Answer unto a Crafy and Sophistical Cavillation, Debate · Confutation of book 3 · Section 43 – Section 44
Canterbury.
HEre you shift of S. Ciprian and Chrisostom with fayre promise to make answer to them hearafter, who aproue playnly my saying,Hjeronimus. that the bread representeth Christes body, and the, wine his bloud, and so you aunswer here only to S. Hierom. In aunswering to whom you wer loth (I se well) to leaue behind any thing that might hauehave any colour to make for you, that expound this word (represent) in S. Hierom, to signifie reall exhibition. Here appeareth that you can when you list. change ye signification of wordes, that can make vocare to signifie facere, and facere to signifie sacrificare, Represent.as you do in your last booke. And why should you not than in other wordes (when it wil serue for like purposes) hauehave the like libertie to change the signification of words when you list And if this word (represent) in saynt Hieroms wordes, signifie reall exhibition, then did Melchisedech really exhibit Christes flesh & bloud, who (as the same saynt Hierom sayth) did represent his flesh and bloud by offering bread and wine.
And yet in the lordes supper ryghtly vsed is Christes body exhibited in dede spiritually, and so really,Really. if you take really, to signifie only a spirituall and not a corporall and carnall exhibition. But this reall and spirituall exhibition is to the receiuers of the sacrament, and not to the bread and wine.
And mine issue in this place is no more, but to proue that these sayings of Christ, This is my body, This is my bloud, be figuratiue speaches, signifying that the bread representeth Christes body, and the wine his bloud which for as much as you confesse, ther neded no great contention in this poynt, but that you would seme in wordes to vary, where we agre in the substance of the matter, and so take occasion to make a longe booke, where a short would hauehave serued.
And as for the exelucion (onelyonly) many of the authors (as I proued before) hauehave the same exclusiue, or other wordes equiualent therto. And as for the sacramentall signes, they be onelyonly figures. And of the presence of Christes body, your selfe hath this exclusiue, that Christ is but after a spirituall maner present, and I say he is but spiritually present.
Now followeth Saynt Augustine.
And yet S. Augustine sheweth this matter more clearly and fully then any of the rest,Augustimus ad Bonefacium. Episto. 23. specially in an epistle, which he wrot ad Bonifacium, where he sayth, that a day or two before good Friday, we vse in common speach to say thus: To morow or this day .ij. dayes, Christ suffered his passiō. Where in very dede he neuer suffered his passion but once, and that was many yeares passed. Likewise vponupon Easter day we say, This day Christ rose from death. Where in very dede it is many hundreth yeares sithens he rose from death. Why then do not men reproue vsus as lyars, when we speake in this sort. But bicause we call these dayes so, by a similitude of those dayes, wherin these thinges were done in dede? And so it is called that day, which is not that day in dede, but by the course of the yeare it is a like day. And such thinges be sayd to be done that day, for the solemne celebration of the sacramēt, which thinges indede were not done that day, but long before. Was Christ offered any more but once? And he offered him selfe, and yet in a sacrament or representation, not onelyonly eueryevery solemne feast of Easter, but eueryevery day he is offered to the people, so that he doth not lye, that sayth, He is eueryevery day offered. For if sacramentes had no some similitude or likenes of those thinges, whereof they be Sacramentes, they could in no wise be sacramentes. And for their similitude and likenes, commonly they hauehave the name of the thinges, wherof they be sacramentes. Therfore as after a certayne maner of speach, the sacramēt of Christes body, is Christs body: the sacrament of Christes bloud, is Christes bloud: so likewise the sacrament of fayth, is fayth. And to beleue is nothing els, but to hauehave fayth, And therfore when we answer for yong children in their baptisme, that they beleue, which hauehave not yet the minde to beleue, we answer that they hauehave fayth, bicause they hauehave the sacrament of fayth. And we say also that they tourne vntounto God, because of the sacrament of conuersion vntounto God, for that answer pertayneth to the celebration of the sacramēt. And likewise speaketh the Apostle of baptisme, saying: that by Baptisme we be buryed with him into death: he sayth not that we signifie buriall, but he sayth playnly, that we be buried. So that the sacramēt of so great a thing, is not called but by the name of the thing it selfe.
Hitherto I hauehave rehersed the answer of S. Augustine vntounto Boniface a learned bishop, who asked of him, how the parentes and frendes could answer for a yong babe in baptisme, and say in his person that he beleueth & conuerteth vntounto God, when the child can neither do, nor think any such thinges.
Wherunto the answer of S. Augustine is this: that for as much as baptisme is the sacrament of the profession of our fayth, and of our conuersion vntounto God, it becometh vsus so to answer for yong children comming therunto, as to the sacramēt apertayneth, although the children indeed hauehave no knowledge of such thinges.
