Answer unto a Crafy and Sophistical Cavillation, Debate · Confutation of book 3 · Section 57 – Section 59
Canterbury.
I Aske no more of the reader, but to read my book, and thē to iudge how much I am troubled with this author. And why may not I cite ye grek commentaryes for testimony of the truth? Is this to be termed a callyng for ayd? Why is not then the allegation of all authors a calling for ayde. Is not your doing rather a caling for ayd, when you be fayne to flye for succor to Martin Luther, Bucer, Melancthon, Epinius, Ionas, Peter Marter, and such other, whom al the world knoweth you neuer fauored, but euer abhorred their names? May not this be termed a calling for ayd when you be driuen to such a straight and need, that you be glad to cry to such men for helpe, whom euer you hauehave hindered and defamed asmuch as lay in you to do?
And as for pleading of those wordes, (really, corporally, sensibly and naturally) they be your owne termes, and the termes wherein resteth the whole contention betweene you and me: and should you be offended because I speak of those termes? It appeareth now that you be loth to here of those wordes, and would very gladly hauehave them put in silence, and so should the variance betweene you and me clearely ended. For if you will confesse, that the body of Christ is not in the sacrament really, corporally, sensibly, and naturally, then you and I shal shake hands, and be both earnest frends to the truth.
Really and sensybly be not foūd in any old author.And yet one thing you do here confesse (which is worthy to be noted & had in memory) that you read not in any old author, that ye body of Christ is really and sensibly in the sacrament. And hereunto I adde, that none of them say, that he is the bread and wine, corporally nor naturally. No neuer no papist said, that Christes body is in …he sacrament naturally nor carnally, but you alone, (who be the first au…, or of this gros error, which Smith himself condēneth and denieth,Smyth. that euer Christiā man so taught) although some say that it is there really, some substantially, and some sensibly.
Now as concerning the high mistery which S. Denys speaketh of, he declareth the same to be in the meruelous and secret working of God in his reasonable creatures (beyng made after his image and being his liuely temples, and Christes misticall body) and not in the vnreasonable and vnsensible and vnliuely creatures of bread and wine, wherin you say the deep and darke mistery standeth. But notwithstanding any holines or godlines wrought in the receauers of them, yet they be not the more holy or godly in themselfes,Holines in the sacraments. but be only tokens, significations, and sacraments of that holines, which almighty God by his omnipotent power worketh in vsus. And for their holy significations they hauehave ye name of holines which almighty god by his omnipotent power worketh in vsus. And for their holy significations they hauehave the name of holynes, as the water in baptisme is called aqua sanctificans: Vnda regenerans, Halowing or regenerating water, because it is the sacrament of regeneration, and sanctification.
Christ in our hands.Now as concerning Chrisostomes saying, that Christ is in our hands, Chrisostome saith (as I hauehave rehearsed in my book) not onelyonly that he is in our hands, but also that we se him with our eyes, touch him him, feele him and grope him, fixe our teeth in his flesh, tast it, breake it, eat it, and digest it, make red our tongues, and dye them with his bloud &c. which thinges cannot be vnderstand of the body and bloud of Christ, but by a figuratiue speech, as I hauehave more at large declared in my iiii. book the viii. Chapter. And therfore S. Augustine De verbis Domini sermone. xxxiij. saith cleane cō trary to Chrisostome,Augustinus de verbis domini sermone. 3.3. that we touch not Christ with our hands, Non tangi mus Dominum saith he. This speech therfore of Chrisostome declareth not ye inward worke of God in the substaunce of the visible sacrament, but signifieth what God worketh inwardly in true beleuers.
And whereas you say, that my notes be Descant voluntary without ye Tenour part, I hauehave named both the booke and chapter, where S. Dyonyse telleth how the priest when he commeth to the receauing of the sacraments, he deuideth the bread in peeces, and distributeth the same to all yt be present: which one sentence contayneth sufficiently all my three notes. So that if you be disposed to call my notes Descant, there you may finde the playne song or tenor part of them. And it is no maruel that you cannot iudge well of my Descant, when you see not or will not see the Plain song wherupon the descant was made.
Now followeth Tertullian of whom I write thus.
