Answer unto a Crafy and Sophistical Cavillation, Debate · Confutation of book 3 · Section 9 – Section 12
Caunterbury.
DId not you beleue (I pray you) many yeares together, that the bishop of Rome was Christs vicar, and the head of his church?
If you did not, you wittingly and willingly defended a false errour in the open Parliament. But sithens that tyme, you hauehave called that beléefe (as it is in deede) very folish. And if you confessed your ignorance in that matter, be no more abashed to confesse it in this, if you hauehave respect more vntounto Gods trueth, then to your owne estimation. It is lawfull and commendable for a man, to learn from time to tyme, and to go from his ignorance, that he may receaue and embrace the trueth.It is good at al times to cōuert from error to truth. And as for me, I am not (I graunt) of that nature, that the Papists for the most part be, who study to deuise all shamefull shiftes, rather then they will forsake any errour, wherewith they were infected in youth. I am glad to acknowledge my former ignorance (as S. Paul, S. Ciprian. S. Augustine, and many other holy men did, who now be with Christ) to bring other to the knowledge of the trueth, of whose ignoraunce I hauehave much ruth and pitie. I am content to geue place to Gods word, that the victory may be Christs. What a member had the church of God lost, if Paule would hauehave been as froward as some Papistes be, that will sticke to their errour tooth and nayle, though the Scripture and auncient writers be neuer so plain and f…at against them? Although S. Paule erred,1. Tim. 1. yet because his errour was not wilfull, but of ignoraunce, so that he gaue place to the trueth, when it was opened vntounto him, he became of a most cruell persecutor, a most seruent setter forth of the trueth, and Apostle of Christ.
And would God I were as sure, that you be chaunged in déede in those matters of religion, wherein with the alteration of this realme you pretēd a change, as I am glad euen from the bottom of my hart, that it hath pleased almighty God in this latter end of my yeares, to giuegive me knowledge of my former errour, and a will to embrace the truth, setting a part all maner of worldly respectes, which be speciall hinderances, that hold backe many from the free profession of Christ and his word.
And as for the booke of common prayer,The booke of common praier. although it say, that in ech part of the bread broken is receaued the whole body of Christ, yet it sayth not so of the partes vnbroken, nor yet of the partes, or whole reserued, as the Papistes teach: But as in baptisme we receaue the holy ghost, and put Christ vponupon vsus, as well if wee be Christened in one dysh full of water taken out of the fonte, as if we were chistned in the whole fonte, or riuer, so we be as truely fed, refreshed and comforted by Christ, receauing a peece of bread at the Lords holy table, as if we dyd eat an whole loafe. For as in eueryevery part of the water in baptisme is wholl Christ and the holy spirit, sacramentally, so be they in eueryevery part of the bread broken, but not corporally and naturally as the Papists teach.
And I beare not the catholick church in hand (as you report of me) that it sayth and teacheth, that whole Christ is in eueryevery part of the bread consecrated,The Papists say, that whole Christ is in eueryevery part of the cōsecrated bread but I say that the Papistes so teach. And because you deny it, read the chiefe pillers of the Papistes, Duns, and Thomas de Aquino, which the Papists call S. Thomas, who say, that Christ is whole vnderunder eueryevery part of the formes of bread and wine, not only when the host is broken, but whē it is wholl also. And there is no distance (sayth he) of partes, one from an other, as of one eie from another or of the eye from the eare, or the head from the feet. These be Thomas wrds.Thomas. 3. part. sum. q. 76. art. 3. Christus totus est sub qualibit parte specicrū panis & vini, non solū cū frangitur hostia, sed etiā cū integra manet. Nec est distātia partiū ab innicē, vt oculi ab oculo, aut oculi ab aure, eut capitis à pedibus, sicut est in alijs corporibus orgameis. Talis enim distantia est in ipso corpore Christi vero, sed non prout est in hoc Sacra…ēto. And not only the Papists do thus write and teach but the Pope himself, Innocentius the third.Innocentius. 3. lib. 4. cap. 8. And so beare I in hād, or report of the Papisies nothing, but that which they say indeed.
And yet you say, the church sayth not so which I affirme also and then it must needs follow, that the doctrine of the Papistes, is not the doctrine of the church. Which Papists not by reason with out faith, but agaynst aswell reason as fayth, would direct our mindes to seeke in eueryevery little crum of bread, whole Christ, and to find him in so many places there, as be small crums in the bread.
And where you trauesse the matter of the iudgement of our senses herein, it is quite and cleane from the matter, and but a crafty shift, to conuey the matter to an other thing that is not in question, lyke vntounto crafty male-factours, whych perceauing them selues to be sore pursued with a hound, make a new trayn to draw the hound to an other fresh suit. For I speake not of the iudgement of our senses in this matter, whether they perceaue any distinction of partes and members or no, but whether in deed there be any such distinction in the Sacrament or no, which the Papistes do deny. And therefore I say not vntruely of them, that in the sacrament they say: There is no distance of partes one from another.
And if the parts in theyr substance be distinct one from an other (as you say) and be not so distinct in the Sacramēt (as Thomas sayth) thē must it follow, that the partes in their owne substaunce be not in the sacrament. And if this distinction of partes, be in the true body of Christ, and not in the sacrament (as Thomas saith) then followeth it again, that the true body of Christ is not in the sacrament.
