Answer unto a Crafy and Sophistical Cavillation, Debate · Confutation of book 3 · Section 67 – Section 68
Caunterbury.
I Sayd very truely, when I sayd that such answere as I made to Hilary will serue for Cirill, for so will it do indeede, although you wrangle and striue therin neuer so much: For Cirill and Hilary entreate both of one matter, that we be vnited togither and with Christ not onelyonly in will, but also in nature, and be made one, not onelyonly in consent of godly religion, but also that Christ taking our corporall nature vponupon him, hath made vsus partakers of his godly nature, knitting vsus togither with him vntounto his father and to his holy spirit. Now let the indifferent reader iudge whether you or I be in errour, and whether of vsus both hath most neede to excuse himselfe of ignorance. Would god you were as ready, humbly to yeld in those manifest errours, which be proued agaynst you, as you be stout to take vponupon you a knowledge in those thinges, wherein ye be most ignoraunt. But foreign is a perilous witch.
Corporally.Now whereas I hauehave truly expounded this word (corporally) in Cirill, when he sayth that Christ dwelleth corporally in vsus, and hauehave declared how that word (corporally) as Cyrill vnderstandeth it, maketh nothing for your purpose, that Christes flesh should be corporally conteyned (as you vnderstand the matter) vnderunder the forme of bread (for he neyther sayth that Christ dwelleth corporally in the bread, nor that he dwelleth in them corporally, that be not liuely members of his body, nor that he dwelleth in his liuely members at such time onelyonly, as they receaue the Sacrament, nor that he dwelleth in vsus corporally, and not we in him: But he sayth as well that we dwell in him, as that he dwelleth in vsus) and whē I hauehave also declared that Cyrills meaning was this, that as the vine and branches be both of one nature, so the sonne of God taking vntounto him our humayne nature, and making vsus partakers of his diuine nature, geuing vntounto vsus immortality and euerlasting life, doth so dwell naturally and corporally in vsus, and maketh vsus to dwell naturally and corporally in him. And wheare as I hauehave proued this by Cyrills owne wordes, as well in that place in his tenth booke vponupon S. Iohns gospell the .xiii. chapiter, as in his fourth booke the .xvii. chapiter, you answere no more to all this, but say that I seeke in Cirill where it is not to be found, and seeke not where it is to be found. A substanciall answere be you sure, and a learned. For you do here like a keper which I knew once, required to follow a sute with his hound after one that had stolen a deare, And when his hound was in his right sute and had his game fresh before him: and came nere to the house and place where the deere, was in deed, after he had a little inkling that it was a speciall frend of his that killed the deare, and then being loth to find the sute, he plucked backe his hound, being in the right way, and appoynted him to hunt in an other place where the game was not: and so deceaued all them that followed him, as you would here doe to as many as will follow you. For you promise to bring the reader to a place, where he shall finde the meaning of this word (corporally) and when he commeth to the place where you appoynt, the word is spoken of there, but the meaning therof is not declared, neither by you nor by Cirill, in that place: And so the reader by your fayre promise is brought from the place, where the game is truely in deed, and brought to an other place, where he is vtterly disapoynted of that he sought for.
For where you send the reader to this place of Cirill: The sonne is vnited as man corporally vntounto vsus, by the misticall benediction spiritually as god, here in deed in this sentēce Cirill nameth this word (corporally) but he telleth not the meaning therof, which you promised the reader that he should fynde here.
Neuerthelesse Cirill meaneth no more by these wordes, but that Christ is vnited vntounto vsus two manner of wayes, by his body and by his spirite. And he is also a band and knot to bynd and ioyne vsus to his father, being knit in nature vntounto both, to vsus as a naturall man, and to his father as naturall God, & himselfe knitting vsus & God his father together.
