Answer unto a Crafy and Sophistical Cavillation, Debate · Confutation of book 3 · Section 53 – Section 54
Canterbury.
IT is no maruayle though this Epistle fayned by the Papistes many yeres passed, doe vary from the Papistes in these latter dayes. For the Papisticall church at the beginning was not so corrupt as it was after, but from time to tyme encreased in errours and corruption more & more, and still dooth, acording to S. Paules saying:1 Tim. 3. Euill men and deceiuers waxe euer worse, both leading other into errour, and erring them selues. For at the first beginning they had no priuate Masses, no pardons in purgatory, no reseruation of the bread, they knew no masses of Scala coeli, no Lady psalters, no transubstantiation: but of latter dayes all these, and an infinite number of errors besides, wer inuented and deuised without any aucthority of Gods word. As your selfe hauehave newly inuented a great sort of new deuises contrary to the Papists before your tyme, as that Christ is in the sacrament carnally and naturally: that the demonstration was made vponupon the bread when Christ sayd, This is my body: that the word (satisfactorie) signifyeth no more, but the Priest to do his duety, with many other things, which here for shortnes of tyme, I will omit at this present, purposing to speake of them more hereafter. And the epistles of Clement were fayned before the Papistes had run so far in errors as they be now. For yet at that tyme was not inuented (as I sayd) the error of transubstantiation, nor the reseruation of the sacrament, nor the priestes did not communicate alone without the people. But that the sayd epistle of Clement was fayned,Clements epistles fayned. be many most certayne arguments. For there be v. epistles of Clemēt so knit together, and referring one to an other, that if one be fayned, all must needes be fayned.
Now neither Eusebius in Ecclesiastica historia, nor S. Hierom, nor Gennadius, nor any other old writer maketh any me…tion of those epistles, which authors in rehersing what workes Clement wrotte, (not leauing out so much as one epistle of his) would surely hauehave made some mention of the v. Epistles which the papistes long before our tyme fayned in his name, if there had ben any such in their time.
Moreouer those Epistles make mention, that Clement at Iames request wrot vntounto him the maner of Peters death, but how could that be, seyng that Iames was dead vii. yeres before Peter? For Iames died ye vii. yere. And Peter the xiiii. yere of Nero the Emperour.
Thirdly, it is contayned in the same epistles, that Peter made Clemēt his successor, which could not be true, forasmuch as next to Peter succeeded Linus, as all the histories tel.
Fourthly the author of those Epistles sayth, that he made the booke called Itenerarium Clementis, which was but fayned in Clements name, as it is declared dist. 15. Sancta. And then it followeth likewise of the other Epistles.
Fiftely, the author of those Epistles taketh vponupon him to instruct S. Iames in the sacraments, and in all manner fashion how he should vse himself in his vocation, as he should say, yt Iames (who learned of Christ himself) knew not how to vse himselfe in the necessary poynts of Christes religion, except Clement must teach him.
Sixtly, there be few things in those epistles, that either be obserued at this day, or were at any tyme obserued sithens Christes religion fyrst beganne.
Seuenthly, a great number of scriptures in those Epistles be so far wrasted from the true sence thereof, that they hauehave an euill opinion of Clemēt that thinke that he would do such iniury to Gods word.
Eightly, those epistles spake of Palles, and Archdeacons, and other inferior orders, which is not like that those things began so soone, but (as the histories) were inuented many yeres after Peters tyme.
And finally, in one of those epistles is contayned a most pernicious heresy, that al things ought to be common, and wives also, which could not be the doctrine of Clement, being the most pestilent errour of the Nicholaites, whom the holy ghost doth hate, as he testifieth in the Apocalips.Apoc. 2..
Now all these things considered, who hauing either wit or good opinion of the Apostles and their disciples, can thinke that they should write any such epistles?
