Answer unto a Crafy and Sophistical Cavillation, Debate · Confutation of book 3 · Section 73
Caunterbury.
IT is not I that wrastle with S. Ambrose, but you, who take great payne to wrast his wordes cleane contrary to his intent and meaning But where you aske this question, What can be more playne then these wordes of S. Ambrose,Whether breade be Christes body. It is bread before consecration, and after it is Christes body? These words of S. Ambrose be not fully so playne as you pretend, but cleane contrary. For what can be spokē eyther more vnplayn or vntrue, then to say of bread after consecration, that it is the bodye of Christ, vnles the same be vnderstand in a figuratiue spech? For although Christes bodye (as you say) be there after consecration, yet the bread is not his body, nor his body is not made of itby your confession. And therfore the saying of S. Ambrose that it is Christes body can not be true in playne spech. And therfore S. Ambrose in the same place, where he calleth it the body and bloud of Christ, he sayth it is a figure of his body and bloud. For these be his words, Quod ex figura corporis & sanguinis domini nostri Iesu Christs,
And as for the word (consecration) I hauehave declared the signification therof, according to the mind of the old authors, as I will iustify.
And for the writing of Melancthon to Decolampadius, you remayne still in your old error,A sacramentall change. taking Myconius for Decolampadius. And yet the change of bread and wine in this sacrament (which Melancthon speaketh of) is a sacramental change (as the nature of a sacramēt requireth) signifying how wonderfully almighty God by his omnipotēcy worketh in vsus his liuely members, and not in the dead creatures of bread and wine.
And the chaunge is in the vse, and not in the elements kept and reserued, wherein is not the perfection of a sacrament. Therefore as water in the fonte or vessell, hath not the reason and nature of a sacrament, but when it is put to the vse of christening, and then it is changed into the proper nature and kinde of a sacrament, to signifye the wonderfull chaunge which almighty God by his omnipotency worketh really in them that be baptised therewith, such is the chaunge of the breade and wine in the Lordes supper. And therefore the bread is called Christes bodye after consecration (as S. Ambrose sayth) and yet it is not so really but sacramentally. For it is neither Christes misticall body (for that is the congregation of the faythfull dispersed abroad in the world) nor hys naturall bodye (for that is in heauen) but it is the sacrament both of his true naturall body, and also of his misticall body, and for that consideration hath the name of his body, as a sacrament or signe may beare ye name of the very thing that is signified and represented therby.
And as for the foresayd books intituled to S. Ambrose, if I ioyned Ambrose with Clement, & should say that ye sayd bookes intiuled in the name of S. Ambrose de sacramentis, & de misterijs iniciandis were none of his, I should say but as I thinke, and as they do thinke that be men of most excellent learning and iudgement, as I declared in my second book, which speaketh of transubstantiation. And so dooth iudge not onelyonly Erasmus, but also Melancthon (whom you alleadge for authority when he maketh for your purpose) suspecteth the same. And yet I playnly denye not these bookes to be his (for your pleasure to geue you asmuch aduauntage, as you can aske) and yet it auaileth you nothing at all.
But here I cannot passeouer, that you be offended, because I say, that bread & wine be called holy,Holy bread. when they be put to an holy vse, not that they hauehave any holines in them, or be partakers of any holinesse or godlines. I would fayne learn of Smith and you, when the bread and wine be holy. For before they be holowed or consecrated they be not holy by your teaching, but be common bakers bread, and wine of the tauerne. And after the consecration, there is neyther bread nor wine (as you teach,) at what tyme then should the bread and wine be holy? But the creatures of bread and wine be much bound vntounto you, and can no lesse do, then take you for their sauior. For if you can make them holy and godly, then shall you glorifie them, and so bryng them to eternall blisse. And then may you aswell saue the true laboring bullocks and innocēt shepe and lambes, and so vnderstand the prophet, Homines & iumenta saluabis domine.Psal. 39.
But to admonish the reader (say you) how the bread and wine hauehave no holynes, this fortune of spech not vnderstand of the people, engendreth some scruple that nedeth not. By which your saying I cannot tel what ye people may vnderstand, but that you hauehave a great scruple that you hauehave lost your holy bread. And yet S. Paule speaketh not of your holy bread as you imagine being vtterly ignoraunt (as appeareth) in the scripture, but he speaketh generally of all manner of meates, which christian people receaue with thankes giuing vntounto God, whether it be bread wine or water, fish, flesh, white meat, herbes, or what manner of meat and drinck so euer it be.
And the sanctified bread, which S. Augustine writeth,August. de peccatorum meritis & remiss. 26. li. 2 cap. 26. to be geuen to them that be catechised, was not holy in it selfe, but was called holy for ye vse and signification.
And I expresse S. Cyprians minde truely, and not a whit discrepant from my doctrine here, when I say, that the diuinitye may be sayd to bee powred or put sacramentally into the bread,Cyprianus. as the spirite of God is sayd to be in the water of baptisme, when it is truely ministred, or in his word when it is syncerely preached, with the holy spirite working mightely in the hartes of the hearers. And yet the water in it selfe is but a visible element, nor the preachers word of it self is but a sound in the ayre, which as soone as it is hard, vanisheth away, and hath in it selfe no holines at all, although for the vse & ministery therof, it may be called holy. And so likewise may be sayd of the sacramentes, which (as S. Augustine sayth) be as it were Gods visible word.