And although Cirill say,Cirill. in Ioh. li. 9 c. vlt. ita ego naturaliter p…ēsum quia ex ipso natus, vos autem ex me, & ego in vobis etiam naturaliter. ea ratione qua homo factus sum. that Christ is vnited vntounto vsus corporally by the mistical benedictiō yet in yt place ye material benedictiō may well be vnderstād of his incarnatiō, which as Cirill and Hilary both call an hye mistery so was it to vsus a meruailous benedictiō, that he that was immortall God would become for vsus a mortall man: which mistery S. Paule sayth was without controuersye great, and was hid from the world, and at the last opened, that Gentils should be made partakers of the promises in Christ, which by his flesh came downe vntounto vsus.1. Tim. 3. Ephe. 3.
But to geue you all the aduantage that may be, I will graunt for your pleasure, that by the misticall benediction Cirill vnderstoode the sacrament of Christes flesh and bloud (as you say) and that Christ is therby vnited corporally, vntounto vsus. Yet sayth not Cirill that this vnity is onelyonly when we receaue ye sacramēt, nor extēdeth to all that receaue ye sacramēt, but vntounto thē yt being renued to a new life, be made partakers of the diuine nature, which nature Cirill himselfe vpō ye vi. chapiter of Iohn, declareth to be life. But he speaketh not one word of ye corporall presence of Christ in the fourmes of bread and wine, nor no more doth Hilary. And therfore I may well approue that I sayd, that the answer made vntounto Hilary, will very well also serue for Cirill. And yet neyther of them both hath one word, that serueth for your purpose, that Christes flesh and bloud should be in the sacrament vnderunder the formes of bread and wine.
And where you say that Christ vniteth himselfe to vsus as man, when he geueth his body in the sacramēt to such as worthely receaue it, if you will speake as Cirill and other old authors vse to do, Christ did vnite himselfe to vsus as man at his incarnation. And here agayne you geue euidence agaynst your owne issue, affirming our vnity vntounto Christ no further than we receaue the sacrament worthely. And then they that receaue it vnworthely, be not vnited corporally vntounto Christ, nor eate his flesh, nor drincke his bloud, which is the playne mynd both of Hilary & also of Cirill, and directly with ye state of my fourth booke, & agaynst your āswer to the same.
And here you pretending to declare agayne what is ment by this word (corporall) do tell the negatiue, that there is no grosenes ment therby, but the affirmatiue, what is ment therby, you declare not as you promised. But if you meane playnly, speake playnly, whether Christes body being in the sacrament vnderunder the fourmes of bread and wine, hauehave head, feete, armes, legges, backe and bely, eyes, eares and mouth, distinct and in due order and proportion? Which if he lacke, the simplest man or woman knoweth, that it can not be a perfect corporall mans body, but rather an imaginatiue or phantasticall body, as Martion and Ualētyne taught it to be. Expresse here fully and playnly, what manner of body you call this corporall body of Christ.
And where you say that I alleadge Cirill to deny in wordes the eating of a man, and to affirme the receauing in this sacrament to be onelyonly by fayth, and yet it shall appeare by further discussing (say you) that Cirill sayth not so. If you had not rubbed shame out of your forehed, you would not hauehave sayd, that he sayth not so, and be taken with so manifest an vntruth. For although you like a Gramarian, ruffle in your cases, Genders, numbers, and persons, (and in matters of no learning trouble the reader to shew your selfe learned) corrupting the Greeke, Latin and English, to draw them to your purpose, yet shall you neuer proue that Cirill speaketh of any other eating of Christ, but by fayth.