But the Epistle of S. Clement (say you) speaketh not of bread,Clement spake of bread. what was it then I pray you that he ment, when he spake of the brokē peces in the Lords supper? Yf it were not bread, it must be some other thing which Christ did eat at that supper. Paraduēture you will say (as some stick not to say now a dayes) that Christ had some other meat at that supper then bred as if he fared daintely (which we neuer read) you might imagine he had capon, partrich, or fesaunt, or if he fared hardly, at the least you would say he had cheese to eat with his bread, because you will defend that he did not eat dry bread alone. Such vayne phantasies men may hauehave, that will speak without Gods word, which maketh mention in that holy supper of nothing, but of bread and wine. But let it be that Christ had as many dishes as you can deuise, yet I trust you will not say, that he called all those his body, but onelyonly the bread. And so S. Clement speaking of the broken peeces of the Lords body, of the residue and fragments of the Lords body, of the portion and leauing of the Lords body, must needes speak all this of bread. And thus is if manifest false that you say, that the epistle of Clement speaketh nothing of bread.
And then forasmuch as he calleth the leauings of ye same, the brokē peeces of the Lords body, and the fragments and portion therof, he calleth ye fragments and portion of the Lordes body, he sheweth that the bread remayneth, and that the calling therof the lords body is a figuratiue speech. The body of Christ hath no fragments nor broken peces, and therfore the calling here is so materiall,Calling of bread is materiall. that it proueth fully the matter, that to call bread Christs body, is a figuratiue speech. And although to auoid the matter you deuise subtill cauillatious, saying that calling is not materiall, because it signifieth that was: Yet they that hauehave vnderstanding, may soon discerne what a vayne shift this is, imagined onelyonly to blynd the ignorant readers eyes. But if that which is bread before ye consecration, be after no bread, and if it be agaynst the Christen fayth to think that it is still bread, what occasion of errour should this be, to call it still bread after consecration? Ys not this a great occasion of errour to call it bread still, if it be not bread still?
And yet in this place of Clement the calling can in no wise signify that was before consecration, but must needes signify that is after consecration. For this place speaketh of fragments, broken peeces, and leauings, which can hauehave no true vnderstanding before consecration, at what time there be yet no broken peeces, fragments, nor leauings, but be all done after consecration.
But you wrangle so much in this matter to auoyd absurdities, that you snarle your self into so many and haynous absurdities, as you shall neuer be able to winde your selfe out. For you say that Christes body (which in all the hostes, and in all the partes of the hostes is but one, not broken, nor distributed) is called the leauing peeces of the body, portiō of the body, residue of the body, & yet eueryevery peece is Christs whole body, which things to be spoken of Christes body, christian eares abhore for to heare. And if you will say, that your booke is false, that you meant al these leauing peeces, portion, and residue, to be vnderstand of the hostes, and not of Christs body, then you confesse the hostes which be broken, to be called by name the leauings or peeces of Christs body, the portion of his body, the residue of his body, by a figuratiue spech, which is as much as I speake in my first note. And so appeareth how vaynely you hauehave traueled for the confutation of my first note.
Of reseruationNow as touching the second note: Clement declareth expressely, that nothing might be reserued. For where he sayth, that if any thing remain, it must not be kept vntill the morning, but be spent and consumed of the clearkes: how could he declare more playnly, that nothing might be reserued, then by those wordes?
And as for Iustine he speaketh not one word of sicke persons, as you report of hym.
And concerning Cirill ad Calosyrium, would to God that worke of Cyrill might come abroad, (for I doubt not but it would clerely discusse this matter) but I feare that some Papistes will suppresse it, that it shall neuer come to light. And where you say, that Linehood found fault with his owne countrey of England, and blamed this realme, because they hā ged vp the sacrament, contrary to the vse of other countreyes: You hauehave well excused me, that I am not the first finder of this fault, but many yeares ago that fault was found, & that it was not the vse of other countreys to hang it vp. And yet the vse of other countreys was fonde inough euen as they had charge & commandement from Innocentius the third and Honorius the third.
Receiuing with feare and trembling.And as for the receiuing of the Sacrament with feare and trembling ought not they that be baptised in theyr old age, or in yeres of discression, come to the water of Baptisme with feare and trembling, as well as to the Lords supper? Think you that Symon Magus was not in as great damnation for the vnworthy receyuing of Baptisme, as Iudas was for the vnworthy receyuing of the Lordes supper? And yet you will not say, that Christ is really and corporally in the water, but that the washing in the water is an outward signification and figure, declaring what God worketh inwardly in them that truely be baptised. And likewise speaketh this Epistle of the holy communion. For eueryevery good christian man ought to come to Christes sacraments, with great feare, humility, fayth, louelove, and charitie.