Holy bread.And whereas you reherse out of my wordes in an other place, that as hoat and burning yron is yron still, & yet hath the force of fyre, so the bread and wine be tourned into the vertue of Christes flesh and bloud: you neyther report my words truly nor vnderstād thē truely. For I declare in my booke, vertue to be in them, that godly receaue bread and wine, and not in the bread and wine. And I take vertue there to signifie might and strength, or force, as I name it, (which in the greeke is called foreign, after which sence we say, that there is vertue in herbs, in words and in stones) and not to signify vertue in holynes (which in greek is called foreign, wher of a person is called vertuous, whose fayth and conuersation is godly. But you sophistically and fraudulently do of purpose abuse the word vertue to an other significatiō then I mēt, to approue by my words your own vayne error, that bread should be vertuous & holy, making in your argument a fallax or craft, called equiuocation. For where my meaning is, that the death of Christ and the effusion of his bloud hauehave effect and strength in them that truely receaue the sacrament of his flesh and bloud, you turne the matter quite, as though I should say, that the bread were godly and vertuous, which is very frantick and vngodly opiniō, and nothing pertaining to mine application of the similitude of yron. But this is the mother of many errors, both in interpretation of scriptures, and also in vnderstandyng of old auncient writers when the mind and intent of him that maketh a similitude is not considered. But the similitude is applied vntounto other matters then the meaning was. Which fault may be iustly noted in you here, when you reason by the similitude of hoat burning yron, that bread may conceiue such vertue as it may be called vertuous and holy. For my onelyonly purpose was by that similitude to teach, that yron remayning in his proper nature & substance by conceauing of fire may work an other thing thē is the nature of yrō. And so likewise bread remaynyng in is proper nature and substaunce in the ministration of the sacrament, hath an other vse, then to feed the body. For it is a memoriall of Christes death, that by exercise of our fayth, our soules may receaue the more heauenly food. But this is a strange maner of spech (which neither scripture nor approued author euer vsed before you) to cal the sacrametal bread vertuous as you doe. But into such absurdities men do cōmonly fall, when they will of purpose impugne the euident truth.
But was there euer any man so ouersene (say you) as this author is? Who seeth not S. Ambrose in these three latter speeches to speak as plainly as in the first? Was there euer any man so destitute of reason (say I) but that he vnderstandeth this, that when bread is balled bread, it is called by the proper name as it is in deed:Bread is bread, is a playne speache. and when bread is called the body of Christ, it taketh the name of a thing, which it is not in deed, but is so called by a figuratiue spech.Bread is Christes body, is a figuratiue speache. And calling, say you, in the words of Christ, signifieth making, which if it signifieth when bread is called bread, then were calling of bread, a making of bread. And thus is aunswered your demaund, why this word (call) in the one signifieth the trueth, and in the other not, because that the one is a playne speche and the other a figuratiue. For els by our reasoning out of reason, when the cup which Christ vsed in his last supper, was called a cup, and when it was called Christes bloud, all was one calling, and was of like trueth without figure: so that the cup was Christes bloud in deed.
And likewise the stone that flowed out water was called a stone,Num. 20. and when it was called Christ,1. Cor. 10. & the arke also when it was called the arke, & when it was called god,1. Reg 4. all these must be one spech and of like trueth, if it be true which you here say. But as the arke was an arke, the stone a stone, & bread very bread, and the cup a cup, playnely without figuratiue spech, so whē they be called God, Christ the body and bloud of Christ this can not be alike calling, but must needes be vnderstād by a figuratiue spech.Ihon. 1. Apoc. per totum Gen. 49. Apoc. 5. Iho. 10. 14. Ihon. 12. For as Christ in the scripture is called a lambe for his innocency & meeknes, a Lyon for his might and power, a doore and way, wherby we enter into his fathers house, wheat & corne for ye property of dying before they ryse vp & bring increase, so is he called bread and bread is called his body, & wine his bloud, for the propertie of feedyng & nourishing. So yt these & al like speches (where as one substaūce is called by the name of an other substaunce diuers and distinct in nature) must needs be vnderstād fyguratiuely by some similitude or propriety of one substance vntounto an other, and can in no wise be vnderstand properly and playnly without a figure. And therfore when Christ is called the sonne of God, or bread is called bread, it is a most playne and proper spech, but when Christ is called bread, or bread is called Christ, these can in no wise be formall and proper speches (the substāces and natures of them being so diuers) but must nedes hauehave an vnderstanding in figure, signification or similitude (as the very nature of all sacramentes require) as al ye old writers do playnly teach. And therefore the bread after consecration is not called Christ his body, bycause it is so in deed, for then it were no figuratiue speach, as all the old authors say it is.
