Answer unto a Crafy and Sophistical Cavillation, Debate · Confutation of book 3 · Section 77
Caunterbury.
THis is a pretie sleight of you to passeouer the authors name, saying that you found it so alleaged in an author, and tell not in what author. There is surely some hid mistery in this matter, that you would not hauehave his name knowen. For if you had found any approued author, who had fathered these wordes vpō Theophilus Alexandrinus, I doubt not but I should hauehave herd him here named, it should hauehave serued so much for your purpose. For to what purpose should you cōceale his name if you had any such author? But shall I open the mistery of this matter? Shall I by coniectures tell the author which you followed, as you by coniecture gathered of him the name of Theophilus? Thomas de Aquino in his cathena aurea citeth the wordes by you alleaged in these letters:Thomas in cathena aurea. Theoph. which letters be indiferent aswel to Theophilus, as to Theophilactes, so that you might hauehave christened the child whether you would by the name of Theophilus or of Theophilactus. And because Theophilus was a more auncient author, and of more learning and estimation then was Theophilact, therfore the name pleased you better, to geue more credite to your sayinges and so of Theoph you made the whole name Theophilus. And bycause one Theophilus was a byshop of Alexandry, you added as it were his syr name, calling him Theophilus Alexand…inus. And if Thomas was not the author which you followed in this matter, peraduenture it might be doctor Fisher somtyme byshop of Rochester,Fisher Rosseū. who writing in the same matter that you do, was or would be deceaued as you be. But what author so euer you folowed, you shall not honestly shake of this matter, except you tell his name. For els I will say that you be fayne to bring in for you fayned authors whispered in corners. And yet that Theophilus wrot not that wordes alleaged vponupon Marke, this is no smale profe that Theophilact hath the same sentences word by word, and that neyther S. Hierom, Gennadius, Eusebius, Tritemius, nor any other that euer wrot hitherto, made euer any mention, that Theophilus wrot vponupon the gospell of S. Marke.
And as concerning your issue, thus much I graunt without issue, that no catholike writer among the Grekes hath more playnly spokē for you, then Theophilacte hath, and yet when that shalbe well examined, it is nothing at all as I hauehave playnly declared, shewing your vntruth aswell in allegation of the authors wordes, as in falsefying his name.
And as for the Catechisme of Germany by me translated into English,The Catechisme. to this I hauehave aunswered before, and truth it is, that eyther you vnderstand not the phrase of the old authors of the church, or els of purpose you will not vnderstand me. But hereunto you shall hauehave a more full aunswer, when I come to ye proper place therof in ye iiij. part of my booke.
And as cōcerning the wordes of Theophilact vponupon the gospel of Iohn, he speaketh to one effect, and vseth much like termes vponupon the gospels of Mathew, Marke and Iohn, wherunto I hauehave sufficiently aunswered in my former booke. And because the aunswer may be the more present, I shall rehearse some of my wordes here agayne. Although (sayd I) 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 the 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 yerne, & our hartes abhorre to eate his flesh and to drink his bloud, but also such eating and drinking could nothing profite and 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 those wordes to vnderstand, that in the sacrament we do not onelyonly eate corporally the bread (which is a sacrament and figure of Christes body) but spiritually we eate also his very body, and drincke his very bloud. And this doctrine of Theophilactus is both true, godly and comfortable. This I wrot in my former booke, which is sufficient to aunswer vntounto all that you hauehave here spoken.
And as concerning the bread that Christ did eate and feede vponupon, it was naturally eaten (as other men eate) naturally changed, and caused a naturall nourishment, and yet the very matter of the bread remayned (although in an other forme) but in them that duely receaue and …at the Lordes holy supper, all is spirituall aswell the eating as the change and nourishment, which is none impediment to the nature of bread, but that it may still remayne.
And where you come to the translation of this word (species) to signifie apparence,Species for apparence. this is a wonderfull kinde of translation, to translat specie in apparence, because (apparet) is truly translated (appeareth:) with like reason (aurum) myght be translated (meate) because ed…re) signifieth to eate.