Aug. 50. homiliarum hom. 26.And S. Augustine sayth, that the Gospell is to be receaued or heard with no lesse feare and reuerence, than the body of Christ. Whose wordes be these. Interrogo vos fratres & sorores, dicite mihi: Quid? vobis plus esse videtur, verbum dei an corpus Christi? Si vere vultis respondere, hoc vtique dicere debetis, quod non sit minus verbum dei quam corpus Christi. Et ideo quanta solicitudine obseruamus, quando nobis corpus Christi ministratur, vt nihil ex ipso, de nostris manibus in terram cadat, tanta solicitudine obseruemus, ne verbum Dei quod nobis erogatur, dum aliquid aut cogitamus aut loquimur, de corde nostro pereat: quia non minus reus erit qui verbum Dei negligenter audierit, quam ille qui corpus Christi in terram cadere sua negligentia permiserit.
I ask this question of you brethren and sisterne (sayth S. Augustine:) aunswer me, Whether you think greater, the word of God, or the body of Christ? If you will answer the truth, verely you ought to say thus: That the word of God is no lesse then the body of Christ. And therfore with what carefullnes we take heed when the body of Christ is ministred vntounto vsus, that no part therof fall out of our handes on the earth, with as great carefulnes let vsus take heede, that the word of God which is ministred vntounto vsus, when we think or speake of vayne matters, perish not out of our hartes. For he that heareth the word of God negligently shall be giltie of no lesse fault, then he that suffereth the body of Christ to fall vponupon the ground thorough his negligence. This is the mynd of S. Augustine. And as much we hauehave in Scripture for the reuerent hearing and reading of God his holy word, or the neglecting therof, as we hauehave for the sacramentes.
But it semeth by your penne and vtteraunce of this matter,The causes of feare & trembling. that you vnderstand not the ground and cause, wherupon should arise the great feare and trembling in their hartes, that come to receaue ye sacramentes: for you shew another consideration therof, than the scripture doth. For you seeme to driue all the cause of feare, to the dignitie of ye body of Christ, there corporally present and receaued, but ye scripture declareth the feare to ryse of the indignitie and vnworthines of the receauers. He that eateth and drinketh vnworthely (threatneth Gods word) eateth and drinketh his owne damnation.
And Centurio considering his own vnworthines was abashed to receaue Christ into his house, saying:Math. 8. Lord, I am not worthy that thou shouldest come vnderunder the couering of my house. And ye same thing made Peter afrayd to be neare vntounto Christ, and to say:Luc. 5. Go from me O Lord, for I am a sinner. And all Christian men ought not to feare & tremble onelyonly whan they receaue the sacramentes, but when soeuer they heare Gods word, and threatninges pronounced agaynst sinners.
Now as concerning the third note, thou shalt see playnly good reader,The people receyued with ye priestes. that here is nothing here aunswered directly, but meere cauilations sought, and shift to auoyde. For if all the old prayers and ceremonies sound, as the people did communicate with the priest (as you say they do, and so they do in dede, and that as well in the communion of drinking as eating) than eyther the people did cōmunicate with them indeede, and receaued the Sacrament vnderunder both the kindes, or else the prayers had ben false, & the ceremonies frustrate, and in vayne. And is it like, that the priests in that time would hauehave vsed vntounto God such vntrue prayers, as should declare that the people did communicate with thē, if indeed none did communicate with them? as it should hauehave bene, by your imagined chances, and cases.
