Answer unto a Crafy and Sophistical Cavillation, Debate · Confutation of book 3 · Section 51
Caunterbury.
ALthough my chief study be to speak so playnly that all men may vnderstand eueryevery thing what I say, yet nothing is plaine to him yt wil finde knots in a rish. For when I say, that all sentences which declare Christ to be here in earth, and to be eaten and drunken of christian people are to be vnderstanded either of his diuine nature (wherby he is euerye where) or els they must be vnderstand figuratiuely or spiritually: for figuratiuely he is in the bread and wine, and spiritually he is in them that worthely eat and drinke the bread and wine, but really, carnally and corporally he is onelyonly in heauen. You hauehave termed these my wordes as it liketh you, but farre otherwise then I eyther wrote or ment, or then any indifferent reader would hauehave imagined.
For what indifferent reader would hauehave gathered of my words, that Christ in his diuine nature is not really in heauen? For I make a disiunctiue, wherein I declare a playn distinction betweene his diuine nature and his humaine nature. And of his diuine nature I say in the first mēber of my diuision, which is in the beginning of my aforesayd words, that by that nature he is eueryevery where. And all the rest that followeth is spoken of his humayne nature wherby he is carnally and corporally onelyonly in heauen.
And as for this word (really) in such a sense as you expound it,Really. (that is to say, not in phantasy nor imagination, but verily and truely) so I grant that Christ is really, not onelyonly in them that duely receaue the sacrament of the Lordes supper, but also in them that duely receaue the sacrament of Baptisme, and in all other true christian people at other times when they receiue no sacramēt. For al they be the members of Christs body, and Temples in whom he truely inhabiteth, although corporally and really, (as the Papistes take that word really) he be onelyonly in heauen and not in the sacrament. And although in them that duely receaue the sacrament, he is truely and in deed, and not by phansy and imagination, and so really (as you vnderstand really) yet is he not in them corporally, but spiritual… (as I say) and onelyonly after a spirituall manner as you say.
And as for these wordes (carnally and corporally) I defame them not,Carnally and corporally. for I meane by carnally and corporally none otherwise, than after the form and fashion of a mans body, as we shal be after our resurrectiō, that is to say, visible, palpable, and circumscribed, hauing a very quantitie with due proportion and distinction of members, in place and order one from an other. And if you will deny Christ so to be in heauen, I hauehave so playne and manifest scriptures agaynst you, that I will take you for no christian man, except that you reuoke that error. For sure I am, that Christes naturall body hath such a grossenes,Grossely. or stature and quantitie, if you will so call it, bicause the word grosenes, grosely taken, as you vnderstand it, soundeth not well in an incoruptible and immortall body.
Marry as for any other grosenes, as of eating, drinking, and grose auoyding of the same, with such other like corruptible grosenes, it is for grose heades to imagine or think eyther of Christ, or of any body glorified.
Augustinus.And although S. Augustine may say, that Christ reigneth not carnally in heauen, yet he sayth playnly, that his body is of such sort, that it is circumscribed and conteined in one place.
Nazianzenus.And Gregory Nazianzene ment, that Christ should not com at the last iudgement in a corruptible and mortall flesh, as he had before his resurrection, and as we hauehave in this mortall lyfe, (for such grosenes is not to be attributed to bodyes glorified) but yet shal he come with with such a body, as he hath since his resurrection, absolute and perfect in all partes and members of a mans bodye, hauing handes, feete, head, mouth, syde and woundes, and all other partes of a man visible and sensible, like as we shall all appeare before him at the same last day, with this same flesh in substance that we now hauehave, and with these same eyes shall we see God our Sauiour. Marry to what fynes and purenes our bodyes shall be then changed, no man knoweth in the perigrination of this world, sauing that S. Paule sayth,Phil. 3. that he shall change this vile body, that he may make it like vntounto his glorious body. But that we shall hauehave diuersity of all members, and a due proportion of mens natural bodyes, the scripture manifestly declareth, what soeuer you can by a synister glose gather of Nazianzene to the contrary, that glorified bodies hauehave no flesh nor grossenes.