And your other translation is no lesse wonderfull, where you turne the vertue of Christes body into the veritie.Meritie for vertue. And yet to cloke your folly therin, and to cast a mist before the readers eyes (that he should not see your vntruth therin) you say that by (vertue) in that place must be vuderstanded verite. First what soeuer be vnderstande by the worde (vertue) your fayth in translation is broken. For the sense being ambiguous, yo… ought in translation to hauehave kept the word as it is (leauing the sense to be expended by the indifferent reader) and not by altering the word, to make such a sense as please you, which is so foule a fault in a translatour, that if Decolampadius had so done, he should hauehave ben called a man faulty and gilthy, a corruptour, a deceauour, an abuser of other men, a peruerter, a deprauer, and a man without fayth. As he might be called that would translate (Verbum caro factum est) The second person became man. Which although it be true in meaning, yet it is not true in translation, nor declareth the fayth of the translatour.
But now as your translation is vntrue, so is ye meaning also vntrue, and vnexcusable. For what man is so far destitute of all his senses, that he knoweth not a difference betwene the veritie of Christes body, and the vertue therof? Who can pretend ignoraunce in so manifest a thing? Doth not all men know, that of eueryevery thing the vertue is one, and the substance an other? Except in God onelyonly, who is of that simplicitie without multiplication of any thing in him, or diuersitie, that his vertue, his power, his wisdome, his iustice, and all that is sayd to be in him, be neyther qualites, nor accidentes, but all one thinge, with his verie substaūce. And neyther the right hand of God, nor the vertue of God (which you bring for an example, and serueth to no purpose, but to blind the ignoraūt reader) be any thing els, but the very substaunce of God (although indiuersitie of respectes and considerations, they hauehave diuersitie of names) except you will deuide the most single substaunce of God into corporall partes and members, following the errour of the A…cropomorphites. But the like is not in ye body of Christ, which hath distinctiō of integrall partes, and the vertue also and qualities distinct from the substance.
And yet if the example were like, he should be an euill translator, or rather a corrupter, yt for (a dextris virtutis Dei) would trāslate (a dextris Dei) or cōtrary wise.A dextris dei. A dextris vertutis dei. And therfore all trāslators in those places folow ye wordes as they be, & be not so arrogāt to alter one title in thē, therby to make thē one in wordes, although ye thing in substaunce be one. For wordes had not theyr signification of the substances, or of thinges onelyonly, but of the qualities, maners, respectes, and considerations. And so may one word signifie diuers thinges, & one thing be signified by diuers wordes. And therfore he that should for on word take an other, because they be both referred to one substaunce (as you hauehave done in this place) should make a goodly yere of worke of it, not much vnlike to him that should burne his house, and say he made it, because the making & burning was both in one matter and substaunce.
It is much pitie, that you hauehave not bestowed your tyme in translation of good authors, that can skill so well of translation, to make speciē to signifie apparence, and that take vertue sometyme for veritie, and somtime for nothing, & a dextris virtutis Dei, to signifie no more but a dextris Dei and virtutem carnis, to signifie no more but carnem, and virtutem sanguinis, sanguinem. And why not? seing that such wordes signifie ad placitum, that is to say, as please you to translate them.
And it seameth to be a strange thing, that you hauehave so quicke an eye to espye other mens faultes, and cannot see in Theophilact his playne aunswer, but to take vponupon you to teach him to aunswer. For when he asketh the question, why doth not the flesh appeare? He should hauehave aunswered (say you) that the flesh is not there in deed, but the vertue of the flesh, I pray you doth not he aunswer playnly the same effect? Is not his aunswer to that question this (as you confesse your selfe) that the fourmes of bread and wine be chaunged into the vertue of the body of Christ? And what would you require more? Is not this as much to say, as the vertue of the flesh is there but not the substaunce corporally and carnally?
And yet another third errour is committed in the same sentence, because one sentence should not be without three errours at the least in your translation. For wheras Theophilact hath but one accusatiue case, your put therto other two mo of your owne heade. And as you once taught Barnes, so now you would make Theophilact your scholer, to say what you would hauehave him. But that the truth may appeare what Theophilact sayd, I shall reherse his owne wordes in Greeke, foreign. which wordes translated into latine be these.