But it apeareth by the wordes of the Epistle, that the whole multitude of the people that was present, did communicate at those dayes, so that the priest could not communicate alone, except he would communicate whan no man was in the church. But by the aunswer of this sophister here in this place, thou mayst see an experience, good reader, whether he be as redy to see those thinges that make agaynst him, as he is paynfull and studious to draw, as it were by force, all thinges to his purpose, to make them, at the least, to seme to make for him, although they be neuer so much agaynst him. As appeareth by all these his suppositions, that all the people which were prepared for, should in those dayes withdraw them selues from the communion, and not one of them come vntounto it: that the clarkes should receaue all that was prouided for the people: that one clerke should receaue that which many clerkes ought to hauehave receaued. And so in conclusiō by onelyonly his fayned suppositions he would perswade, that the priest should receaue all alone.
By such prety cases, of the people disapoynting the priestes: and of lacke of store of clerkes, you might dayly finde cauilations with all godly ordenaunces. For where as God ordayned the pascall lambe to be eaten vp cleane in eueryevery house:The Paschall Lamb. and where there were not inough in one house to eat vp the Lambe, they should call of their neighbours so many as should suffice to eate vp the hole Lambe, so yt nothing should remayne: Here you might bring in your (vponupon a chance) that they that lacked company to eate vp a hole Lambe, dwelt alone far from other houses, and could not come together: or could not gette any such Lambe as was appoynted for the feast, or if their neighbours lacked company also. And what if they had no spitte to rost the lambe? And where as it was commaunded, yt they should be shooed, what if perchance they had no shooes? And if perchaunce a mans wife were not at home, and all his seruaunts falled sike of the sweat, or plague, and no man durst come to his house, then must he turne the spitte him selfe, and eate the Lambe all alone? Such chances you purposely deuise, to establishe your priuat Masse, that the priest may eate all alone. But by such a lyke reason as you make here, a man might proue, that the priest should preach or say mattens to him selfe alone, in case (as you say) that the people which should come, would disapoynt him. For what if the people disapoynt the priest (say you) and come not to ye communion? What if the people disapoynt ye priest (say I) and come not to mattens nor sermon? shall he therfore say mattens and preach, whan no man is present but him selfe alone? But your imagined case hath such an absurditie in it, as is not tollerable to be thought to hauehave beene in Christian people in that tyme, when Clements Epistles were written, that when all the people should receaue the communion with the priest, yet not one would come, but all would disapoynt him. And yet in that case I doubt not, but the priest would hauehave absteined from ministration vntounto more opportunitie and more accesse of Christian people, as he would hauehave done likewise in saying of mattens and preaching. Wherfore in your case I might well answer you,…, aduersus Iouinianum, lib. 1. as S. Hierom answered the argument made in the name of the heretike Iouinian, which myght be brought agaynst the commendation of virginitie. What if all men would liue virgines, and no man marry? How should then the world be mayntayned? What if heauen fall, sayd S. Hierom? What if no man will come to ye church, is your argument for all that came in those dayes receaued the communion. What if heauen fall say I? For I hauehave not so euill opinion of the holy church in those dayes, to think that any such thing could chaunce among them, that no one would come, when all ought to hauehave come.
Now when you come to your issue, you make your case to straight for me to ioyne an issue with you,Min… issue. bynding me to the bare and onelyonly wordes of Clement, and refusing vtterly his mynd. But take the wordes and the mynd together, and I dare aduenture an Issue to passe by any indiferent readers, that I hauehave proued all my three notes.
And where you say, that vponupon occasion of this epistle, I speake more reuerently of the sacrament, then I do in other places: if you were not giuen all together to calumniate and depraue my words, you should perceaue in all my booke thorough (euen from the beginning to the end therof) a constant and perpetuall reuerence, giuen vntounto the sacramentes of Christ, such as of dutie, all Christian men ought to giuegive.
Neuerthelesse you interpret this word (Wherin) farre from my meaning. For I meane not that Christ is spiritually eyther in the table, or in the bread and wine that be sette vponupon the table: but I meane that he is present in the ministration and receauing of that holy supper, according to his owne institution and ordinaunce. Like as in baptisme Christ and the holy ghost be not in the water, or fonte, but be giuen in the ministration, or to them thāt be duly baptised in the water.