And to make the matter playne (which it semeth you yet vnderstand not) I shall shortly reherse, as well the argument of Nestorius, as the answer of Cirill. Nestorius the hereticke sayd,Nestorius. that Christ was but a pure man, and not God, and that he had but a common body such as other men hauehave, wherunto the Godhead was onelyonly assistant, as it is to other men. And to proue the same, he alleadged Christes owne wordes, when he sayd, He that eateth my flesh &c. and he that eateth me, and as ye liuing father sent me.Ihon. 6. And forasmuch as Christ sayd, that he had flesh, and was eaten and sent, and God cannot be eaten nor sent (sayd Nestorius) therfore concluded he, that Christ was not God, but man, whose flesh might be eaten and sent: whose grosse argumentation Cirill confuting sayth, that by his rude reasoning of eating, he draweth mens mindes wickedly to phansy of the eating of mans flesh (meaning of the eating therof with tooth and mouth) and so to imagine carnally and grosely such thinges, of Christ, as be vnderstand to be donne with an onelyonly and pure fayth. And as Nestorius made his argument of the eating of mans flesh, euen so did Cirill make his answer of the eating of the same, and not of the commixtion therof. For vntounto what purpose should commixtion serue in that place and wherunto should Christes body be commixted? Or why should Cirill charge Nestorius with cōmixtion in Christ, seeing that he was charged with the cleane contrary (as you say) that he seperated the natures in Christ, and did not confound and commixt them? And furthermore, if Nestorius had made his argument of the eating, and Cirill had made his answere of the commixtion, they had fowghten Andabatarum more (as the prouerbe sayth) like two blind men, that when the one striketh in one place, the other holdeth vp his buckler to defend in an other place. Therfore may all men iudge, that hauehave any iudgement at all, how vniustly you iudge and condemne that godly and excellent learned man. Decolampadius for this word foreign, which you say would be foreign, which word in Greeke I thinke was neuer read, nor hath in that place neyther sense nor reason. And what an heady and intollerable arrogancy is this of you, of your owne vayne coniecturing to alter the Greeke text without any Greeke copy to ground your selfe vponupon altering foreign into foreign, and foreign into foreign contrary to the translations of Decolampadius and Musculus, not whispred in corners, (as you with your rayling wordes would defame the matter) but published abroad to the world. And at the ende you conclude altogither with interrogation, contrary to the two translations which your selfe do alleadge, being printed the one at Basill, and the other at Colen. And you vsing such a licence to alter and change all thinges at your pleasure, are offended with Decolāpadius for changing of any case, gender, number, verbe or participle, yea for one tittell or pricke of interrogation, which liberty hath euer bene suffered in all interpretours, so they went not from the true sense. But you can spye a little mote in another mans eye, that can not see a great blocke in your owne.
Neuerthelesse if I should diuine without the booke (as you do) I would rather thinke that foreign should be foreign (for such smal errours in one letter, be easely committed in the printing) and than concluding with an Interrogation (as you would hauehave it) the sence of the Greeke should be this in English. Doth not Nestorius affirme, that he who was seene and sent, is an other sonne and Christ beside the word which is God of God? doth not he say, that our sacrament is the eating of a man, vnreuerently leading faythfull myndes vntounto vayne and grose imaginations? and going about to compasse with mans phantasy those thinges, which be receaued onelyonly with a pure and simple fayth? Where Cirill in these wordes reproueth Nestorius, in that he sayd, that our sacrament is the eating of a man. Doth not he himselfe affirme the contrary, that our sacrament is not the eating of a man, as I sayd in my booke? For els why should he reprehend Nestorius for saying the contrary? And doth not Cirill say also, that this sacrament is receaued onelyonly with a pure and simple fayth? And yet you fynde faulte with me, bicause I say, that Cirill affirmeth the receauing in this sacrament to be onelyonly by fayth, which, your saying being so manifest cōtrary to Cirills wordes, I referre me to the iudgement of all indifferent readers, what trust is to be geuen to you in this matter. And as for Decolampadius if the Printer in the steed of foreign made foreign and for foreign printed foreign (which may soone chāce in printing) thā may foreign be ye nominatiue case, notwithstā ding all your vehemēt inueying & vayne babling agaynst Decolāpadius.
Yet after your scurrilty and rayling agaynst Decolampadius, you temper your selfe somewhat, saying that in such as receaue the sacrament worthely, Christ dwelleth corporally, as Cirill sayth, and naturally and carnally as Hilary sayth. This is the third euidence which you geue agaynst your selfe, signifying that Christ is not corporally in them that receaue not the sacrament worthely.
