Answer unto a Crafy and Sophistical Cavillation, Debate · Confutation of book 3 · Section 52
Winchester.
Let vsus now consider what particular answeres this author deuiseth to make to the fathers of the church: & first what he sayth to S. Clements Epistle, his handling where of is worthy to be noted.
First, he sayth the Epistle is not Clemēts but fained (as he saith)Clement. many other things be for their purpose (he sayth,) which solution is short & may be sone learned of noughty men, and noughtily applied further as they list. But this I may say, if this epistle were fayned of the Papistes, then do they shew themself fooles, that could fayne no better but so as this author might of theyr fayned Epistle gather thrée notes agaynst them. This authors notes be these: First that the bread in the sacrament is called the Lordes body, and that the broken bread be called the peces and fragments of the Lordes body. Marke, well reader this note that speaketh so much of bread, where the wordes of the Epistle, in the part here alleadged name no bread at all. If this author hath red so much mentiō of bread in an other part of the Epistle, why bringeth he not that forth to fortifye his note? I hauehave red after the same Epistle (pams sanctuary) but they would not helpe this authors note, and yet for the other matter ioyned with them, they would slaunder an other way. And therfore seing this author hath left them out, I will goe no further then is here alleadged.
The calling of bread by enunciation for a name is not material, because it signifieth that was, but in that is here alleadged is no mention of bread to proue the note: and to faythfull men the wordes of the Epistle, reuerently expresse the remayne of the misteries, in which when manye hostes bee offered in the altar, according to the multitude that should communicate, those many hostes, after consecration, be not many bodies of Christ, but of many breades one body of Christ. And yet as we teach in Englād now, in the booke of common prayer, in eueryevery part of that is broken, is the whole body of our Sauiour Christ. Mans words can not suffice to expresse Gods misteries, nor can vtter them so, as froward reason shall not finde matter to wrangle. And yet to stay reason, may suffice, that as in one loafe of bread brokē, eueryevery péece broken, is a péece of that bread: and eueryevery pece of the bread broken, is in it self a whole pece of bread, and so whol bread, for eueryevery pece hath an whole substance of bread in it: So we truely speake of the host consecrated to auoyd the fantasy of multiplication of Christes body, which in all ye hostes, and all the partes of the hostes is but one not broken, nor distribute by pieces, & yet in a spech to tell, and signifie that is broken, called in name the leauing peces of the body, portion of the body, residue of the body, in which neuertheles ech one pece is Christes whole body.
So as this speach hauing a figure, hath it of necessity, to auoyd the absurdity, wherby to signify a multitude of bodyes, which is not so, and the sound of the speach christen eares do abhorre. But this I aske, where is the matter of this authors note, that bread is called Christes body? where there is no word of bread in the wordes alleadged, and if there were, as there is not, it were worthy no note at all. For that name is not abhorred, and the catholicke fayth teacheth that the fraction is in the outward signe, and not in the body of Christ, inuisibly present, and signified so to be present by that visible signe. The second note of this author is, touching reseruing, which Clement might seme to deny, because he ordered the remayne, to be receiued of the clerkes, thinking so best: not declaring expressely that nothing might be reserued to the vse of them that be absent. The contrary wherof, appereth by Iustine the Martire,Iustin. apol. 2., who testifieth a reseruation to be sent to them that were sicke, who and they dwell farre from the church, as they do in some places, it may by chaunce in the way, or trouble in the sick man, tary till the morning or it be receiued. And Cyrill writeth expresly,Cyrillus ad Calosyrium. Linnehood wrot a commet of the constitutions prouinceall of England. that in case it so doth, the mistical benediction (by which termes he calleth the sacrament) remayneth still in force. Whē this author findeth fault at hangyng vp of the sacrament, he blameth onelyonly his owne country and the Iles hereabout, which fault Linnehood, after he had trauayled other countreys found here, beyng the manner of custody in reseruation otherwise vsed then in other parties. But one thing this author should hauehave noted of Clements wordes, when he speketh of fearing and trembling, which and the bread were neuer the holier, as this author teacheth, and but onelyonly a signification, why should any mā fear or tremble more in theyr presence, then he doth when he heareth of Christes supper, the gospell red, or himself or an other saying his Crede, which in words signify as much as the bread doth if it be but a signification? And Peter Martyr sayth,Peter Martyr. A marueilous spech of Peter Martyr vnles he be a sacramē tary and thē he speaketh like himselfe. that wordes signify more clerely then these signes do, and sayth further in his disputation with Chedsay, that we receiue the body of Christ no lesse by wordes, then by the Sacramentall signes, which teaching if it were true, why should this Sacrament be trembled at? But because this author noteth the Epistle of Clement to be fayned, I will not make with him any foundation of it, but note to the reader the third note, gathered by this author of Clementes wordes, which is, that Priestes ought not to receiue alone, which the words of the epistle proue not. It sheweth in déed what was done, and how the feast is indéed prepared for the people, as well as the Priest.
And I neuer red any thing of order in law or ceremony forbidding the people to cō municate with the Priest, but all the old prayers and ceremonies sounded as the people did communicate with the Priest. And when the people is prepared for, and then come not, but fearyng and trēbling forbeare to come, that then the Priest might not receiue his part alone, the words of this epistle shew not. And Clemēt in that he speaketh so of leauings, semeth to thinke of that case of disappointment of the people that should come prouiding in that case the clearkes to receiue the residue, whereby should appeare, if ther we no store of clerkes, but onelyonly one clearke, as some poore churches hauehave no mo, then a man might rather make a note of clements mind, that in that case one Priest myght receiue all allone, and so vponupon a chaunce kepe the feast allone. But what soeuer we may gather, that note of this author remayneth vnproued, that the priest ought not to receiue alone.
And here I dare therefore ioyne an issue with this author,An issue. that none of his thrée fained notes is grounded of any wordes of this, that he noteth a fayned Epistle, taking only wordes that he alleageth here. This author vponupon occasion of this epistle, which he calleth fayned, speaketh more reuerently of the Sacrament then he doth in other places, which me think worthy to be noted of me. Here he sayth that very Christ himselfe is not onelyonly represented, but also spiritually geuen vntounto vsus in this table: for so I vnderstand the word (wherein.) And then if very Christ himselfe be represented and geuen in the table, the author meaneth not the materiall table, but by the word (table) the meat vponupon the table: as the word, Mensa, a table doth signify in the xvi. of the artes, & the x. of the Corinth.Act. 6. 1. Cor. 10. Now if very Christ himself be geuen in the meat, then is he presēt in the meat to be geuen. So as by this teaching very Christ himself is not onelyonly figuratiuely in the table, that is to say, the meat of the table, which this author now calleth representing, but is also spiritually geuen in the table as these wordes sound to me. But whether this author wil say very Christ himself is geuen spiritually in the meat, or by the meat, or with the meat, what scripture hath he to proue that he sayth, if the wordes of Christ be onelyonly a figuratiue spech, and the bread onelyonly signify Christes body? For if the wordes of the institution be but in figure, man cannot adde of his diuise any other substance or effect then ye words of christ purport, & so this supper, after this authors teaching in other places of his book, where he would hauehave it but a signification, shall be a bare memory of Christs death, and signify onelyonly such communication of Christ, as we hauehave otherwise by fayth in that benefite of his passion, without any speciall communication of the substaunce of his flesh in this Sacrament, beyng the same onelyonly a figure, if it were true that this author would persuade in the conclusion of this booke, although by the way he saith otherwise, for fear percase and trembling, that he conceiueth euen of an Epistle, which he himself saith is fayned.