And although the sacramental tokens be onelyonly significations and figures,Bare significacions. yet doth almighty God effectually work in them yt duely receaue his sacramentes, those deuine and celestiall operations, which he hath promised, and by the sacramentes be signified. For else they were vayne and vnfrutfull Sacramentes, as well to the godly as to the vngodly. And therfore I neuer sayd of the whole supper, that it is but a significatiō or a bare memory of Christes death, but I teach that it is a spirituall refreshing, wherein our soules be fedde and nourished with Christes very flesh and bloud to eternall life. And therfore bring you forth some place in my booke, where I say, that ye Lordes suppper is but a bare signification without any effect or operation of God in the same, or else eate your wordes agayne, and knowledge that you vntruly report me.
But heare what followeth further in my book.
Here I passe ouer Ignatius and Ireneus,Ignatius in episto. ad Ephesianos. Irenaeus. lib 5. contra Valentin. which make nothing for the papists opinions, but stand in the commendation of the holy Communion, and in exhortation of all men to the often and godly receauing therof. And yet neither they nor no man else, can extoll and commend the same sufficiently, according to the dignitie therof, if it be godly vsed as it ought to be.
Winchester.
This author sayth he passeth ouer Ignatius and Ireneus, and why? Bicause they make nothing (he sayth) for the Papistes purpose.Ignatius. Irenaeus. With the word papist the author playth at his pleasure. But it shal be euident that Irene doth playnly confound this authors purpose, in the deniall of the true presence of Christes very flesh in the sacramēt: who although he vse not the wordes reall and substanciall, yet he doth effectually comprehend in his speach of the sacrameut the vertue aud strength of those wordes. And for the truth of the sacrament is Ireneus specially alleaged, in so much as Melanghton when he writeth to Decolampadius,Philip. Melanct yt he will alleage none but such as speake playnly, he alleageth Ireneus for one, as apeareth by his sayd Epistle to Decolampadius. And Decolampadius himselfe is not troubled so much with answering any other to shape any manner of euasion, as to answer Ireneus, in whome he notably stumbleth. And Peter Martyr in his work graunteth Irene to be specially alledged, to whome (when he goeth about to answer) a man may euidently see how he masketh him selfe. And this author bringeth in Clementes epistle, of which no great count is made, although it be not contemned: and passeth ouer Ireneus that speaketh euidently in the matter, and was as old as Clement or not much yonger. And bicause Ignatius was of that age, and is alleadged by Theodorete to hauehave written in his epistle ad Smirnenses, whereof may apeare his fayth of the mistery of the sacrament, it shall serue to good purpose, to write in the wordes of the same Ignatius here vponupon the credite of the sayd Theodoret,Theodoret. Dialogo. 3. whome this author so much commendeth, the wordes of Ignatius be these: Eucharistias & oblationes non admittunt, quod non confiteantur Eucharistiam esse carnem seruatoris nostri Iesu Christi, quae pro peccatis nostris passa est, quam pater sua benignitate suscitauit. Which wordes be thus much in english, they do not admitte (Eucharistias and oblations) bycause they do not confesse Eucharistiam to be the flesh of our sauiour Iesu Christ: which flesh suffered for our sinnes, which flesh the father by his benignitie hath stirred vp. These be Ignatius wordes, which I hauehave not throughly englished, bicause the word Eucharistia can not be well englished, being a word of mistery, and signifieng (as Ireneus openeth) both the partes of the sacrament, heauenly and earthly, visible and inuisible. But in that Ignatius openeth his fayth, thus he taketh Eucharistia to be the flesh of our sauiour Christ that suffered for vsus, he declareth the sence of Christes wordes. This is my body, not to be figuratiue onelyonly, but to expresse the truth of the very flesh there giuen: and therfore (Ignatius sayth) Eucharistia, is the flesh of our sauior Christ, the same that suffered and the same that rose agayne. Which wordes of Ignatius so pithely open the matter, as they declare therwith the fayth also of Theodoret that doth alleage him, so as if the author would make so absolute a worke, as to peruse all the fathers sayinges, he should not thus leape ouer Ignatius, nor Irene neither, as I hauehave before declared. But this is a color of rethorik called (Reiection) of that is hard to answer, and is here a prety shift or slaight,Sleight. wherby (thou reader) mayst consider how this matter is handled.