Answer unto a Crafy and Sophistical Cavillation, Debate · Confutation of book 3 · Section 75
Caunterbury.
AS concerning Chrisostome, you hauehave spent so many taunting and scornefull wordes in waste, without cause, that I need to wast no wordes here at all to make you aunswere: but referre the reader to my booke the 25. leafe and 36. leafe, and to the 32.33. and 34. leafe, where the reader shall finde all that is here spoken fully aunswered vntounto.
Christ is verely and truly present and receyued.But alwayes you be like your selfe, proceding in amplification of an argument agaynst me, which you hauehave forged yourselfe, and charge me therewith vntruely. For I vse not this spech, that we receaue not the body of God at all, that we receaue it but in a figure. For it is my constant fayth and beleefe, that we receaue Christ in the sacrament verily and truely, and this is plainely taught and set forth my book. But that (verily, as I with Chrisostome and all the olde authors take it) is not of such a sort as you would hauehave it. For your vnderstanding of (Uerily) is so Capernaicall,Uerile. so grosse, and so dul, in the perceauing of this mistery, that you thinke a man can not receaue the body of Christ verily, vnles he take him corporally in his corporall mouth, flesh, bloud, and bones, as he was borne of the virgine Mary. But it is certaine, that Chrisostome ment not, that we receaue Christes body verily after such a sort, when he sayth, Doe not thinke that you receiue by a man the body of God. And yet because I deny onelyonly this grosse vnderstāding, you misreport my doctrine, that I should say we receaue not Christ at all, but in a figure, and no body at all: wherin you vntruly and sclaundrously report me, as my whole book and doctrine can witnesse agaynst you. For my doctrine is, that the very body of Christ which was borne of the virgine Mary, and suffered for our sinnes, geuing vsus lyfe by his death, the same Iesus as concerning his corporal presence, is taken from vsus, and sitteth at the right hand of his father, and yet is he by fayth spiritually present with vsus, and is our spirirituall foode and nourishment, and sitteth in the middes of all them that-be gathered togither in his name. And this feding is a spirituall feedyng and an heauenly feeding, farre passing all corporall and carnall feeding, and therfore there is a true presence and a true feding indeed, and not in a figure onelyonly, or not at all, as you most vntruely report my saying to be. This is the true vnderstanding of ye true presence, receiuing & feding vponupon the body and bloud of our Sauior Christ, and not as you depraue the meaning and true sence therof, that the receiuing of Christ truly and verily, is ye receiuing corporally with the mouth corporall, or yt the spirituall receauing is to receaue Christ onelyonly by his diuine nature, which thing I neuer sayd nor mēt. Turn I pray thee gētle reader to the 36 leaf of my booke, and note these wordes there, which I alledge out of Chrisostome. Doe not thinke (sayth he) that you receaue by a man the body of God. Then turne ouer the leafe, and in the xx, line note again my saying that in the holy communion, Christ himselfe is spiritually eaten and drunken, and nourisheth the right beleuers. Then compare those sayings with this place of this ignoraunt lawier, and thou shalt euidently perceiue, that either he wil not, or can not, or at the least he doth not vnderstand what is ment in the booke of common prayer, and in my booke also, by the receauing and feding vponupon Christ spiritually.