Condescendens nobis benignus Deus, speciem quidem panis et vini seruat, in potestatem autemcarnis et sanguinis transelementat. And in English they be thus much to say. The mercifull God condesending to our infermitie, conserueth still the kind of bread and wine, but turneth them into the vertue of his flesh and bloūd. To this sentence you do adde of yonr owne authoritie these wordes (the bread & wine) which wordes Theophilact hath not, which is an vntrue parte of him, that pretendeth to be a true interpretour. And by adding those wordes, you alter clearly the authors meaning. For wheare ye authors meaning was that we should abhore to eate Christes flesh, and drincke his bloud in theyr propre forme and kind, yet almighty God hath ordeyned that in his holy supper we should receaue ye fourmes and kindes of bread and wine, and that those kindes should be tourned (vntounto them that worthely receaue the same) into the vertue and effecte of Christes very flesh and bloud, although they remayne still in the same kynd and fourme of bread and wine. And so by him the nature and kinde of bread and wine remayne. And yet the same be tourned into the vertue of flesh and bloud. So that the word, (fourmes) is the accusatiue case, aswell to the verbe tourneth, as to the verbe conserueth, but you to make Theophilact serue your purpose, adde of your own head two other accusatiue cases, that is to say (bread and wine) besides Theophilactes words, wherin all men may consider how little you regarde the truth, that to mayntayne your vntrue doctrine once deuised by your selues, care not what vntruth you vse besides, to corrupt all doctours, making so many faultes in translation of one sentence.
And if the wordes alleaged vponupon marke, were not Theophilactes wordes, but the wordes of Theophilus Alexandrinus (as you say) at the least Theophilact must borow them of Theophilus, bycause the wordes be all one xvi. lynes together, sauing this word (Ueritie) which Theophilact tourneth into vertue. And then it is to be thought, that he would not alter that word (wherin all the contention standeth) without some consideration. And specially when Theophilus speaketh of the veritie of Christes body (as you say) if Theophilact had thought the body had bene there, would he hauehave refused the word, and changed veritie into vertue, bringing his owne fayth into suspition, and geuing occasion of errour vntounto other?
And where to excuse your errour in translation, you say yt the wordes by you alleaged in the name of Theophilus Alexandrinus, be not Theophilactes wordes, and I deny that they be Theophilus wordes, so then be they no bodies wordes, which is no detriment to my cause at all, (bycause I tooke him for none of my witnes) but it is in a maner a clere ouerthrow of your cause, which take him for your cheif & principall witnesse saying that no catholike writer among ye Grekes, hath more playnly set forth the truth of the presence of Christes body in the Sacrament, then Theophilactus hath, and here vponupon you make your issue.
And yet hauehave I a good cause to call thē Theophilactes wordes, for as much as I finde them in his workes printed abrode, sauing one word which you hauehave vntruly corrupted, bycause that worde pleaseth you not. And yet am I not bound to admit that your witnesse is named Theophilus, except you hauehave better proofes therof then this, that one sayth, he hath him in a corner, and so alleadgeth him. It is your parte to proue your owne witnes, and not my parte that stand herein only at defence. And yet to eueryevery indiferent man I hauehave shewed sufficient matter to reiect him. Heare now my answer to S. Hierom.
Besydes this our aduersaries do alleadge S. Hierom vpō the epistle Ad titū, The aunswere to Hieronimus. …uper epistol. ad Titum.that there is as great difference betwene the Loues called Panis propositionis, and the body of Christ, as there is betwene a shadow of a body, and the body it self, and as there is betwene an image and the thing itselfe, and betwene an example of thinges to come, and the thinges that be prefigured by them.
These wordes of S. Hierom truly vnderstand, serue nothing for the intent of the Papists. For he ment that the Shew bread of the law, was but a darke shadow of Christ to come, but the sacrament of Christes body is a cleare testimony, that Christ is already come, and that he hath performed that which was promised, and doth presently comfort and feede vsus spiritually with his precious body and bloud, notwithstanding that corporally he is assended into heauen.