes body by the figure of the Prophet: but by the figure which Christ ordeyned of his body in his last supper. For he went not about to proue that Christ should hauehave a body, but that he had then a true body, because he ordeined a figure therof, which could hauehave had no figure (as Tertullian sayth) if it had ben but a phantasticall body, and no true body in deed.
Wherfore this which you say in aunswering to the playn wordes of Tertullian, may be sayd of them that care not what they say, but it can not be sayd euidently, that is spoken so sophistically.
But if so playne speech of Tertullian (say you) that Christ made bread his body, conteyne no more certayntie in vnderstanding but the figure of a body, why should not the body of Christ euer be taken for a figure? and so no certayntie of any true body to be in Christ? This reason had been more fitte to be made by a man that had lost both his witte and reason. For in this place Tertullian must needes be so vnderstand that by the body of Christ is vnderstand the figure of his body, because Tertullian so expoundeth it him selfe. And must it be always so, bicause it is here so? Must euer Christes body be taken for a figure, bicause it is here taken for a figure, as Tertullian sayth? HaueHave you so forgotten your Logike, that you will make a good argument, à particulari ad vniuersale? By your owne manner of argumentation, bicause you make a naughty argumēt here in this place, shall I conclude that you neuer make none good? Surely this place of Tertullian (as you hauehave handled it) is neither secret nor manifest poynt, eyther of learning, witte, or reason, but a meere sophistication, if it be no worse.
What other papistes hauehave aunswered to this place of Tertullian, I am not ignoraunt, nor I am sure you be not so ignoraunt, but you know, that neuer none aunswered as you do. But your answer varieth as much from all other papists, as yours & theyrs also do varie from the truth.
Here the reader may note by the way, how many fowle shiftes you make to auoyd the saying of Tertullian. First you say, that bread was a figure in the prophets mouth, but not in Christes wordes. Second, that the thing which the prophet spake of, was not that which Christ spake of. Third, that other hauehave aunswered this place of Tertullian before. Forth, that you call this matter but a wrangling argument. Fift, that if Tertulian call bread a figure, yet he termeth it not, onelyonly figure. These be your shiftes. Now let the reader looke vponupon Tertullians playn wordes, whyche I hauehave rehearsed in my booke, and then let him iudge, whether you meane to declare Tertullians mynd truely or no.
And it is not requiset for my purpose, to proue that bread is onelyonly a figure, for I take vponupon me there to proue no more, but that the bread is a figure representing Christes body, and the wine his bloud. And if breade be a figure, and not onelyonly a figure, than must you make bread, both the figure, and the truth of the figure.
Now heare what other authors I do here alleadge.
And saynt Ciprian the holy marter sayth of this matter,Ciprianus. lib. 2. Epistola. 3. that Christs bloud is shewed in the wine, and the people in the water, that is mixt with the wine: so that the mixture of the water to the wine, signifieth the spirituall commixtion and ioyning of vsus vntounto Christ.
By which similitude Ciprian ment not, that the bloud of Christ is wine, or the people water, but as the water doeth signifie and represent the people, so doeth the wine signify and represent Christs bloud: and the vniting of the water and wine together, signifieth the vniting of Christian people vntounto Christ himselfe.
And the same saynt Ciprian in an other place, writing here of sayth,De vnction… Chrismati. that Christ in his last supper, gaue to his apostles with his owne handes bread and wine, which he called his flesh and bloud, but in the crosse he gaue his very body, to be wounded with the handes of the souldiours, that the apostles might declare to the world how and in what manner bread and wine may be the flesh and bloud of Christ. And the manner he straight wayes declareth thus, that those things which do signifye, and those thinges which be signified by them, may be both called by one name.
Here it is certain, by saynt Ciprians mind, wherfore and in what wise bread is called Christes flesh, and wine his bloud, that is to say, because that eueryevery thing that representeth and signifieth an other thing, may be called by the name of thing which it signifieth.
And therfore Saynt Iohn Chrisostom sayth that Christ ordayned the table of his holy supper for this purpose,Chris in. Psa. 22 that in that sacramēt he should dayly shew, vntounto vsus bread and wine for a similitude of his body and bloud.
Saynt Hierom likewise sayth vponupon the gospell of Mathew,Iero. in Mat. 26. that Christ took bread, which comforteth mans hart, that he mght represent thereby his very body and bloud.
Also Saynt Ambrose (if the booke be his that is intituled De his qui misterijs initianter) sayth,Ambros de his qui misterijs initiantur. cap. vlt. that before the consecration, an other kind is named, but after the consecration, the body of Christ is signified. Christ sayd his bloud, beefore the consecration it is called an other thing, but after the consecration is signified the bloud of Christ.
And in his booke De sacramentis (if that be also his) he writeth thus.De sacramentis lib. 6. cap. 3. Thou doost receiue the sacrament for a similitud of the flesh and bloud of Christ, but thou doost obtayne the grace and vertue of his true nature.
And receiuing the bread, in that foode thou art partaker of his godly substaunce. And in the same booke he sayth, As thou hast in baptisme reciued the similitude of death, so likewise dost thou in the sacramēt drink the similitude of Christes precious bloud. And agayne he sayeth in the sayd booke.Lib. 4. cap. 4. The priest sayth: Make vntounto vsus this oblation to be acceptable,Lib. 4. cap. 5. which is the figure of the body and bloud of our Lord Iesu Christ.
And vponupon the epistle of Saynt Paule to the Corinthians,1. Cor. 15. he sayth that in eating and drinking the bread and wine, we doe signifie the flesh and bloud, which were offered for vsus. And the olde tastament (he sayeth) was instituted in bloud because that bloud was a witnes of gods benefite, in signification and figure wherof we take the mistical cup of his bloud, to the tuitiō of our body & soule.
Of these places of saynt Chrisostom, saynt Hierom and saynt Ambrose, it is cleare, that in the sacramentall bread and wine, is not rially and corporally the very naturall substance of the flesh and bloud of Christ,Signes and figures hauehave the names of the thinges which they signify. but that the bread and wine be similitudes, misteries and representations, significations, sacramentes, figures and signes of his body and bloud: and therfore be called, and hauehave the name of his very body flesh and bloud.
Winchester.
Cyprianus. Chrysostom. Hieronym.Ciprian shalbe touched after, when we speake of him agayn.
Chrisostom shall open himselfe hereafter playnly.
Saynt Hierom speaketh here very pithely, vsing the word (represent) which signifieth a true reall exhibision: for saynt Hierom speaketh of ye representation of the truth of Christes body, which truth excludeth an onelyonly figure. For howsoeuer the visible matter of the sacrament be a figure, the inuisible part is a truth: which saynt Hierom sayth is here represented (that is to say) made present, which onelyonly signification doth not.
Saynt Ambrose shall after declare himselfe, and it is not denied, but the authors in speaking of the sacrament vsed these wordes, signe, figure, similitude, token,Ambrosius. but those speaches exclude not the veritie and truth of the body and bloud of Christ, for no approued author hath this exclution,No author sayth, an onelyonly figure. to say an onelyonly signe, an only token, an only similitude, or an only signification, which is the issue with this author.