But it is no maruaile, that Nicodemus and the Capernaites vnderstand not Christ, before they be borne a new, and forsaking their papisticall leauen, hauehave learned an other lesson of the spirite of God, then flesh & bloud can teach them. Much talke the Papistes make about this belefe, that we must beleue and hauehave a stedfast fayth, that Christes body is corporally there, where ye visible formes of bread & wine be: of which belefe is no mention made in the whole scripture, which teacheth vsus to beleue & professe, that Christ (as concerning his bodily presence) hath forsaken the world, & is ascended into heauen, & shall not come agayne vntill the restitution of all thinges that be spoken of by Prophets. But wheras in the feeding vponupon Christes body and drinking of his bloud, there is no mouth and teeth can serue, but onelyonly the inward and spirituall mouth of fayth, there the Papistes kepe silence like monkes, and speake very little. And the cause why, is flesh and bloud which so blindeth all the Nichodemes & Caparnaites, that they can not vnderstand what is spirituall natiuity, spirituall circumcition, spirituall honger and thirst, and spirituall eating and drinking of the flesh and bloud of our Sauiour Christ: but they hang all together so in the letter, that they cannot enter into the kingdome of the spirit, which knowledge, if that you had, you should soone perceiue vponupon what principle my Ergo were made. And where you peruert the order of the bookes,The order of the booke. setting the carte before the horse, that is to say the iii and iiii booke before the second, saying that the naturall order of ye matter so requireth, here the reader may note an euident marke of all subtle Papistes, which is vnderunder the pretence & coulour of order, to breake that order whereby the falsehead of their doctrine should best be detected and the truth brought to light. For when they perceaue a window open, wherby the light may shine in, and the truth appeare, then they busily go about to shut that window, and to draw the reader from that place to some misticall and obscure matter where more darkenes is, and les light can be sene. And when besides the darkenes of the matter, they hauehave by their subtle sophistry cast such a mist ouer the readers eyes, that he is become blind: thē dare they make him iudge, be the matter neuer so vntrue. And no meruail, for he is now becōe so blindfeld, & subiect vntounto them, yt he must say what so euer they bid him, be it neuer so much repugnāt to ye euidēt truth. In such sort it is in ye matter of yt sacramēt. For the papistes perceauing that their error should easily be espied, if the matter of transubstantiation were first determined, that plaine wordes of the scripture, the consent of aūcient writers, the articles of our fayth, the nature of a sacrament, reason & all sences making so euidently agaynst it, therefore none of the subtle Papistes will be glad to talke of transubstantiation, but they will alwayes beare men in hand, that other matters must fyrst be examined, as the late Bishop doth here in this place.
Now in the second place of Chrisostome, where you say, that in this sacrament Christes humanity and godhead is really present, & in baptisme his godhead with the effectuall vertue of his bloud in which we be washed, not requiring by scripture any reall presence thereof for the dispensation of that mistery, n this matter I hauehave ioyned an issue with you before in the aunswere vntounto Drigen, which shall suffice for answere here also.
Chrisostomus.And where S. Iohn Chrisostom speaketh of the great miracle of christ that he sitteth aboue with his father, and is the same houre here with vsus in our handes, truth it is, that Christ sitteth aboue with his father in his naturall body triumphant in glory, and yet is the same hour in our hāds sacramentally and present in our hartes by grace and spirituall nourishment. But that we shoud not think, that he is corporally here with vsus, S. Augustine giueth a rule in his epistle ad Dardanum, August. ad. dard.saying: Cauendum est ne it a diuinitatem astruamus hominis, vt veritatem corporis auferamus, We must foresee that we do not so affirme the deuinitie of him that is man, that we should therby take away the truth of his body. And forasmuch as it is agaynst the nature and truth of a naturall body, to be in two places at one tyme, therefore you seme to speake agaynst the truth of Christes naturall body, when you teach that his body is in heauen naturally, and also naturally in the sacrament. For who so euer affirmeth that Christes body is in sondry places as his godhead is, seemeth to defy Christes body by S. Augustines rule.August ad. dard. But like as it is not to be thought, that Quicquid est in deo, est putandum vbi que vt dens, that whatsoeuer is in god, is eueryevery where as God is, so must we not thinke that his body may be at one tyme eueryevery where, where his godhead is. But Christ is (sayth S. Augustine) Vbi que per id quod est deus, in coelo autem per id quod est homo: EueryEvery where in that he is God, but in heauen, in that he is man. Wherfore his presence here of his body must be a sacramentall presence, and the presence of his diuinitie, of his grace, of his truth, of his maiestie and power, is reall and effectuall in many places, according to his worde.