But see you not how much this saying of S. Augustin (that our resurrection shall not be carnally) maketh agaynst your self? For if we shal not rise carnally, then is not Christ risen carnally nor is not in heauen carnally. And if he be not in heauen, how can he be in the Sacrament carnally, and eaten and drunken carnally wt our mouthes, as you say he is? And therfore as for the termes (carnally, and corporally) it is you that defame thē by your grosse taking of thē, and not I, that speak of none other grossenes, but of distinction of the naturall and substantiall partes, with out the which no mans body can be perfect.
And wheras here in this processe you attribute vntounto Christ none other presence in heauen,whether christ be in heauē but after a spiritual manner. An issue. but spirituall, without all manner of grossenes or carnallity, so that all manner of beyng is spirituall, and none otherwise then he is in the sacramēt, here I ioyn an issue with you for a ioynt, and for the price of a faggot. I wondred all this while, that you were so ready to graunt, that Christ is but after a spirituall manner in the sacrament: and now I wonder no more at that, seyng that you say, he is but after a spirituall maner in heauen. And by this meanes we may say, that he hath but a spirituall manhod, as you say that he hath in the sacrament but a spirituall body. And yet some carnall thing and grossenes he hath in him, for he hath flesh and bones, which spirites lack, except that to all this impietye you will adde, that his flesh and bones also be spirituall thinges & not carnall. And it is not without some strange prognosticatiō, that you be now waxed altogither so spirituall.
Now as concerning the word (figuratiuely)Figuratiuely. what need this any profe that christ is in the sacraments figuratiuely? which is no more to say but sacramentally. And you graunt your selfe fol. 28. that Christ vnderunder the figure of visible creatures gaue inuisibly his pretious body. And fol. 80. you say, that Christ sayd, This is my body, vsing the outward signes of yt visible creatures. And this doctrine was neuer reproued of any catholick man, but hath at al times and of al men bene allowed without contradition, sauing now of you allone. Now followeth my answere to the authors particularly. And first to Saynt Clement.
My wordes be these.
They alleadge S. Clement,Cap. 15. The answere to Clement. Episto. 2. whose wordes be these as they report. The sacraments of Gods secrets are committed to three degrees: to a Priest, a Deacon, and a minister: which with feare and trembling ought to kep the leauings of the broken peces of the Lordes body, that no corruption be foūd in the holy place, least by negligence great iniury be done to the portion of the Lordes body. And by and by followeth: So many hostes must be offered in the altar, as will suffice for the people. And if any remayne, they must not be kept vntill the morning, but be spent and cō sumed of the clearkes, with feare and trembling. And they that consume the residue of the Lords body, may not by and by take other common meates, least they should mixte that holy portion, with the meat which is digested by the belly, and auoyded by the fundement. Therefore if the Lordes portion be eaten in the morning, the ministers that consume it, must fast vntounto sixe of the clocke: and if they doe take it at three or foure of the clocke, the minister must fast vntill the euening.
Thus much writeth Clement of this matter: if the Epistle which they alleadge, were Clements (as in deed it is not, but they hauehave fayned many things in other mens names, thereby to stablish their fayned purposes) neuertheles whose soeuer the Epistle was, if it be thoroughly considered, it maketh much more agaynst the Papistes, then for theyr purpose. For by the same Epistle appeareth euidently three speciall thynges agaynst the erroures of the Papists.
The first is, that the bread in the sacramēt is called the Lords body: and the peces of the broken bread, be called the peces and fragments of the Lords body, which can not be vnderstand, but figuratiuely.
The second is, that the bread ought not to be reserued and hanged vp, as the Papistes eueryevery where do vse.
The third is, that the priests ought not to receiue the sacramēt alone (as the Papists commonly doe, making a sayle therof vntounto the people) but they ought to communicate with the people.
And here is diligently to be noted, that we ought not vnreuerently and vnaduisedly to approche vntounto this meat of the Lordes table, as we doe to other common meates and drinkes, but with great feare and dread, least we should come to that holy table vnworthely, wherin is not onelyonly represented, but also spiritually geuen vntounto vsus very Christ himself.
And therfore we ought to come to that bord of the Lord with all reuerēce fayth, louelove, and charity, feare and dread, according to the same.