And as for this word corporall) you openly confessed your owne ignorance in the open audience of all the people at Lambheth, when I asked you, what corporall body Christ hath in the sacrameut, & whether he had distinction of members or no, your answere was in effect that you could not tell. And yet was that a wiser saying, then you spake before in Cyril where you sayd that Christ hath onelyonly a spirituall body and a spirituall presence, and now you say he hath a corporall presēce. And so you confoūd corporal & spiritual, as if you knew not what either of them ment, or wist not, or cared not what you sayd. But now I will returne to my booke, & rehearse myne aunswere vntounto S. Iohn Chrysostome, which is this.
Now let vsus examine S. Iohn Chrisostome,Corporall. The aunswer to Chrisostom…. who in sound of words maketh most for the aduersaries of the truth, but they that be familiar and acquanted with Chrisostomes manner of speaking, (how in all his writynges he is full of allusions, schemes, tropes, and figures) shall soone perceyue, that he helpeth nothing their purposes, as it shall well appeare by the discussing of those places, which the Papistes do alleadge of him, which be spicially two. One is in Sermone de Eucharistia in Encaenijs. And the other is De proditione Iudae.
And as touching the first, no man can speake more playnly agaynst them, then S. Iohn Chrisostome speaketh in that sermon. Wherfore it is to be wondred, why they should alleage hym for their partie, vnlesse they be so blind in their opinion, that they can se nothing, nor discerne what maketh for them, nor what against thē. For there he hath these wordes. When you come to these misteries (speaking of the Lordes boord and holy communion) do not thinke that you receiue by a man the body of God, In sermone de Eucharastia in E…c. unije.meaning of Christ. These be S. Iohn Chrisostome his owne wordes in that place.
Than if we receiue not the body of Christ at the hands of a man, Ergo, the body of Christ is not really, corporally and naturally in the Sacrament, and so geuen to vsus by the Priest. And then it followeth, that all the Papistes be lyers, because they fayne and teach the contrary.
But in this place of Chrisostome is touched before more at lēgth in answering to the Papistes Transubstantiation.
Wherfore now shall be answered the other place which they alleadge of Chrisostome in these wordes, Here he is present in the sacramēt and doth cō secrate,De proditione Ind…. which garnished the table at the maundy or last supper. For it is not man, which maketh of the bread and wine, being set forth to be consecrated, the body and bloud of Christ, but it is Christ himselfe: (which for vsus is crucified) that maketh himselfe to be there present. The wordes are vttered and pronounced by the mouth of the priest, but the consecration is by the vertue, might & grace of God himselfe. And as this saying of God (Increase, be multiplied, & fill the earthGenes. 1. (once spoken by God, tooke alwayes effect toward generation, euen so the saying of Christ. This is my body being but once spoken, Mat. 26 Marc. 14. Luc. 22.doth throughout all churches to this present, & shall to his last comming, geue force and strength to this sacrifice.
Thus farre they reherse of Chrisostomes words. Which wordes although they sound much for the purpose, yet if they be throughly cōsidered and conferred with other places of the same author, it shal well appeare that he ment nothing lesse, thē that Christes body should be corporally and naturally present in the bread and wine, but that in such sort he is in heauen onelyonly, and in our mindes by fayth we ascend vp into heauen, to eate him there, although sacramētally as in a signe and figure, he be in the bread & wine (and so is he also in the water of Baptisme) and in them that rightly receaue the bread & wine he is in a much more perfection then corporally (which should auayle them nothing) but in them he is spiritually with his diuine power, geuing them eternall lyfe.
And as in the first creatiō of the world, all liuing creatures had their first life by gods onelyonly word. (for God onelyonly spake his word, and all things were created by and by accordingly) and after their creation he spake these wordes: Increase and multiply, and by the vertue of those wordes, all thinges hauehave gendred & increased euersince that tyme:Genes. 1. Math. 6.1 Marc. 14. Luc. 22. euen so after that Christ sayd: Eat, this is my body, & drinke, this is my bloud. Do this hereafter in remembraunce of me, by vertue of these wordes, and not by vertue of any man, the bread and wine be so cōsecrated, that whosoeuer with a liuely fayth doth eat that bread and drinke that wine, doth spiritually eat, drinke and feede vponupon Christ sitting in heauen with his Father. And this is the whole meaning of S. Chrisostome.
And therfore doth he so often say that we receaue Christ in baptisme. And when he hath spoken of the receauing of him in the holy communion, by and by he speaketh of the receauing of him in baptisme, without declaring any diuersity of his presence in the one, from his presence in the other.
Ad populam Antiochenum ho. … 1. & in Ihoānem ho. 45.He sayth also in many places, that We ascend into heauen, and do eat Christ sitting there aboue. And where S. Chrisostome and other Authors do speak of the wonderfull operation of God in his sacramentes, passing all mans wit, senses, and reason, they meane not of the working of God in the water, bread & wine but of the maruaylous working of God in the hartes of them that receaue the sacramētes, secretly, inwardly, and spiritually transforming them, renuing, feding, comforting and nourishing them with his flesh and bloud, through his most holy spirite, the same flesh and bloud still remayning in heauen.
Thus is this place of Chrisostome sufficiently aunswered vntounto. And if any man require any more, thē let hym looke what is recited of the same author before in the matter of Transubstantiation?