Furthermore they do alledge Tertullian that he constantly affirmeth,The aunswere to Tertullianus De resurrectione ca…nis, that in the sacrament of the alter we do eat the body and drinke the bloud of our sauiour Christ. To whom we graūt that our flesh eateth and drinketh the bread & wine, which be called the body & bloud of Christ because (as Tertullian saith) they do represent his body and bloud, although they be not really the same in very deed. And we graunt also, that our soules by fayth do eat his very body & drink his bloud, but that is spiritually, sucking out of the same euerlasting life. But we deny that vntounto this spirituall feeding is requiring any reall and corporall presence.
And therfore this Tertullian speaketh nothing against the truth of our catholick doctrine, but he speaketh many things most playnly for vsus, and agaynst the Papists, and specially in three poynts.
First in that he sayth that Christ called bread his body.
The second, that Christ called it so, because it representeth his body.
The third, in that he sayth, that by these wordes of Christ, This is my body, is ment, This is a figure of my body.
Winchester.
Of Tertullian I hauehave spoken before, and so hath this author also forgottē here one notable thing in Tertullian,Tertullianus. where Tertullian sayth, that Christ made the bread his body, not only called it so, as appeare by Tertullians words reported by this author before. This note that I make now of Tertullian, maketh agaynst this authors purpose, but yet it maketh with the truth, which (this author) should not impugne. The second note gathered of Tertullian by this author is not true: for Christ called it his body, and made it his body, as Tertullian sayth. Aud the third note of this author is in controuersy of reading, and must be so vnderstanded, as may agrée with the rest of Tertullians sayings, which after my reading, doth euidētly proue, and at the least doth not improue the catholick doctrine of Christes church vniuersally receiued, although it improueth yet which this author calleth here our catholique doctrine most imprudently and vntruely reporting the same.
Canterbury.
I Desire no more but that the reader will looke vponupon the place of Tertullian before mentioned, and see what you speak there, & what is mine answere therto, and so confer them togither and iudge.
And that the reader will note also, that here couertly you hauehave granted my first note, that Christ called bread his body, but so slyely, that the reader should not by your will perceaue it. And where you deny my second note vponupon Tertullian, yt Christ called it his body, because it represented his body, the words of Tertulliā be these, that Christ reproueth not bread, wherin he representeth his owne body. As for my third note, yet once agayne reader I beseech thee turne back and looke vponupon the place, how this lawyer hath expounded Tertulliā, if thou canst with patience abide to here of so foolish a glose.
And where he sayth, that this author Tertullian must be so vnderstād, as may agrée with the rest of his sayings, would to God you would so do not onelyonly in Tertullian, but also in all other authors, for then our controuersy should be soone at a poynt. And it is a most shameles impudency of you, to affirme that the catholick church vniuersally teacheth that Christ is really, sensibly, corporally, naturally, carnally, and substantially present in the visible formes of bread and wine, seing that you cannot proue any one of these your sayings, either by scripture or by ye consent of the catholick church, but onelyonly by the Papisticall church, which now many yeres hath borne the whole swinge. Now followeth Origen, to whom I aunswere thus.
The answere to Origen Numer. homil. 7.Moreouer they alleage for them Origen (because they would seme to hauehave many auncient authors, fauorers of their erronius doctrine) which Origen is most clearely agaynst them. For although he do say (as they alleage) that those things which before were signifyed by obscure figures, be now truely, indeede and in their very nature and kind, accōplished & fulfilled: And for the declaratiō therof, he bringeth forth three exāples: One of the stone that floweth water, an other of the sea and cloud, and the third of Manna, which in the olde testament did signify Christ to come, who is now come indeed, and is manifested and exhibited vntounto vsus, as it were face to face, and sensibly in his word, in the sacrament of regeneration, and the sacraments of bread and wine: Yet Origen ment not, that Christ is corporally either in his word, or in the water of baptisme, or in the bread and wine: nor that we carnally and corporally be regenerated and borne agayne, or eat Christes flesh and bloud. For our regeneration in Christ is spirituall, and our eating and drinking is a spirituall feeding, which kind of regeneration and feeding requireth no reall and corporall presence of Christ, but onelyonly his presence in spirit, grace, and effectuall operation.
And that Origen thus ment, that Christes flesh is a spirituall meat, and hys bloud a spirituall drink, and that the eating and drinking of his flesh and bloud may not be vnderstand litterally but spiritually, it is manifested by Origens own words, in his seuenth Homily vponupon the booke called Leuiticus:In Leuit. homil. 7. where he sheweth that those words must be vnderstand figuratiuely, and whosoeuer vnderstandeth them otherwise, they be deceiued, and take harme by their owne grosse vnderstanding.