And yet in our sayd answers we ought not to be reprehended as vayn men or lyers, forasmuch as in common speach we vse dayly to call sacramētes and figures by the names of the thinges that be signified by them, although they be not the same thing indede. As eueryevery Goodfriday (as often as it returneth from yeare to yeare) we call it the day of Christes passion: and eueryevery Easter day, we call the day of his resurrection: and eueryevery day in the yeare, we say that Christ is offered: and the sacrament of his body, we call it his body: and the sacrament of his bloud, we call it his bloud: and our baptisme S. Paul calleth our buriall with Christ. And yet in very dede Christ neuer suffered but once, neuer arose but once, neuer was offered but once, nor in very dede in baptisme we be not buried, nor the sacrament of Christes body is not his body, nor the sacrament of his bloud is not his bloud. But so they be called, bicause they be figures, sacramentes, and representations of the thinges them selfe which they signifie, and whereof they beare the names. Thus doth saynt Augustine most playnly open this matter in his epistle to Bonifacius.
Of this maner of speach (wherin a signe is called by the name of the thing, which it signifieth) speaketh S. Augustine also right largely in his questions super Leuiticum, Super Leuiticū quest. 15. Leuit. 57.& contra Adamantium, declaring how bloud in scripture is called the soule. A thing which signifieth (sayth he) is wont to be called by the name of the thing which it signifieth, as it is writen in the scripture. The vij. eares, be vij. yeares.Gen. 41. The scripture sayth not signifieth vij. yeares. And vij. kine; be seuen yeares, and many other like. And so sayd saynt Paule, that the stone was Christ, and not that it signified Christ, but euen as it had ben hee indede,1. Cor. 10. which neuerthelesse was not Christ by substaunce but by signification. Euen so (sayth saynt Augustine) bicause the bloud signifieth and representeth the soule, therfore in a sacrament or signification, it is called the soule. And contra Adamantium he writeth much like,Contra adamantium cap. 12. saying: In such wise is bloud the soule, as the stone was Christ, and yet the Apostle sayth not, that the stone signified Christ, but sayth it was Christ. Leuit. 17.And this sentence, Bloud is the soule, may be vnderstand to be spoken in a signe or figure, for Christ did not stick to say, this is my body, when he gaue the signe of his body.
Here .S Augustine rehearsing diuers sentences, which were spoken figuratiuely, that is to say, when one thing was called by the name of an other, and yet was not the other in substance, but in signification: As the bloud is the soule: vij. kyne be vij. yeares: vij. eares be vij. yeares, the stone was Christ. Among such maner of speaches, he reherseth those wordes which Christ spake at his last supper, this is my body.Math. 16. Which declareth playnly Saynt Augustines mind, that Christ spake those wordes figuratiuely, not meaning that the bread was his body by substance, but by signification.
Contra Maximinum. li. 3. cap. 22And therfore S. Augustine sayth contra Maximinum, that in the sacramentes we must not consider what they be, but what they signifie. for they be signes of thinges, being one thing and signifiyng another. Which he doeth shew specially of this sacrament, saying, the heauenly bread which is Christes flesh, by some maner of speach is called Christes body, In lib. sententiarum Prosperi de consecrat. dist. 2 Hoc est.when in very deede it is the sacrament of his body. And that offering of the flesh which is done by the priestes handes, is called Christes passion, death, and crucifiyng, not in very dede, but in a misticall signification.
Winchester.
As for saynt Agustine (ad Bonifacium) the author shall perceiue his fault at Martyne Bucers hand, who in his epistle dedicatory of his enarations of the gospels, reherseth his mind of Saynt Augustine in this wise.Bucerus. Est (scribit diuus Augustinus) secundum quendam modum sacramentum corporis Christi, Corpus Christi: sacramentum sanguinis Christi, sanguis Christi. At secundum quem modum? Vt significet tantum corpus & sanguinem Domini absenta? Absit, Honorari enim & percipi in simbolis visibilibus corpus & sanguinem Domini, idem passim scribit. These wordes of Bucer may be thus englished. Saynt Augustine writeth the sacrament of the body of Christ is after a certayn maner, ye body of christ, ye sacramēt of ye bloud of christ, ye bloud of christ, but after what maner? yt it should signifie onelyonly the body and bloud absent? Absit, In no wise: for the same Saynt Augustine writeth in many places, the body and bloud of Christ to be honored, and to be receiued in those visible tokens. Thus sayth Bucer, who vnderstandeth not saynt Augustine to say the sacrament of Christes body, to be Christes body after a certayn maner of speach, as this author doth: nor S. Augustine hath no such wordes, but onelyonly (secundum quendam modum) after a certayne maner, wherunto to put (of speach) is an addition more then truth required of necessitie. In these wordes of Bucer may apeare his whole indgement concerning S. Augustine, who affirmeth the very true presence of the thing signified in the sacrament, which truth established in the matter, the calling it a signe, or a token, a figure, a similitude, or a shewing, maketh no matter when we vnderstand the thing really present that is signified. Which and it were not in dede in the Sacrament, why should it after Bucers true vnderstanding of S. Augustine be honored there? Arguing vponupon mens speaches, may be without end: & the authors vponupon diuers repsectes speake of one thing diuersly. Therfore we should resort to the pith and knot of the matter,Authors for doctrine should be red where they expound ye matter without contention. and see what they say in expounding the speciall place, without contention, and not what they vtter in the heat of their disputation, ne to search their dark and ambiguous places, wherwith to confound that they speake openly and playnly.