And here you begin to smacke of some true vnderstanding, when you say that Christ dwelleth in them that worthely receaue the sacrament, so that you would adde therto, that he dwelleth not onelyonly in them when they receaue the sacrament, but whensoeuer by a liuely fayth, they spiritually eate his flesh and drincke his bloud.
And where you say, that by the variety of my doctrine it appeareth that I am not yet determined whether to go, you keepe still your olde conditions and shew your selfe to be alwayes one man, in this poynt to charge other men with your owne faultes. For where as my doctrine is throwly vniforme and constant, yours is so variable and vncertayne, that you agree with no man, nor with your selfe neyther, as I entend by gods grace particulerly to set out in the ende of my booke.
And in these ii. authors Hilary and Cirill, you vary three tymes from your answer vntounto my iiii. booke. For here you say no more, but that Christ is corporally in them that receaue the sacrament worthely: and in the answere to my iiii. booke you say, that he is corporally in all them that receaue the sacrament, whether it be worthely or vnworthely. Now foloweth thus in my booke.
Basilius. Nissenus and Nazianzenus.And here may be well enough passed ouer Basilius, Gregorius Nissenus, and Gregorius Nazianzenus, partely bicause they speake little of this matter, & partly bicause they may be easely āswered vntounto, by that which is before declared & oftē repeted, which is, that a figure hath the name of the thing wherof it is the figure & therfore of the figure may be spoken the same thing that may be spokē of the thing it selfe. And as cōcerning the eating of Christs flesh & drincking of his bloud, they spake of the spirituall eating & drincking therof by fayth, & not of corporal eating and drincking with the mouth and teeth.
Winchester.
Basilius. Grego. Nissenus. Grego. Nazianzenus. Messaliani heretici.As for Basill, Gregory Nissen, and Gregory Nazianzen, this author sayth they speake little of this matter, and indeede they spake not so much as other doe, but that they speake is not discrepant, nor contrarieth not that other afore them had written. For in the olde church, the truth of this mistery was neuer impugned openly and directly that we reade of, before Berengarius. v. C. yeares past, and secretly by one Bertrame before that, but onelyonly by the Messalians, who sayd the corporall eating did neither good nor hurt.
Antropomorphitae. Nestoriani.The Antropomorphites also, who sayd the vertue of the misticall benediction endured not to the next day, of whome Cirill speaketh, and the Nestorians by consecution of their learning, that deuided Christes flesh from the deity. And where this author would hauehave taken for a true supposall that Basill, Gregory Nazianzene and Nissene, should take the sacrament to be figuratiue onelyonly,OnelyOnly. that is to be denyed. And likewise it is not true that this author teacheth, that of the figure may be spoken the same thing that may be spoken of the thing it selfe. And that I will declare thus. Of the thing it selfe, that is, Christes very body being present indeede, it may be sayd, Adore it, worship it there, which may not besayd of the figure.
It may be sayd of the very thing being present there, that it is a highe miracle to be there, it is aboue nature to be there, it is an high secret mistery to be there. But none of these speaches can be conueniently sayd of the onelyonly figure, that it is such a miracle, so aboue nature, so high a mistery to be a figure. And therfore it is no true doctrine to teach, that we may say the same of the figure, that may be sayd of ye thing it selfe. And where this author speaketh of ye spiritual eating, & corporal eating, he remayneth in his ignorāce, what ye word corporal meaneth, which I hauehave opened in discussing of his answere to Cirill. Fayth is required in him that shall eate spiritually, and the corporall eating institute in Christes supper,Of corporal in … ducation. lege Rosseum. et O Ecolampadius. lib. 3. cap 13. Augu. In Io…n. tract. xxvi. requireth the reuerent vse of mans mouth, to receiue our Lords meat & drinke, his owne very flesh and bloud, by his omnipotency prepared in that supper, which not spiritually, that is to say, not innocently (as S. Angustine in one place expoūdeth spiritually) receiued, bringeth iudgement and condempnation, according to S Paules wordes.