Wherin is the miracle.Now as concerning your issue, I refuse it not, but say, that the great miracle whereat the Iewes wondred, and which our sauiour Christ ment, and the old fathers speake of, is of the eating of Christes flesh and drincking of his bloud, and how by flesh and bloud we hauehave euerlasting life. Now if you can bring good testimony for you, that the sacrament eateth Christes flesh and drincketh his bloud, and that it shall lyue for euer (which neuer had lyfe) and that Gods operation & worke is more in domme creatures then in man, then I must needes and will confesse the issue to passe with you. And when I heare your testimonies, I shall make answer, but before I here them, I should do nothing else but spend wordes in vayne, and beate the wind to no purpose. Now heare what I hauehave answered to Theophilus Alexandrinus.
Yet furthermore they bring for them Theophilus Alexandrinus, who (as they alleadge) sayth thus.The answer to Theophilus in Mar. 14. Iho. 6. Christ geuing thankes, dyd breake (which also we doe) adding thereto prayer. And he gaue vntounto them, saying: Take, this is my body, this that I do now geue, and that which ye now do take. For the bread is not a figure onelyonly of Christes body, but it is chāged into the very body of Christe. For Christ sayth: The bread which I will geue you, is my flesh. Neuertheles the flesh of Christ is not seene for our weakenes, but bread and wine are familiar vntounto vsus. And surely if we should visibly see flesh and bloud, we could not abide it. And therfore our lord bearing with our weakenes, doth retayn and kepe the forme and apparaunce of bread and wine, but he doth turne the very bread and wine into the very flesh and bloud of Christ.
These be the wordes which the papistes do cite out of Theophilus vponupon the gospell of S. Mark But by this one place it appeareth euidently, eyther how negligent the Papistes be, in searching out and examining the sayinges of the authors which they alleadge for theyr purpose, on els how false and deceitfull they be, which willingly and wittingly hauehave made in this one place, and as it were with one breth, two loud and shamefull lyes.
The first is, that because they would geue the more authoritie to the wordes by them alleadged, they (like false poticaries that fell quid pro quo) falsefy the authors name, fathering such sayings vponupon Theophilus Alexandrinus, an old and auncient author, which were in deed none of his wordes, but were the wordes of Theophilactus, who was many yeares after Theophilus Alexandrinus. But such hath euer bene the Papisticall subtelties, to set forth theyr owne inuentions, dreames and lyes, vnderunder the name of antiquitie and auncient authors.
The second lye or falsehod is, that they falsely the authors wordes and meaning, subuerting the truth of his doctrine. For where Theophilactus (according to the catholike doctrine of auncient authors) sayth: that almighty God (condescending to our infirmitie) reserueth the kind of bread and wine, and yet turneth them into the vertue of Christes flesh and bloud: They say, that he reserueth the formes and apparaunces of bread and wine, and turneth them into the veritie of his flesh and bloud, so turning and altering kindes into formes and apparaunces, and vertue into veritie, that of the vertue of the flesh and bloud, they make the veritie of his flesh and bloud. And thus they hauehave falsefied as well the name as the wordes of Theophilactus, turning veritie into playne and flatte falsitie.
But to sette forth playnly the meaning of Theophilactus in this matter. As hot and burning yron is yron still, and yet hath the force of fyer: and as the flesh of Christ still remayning flesh, geueth life as the flesh of him that is good so the sacramentall bread and wine remayne still in theyr proper kindes, and yet to them that worthely eate and drink them, they be tourned not into the corporall presence, but into the vertue of Christes flesh and bloud.
And although Theophilactus spake of the eating of the very body of Christ, and the drinking of his very bloud (and not onelyonly of the figures of them) and of the conuersion of bread and wine into the body and bloud of Christ, yet he meaneth not of a grosse, carnall, corporall and sensible conuersion of the bread and wine, nor of a like eating and drinking of his flesh and bloud (for so not onelyonly our stomackes would yern and our hartes abhorre to eate his flesh & to drincke his bloud, but also such eating and drinking could nothing profite or auayle vsus) but he spake of the celestiall and spirituall eating of Christ, and of a sacramentall conuersion of the bread, calling the bread not onelyonly a figure, but also the body of Christ, geuing vsus by these wordes to vnderstand, that in the sacrament we do not onelyonly eat corporally the bread (which is a sacrament and figure of Christes body) but spiritually we eate also his very body, and drink his very bloud. And this doctrine of Theophilactus is both true, godly and comfortable.