A subtil sleight.And forasmuch as I speake not one word of the comprehension of our senses, to what purpose do you bring this in, if it be not to draw vsus to a new matter, to auoyd yt which is in controuersy? You do herein as if Iames should by of Iohn a percell of land, and by his atturney take state and possession therein. And after Iohn should trauers the matter, and say, that there was neuer no state deliuered, and thereupon ioyne their issue. And when Iames should bryng forth his witnesses for the state and possession, thē should Iohn runne to a new matter, and say that Iames saw the possession deliuered: what were this allegation of Iohn to the purpose of the thing that was in issue, whether the possession were deliuered in deede or no? Were this any other thing, then to auoid the issue craftely, by bringing in of a new matter? And yet this shift is a common practise of you in this booke, and this is another point of the deuils Sophistry, wherin it is pitty that euer such a wit as you hauehave, should be occupied.
Wanton reason.Again you say, that impudently I beare the Catholick church in hand, to teach that I list to beare in hand, may by wanton reason be deduced of their teaching, wheras al true christen men beleeue simply Christs words, and trouble not their heads with such consequences. This is in the author no whispering, but plain railing (say you.) This is your barking eloquēce, wherewith your booke is well furnished, for as dogs barke at the moone without any cause, so doe you in this place. For I doe no more but truely reporte what the Papistes them selues doe write, and no otherwise, not bearing the Catholick church in hand that it so teacheth, but charging the Papistes that they so teach, nor bearing the Papistes in hand what I list or what by wantō reason may be deduced of their teaching, but reporting onelyonly what their own words and sayinges be.
True christian men.And if they be no true christen men that trouble their heades with such matters (as you affirme they be not) then was Innocent the third, ye chiefe author of your doctrin, both of transubstantiation, and of the reall presēce, no true christian man (as I beleeue well inough.) Then was your Saint Thomas no true christian man. Then Gabriell, Duns, Durand, and the great rablement of the schoole authors (which taught your doctrin of trā substantiation and of the reall presence) were not true christen men. And in few words to comprehend the whol, then were almost none that taught that doctrine, true christen men, but your selfe alone. For almost all with one consent, doe teach that wholl Christ is really in eueryevery part of the host.
But your termes here of rayling, mocking, and scorning, I would hauehave taken patiently at your hand, if your tongue and pen had not ouershot thē selues in braging so far, that the truth by you should be defaced. But now I shalbe so bold as to send those termes thether, from whence they came. And for the matter it selfe, I am ready to ioyn an issue with you, notwithstanding all your stout and boasting words.
But in Gods workes (say you) as the Sacramentes be, we must think all seemelines in deede without deformity. But what seemelines is this in a mannes body, that the head is where the feete be, and the armes where the legges be? which the Papistes doe teach, and your selfe seeme to confesse, when you say: that the partes of Christes body be distinct in themselues, one from another in their own substance, but not by circumscription of seuerall places. And yet you seeme again to deny the same in your wise dialogue, or quadriloge, betweene the curious questioner; the folish ans̄werer, your wise catholick man standing by, and the mediator.
In which dialoge you bring in your wise catholick man to condemne of madnes all such as say,A Dialog. that Christes head is there where his feete be, and so you condemne of madnes not onelyonly al the scholasticall doctors, which say that Christ is wholl in eueryevery part of the cōsecrated bread, but also your own former saying, where you deny the distinction of the partes of Christs body in seuerall places. Wherefore the mediator seemeth wiser then you all, who losing this knot of Gordius, saith: that Christes body (how big soeuer it be) may be as well signified by a little peece of bread as by a greate: and so as concerning the reason of a sacramēt, al is one, whether it be an whol bread, or a peece of it, as it skilleth not whether a man be christened in the wholl fonte, or in a parte of the water taken out therof. For the respect and consideration of the Sacrament is all one in the lesse and more.
But this fourth man (say you) hath no participation with faith, condemning all the true publick faith testified in the church from the beginning hetherto, which hath euer with wonder marueiled at the mistery of the Sacrament, which is no wonder at all, if bread be but a signification of Christ his body, this is a wonderfull saying of you, as of one that vnderstoode nothing vtterly, what a Sacrament meaneth, and what is to be wondred at in the Sacrament.What is to be wondered at in the Sacramēt. For the wonder is not, how God worketh in the outward visible Sacrament, but his marueilous worke is in the worthy receauers of the Sacramentes. The wonderfull worke of God is not in the water, which o…ely washeth the body, but God by his omnipotent power, worketh wonderfully in the receauers thereof, scouring, washing, and making them clean inwardly, and as it were new mē, and celestiall creatures. This hauehave all…olde authors wondered at, this wonder passeth the capacities of all mens wits how damnation is turned into saluation, and of the Sonne of the deuill condemned into hell, is made the Sonne of God, and inheritour of heauen. This wonderfull worke of God all men may maruel and wonder at, but no creature is able sufficiently to comprehend it. And as this is wondred at in the Sacrament of Baptisme, how he that was subiect vntounto death, receiueth life by Christ, and his holy Spirite. So is this wondred at in the Sacrament of Christes holy Table, how the same life is continued and endureth for euer, by continuall feeding vponupon Christes flesh and his bloud. And these wonderfull workes of God towardes vsus, we be taught by Gods holy worde, and his Sacramentes of breade, wine, and water, and yet be not these wōderfull workes of God in the Sacraments, but in vsus.
And although many authors vse this manner of speech, that Christ maketh bread his body, and wine his bloud, and wonder thereat: yet those authors mean not of the bread and wine in them selues, but of the bread and wine eaten and dronken of faithfull people. For when Christ called bread his body, and wine his bloud, he wake not those words to the bread & wine but to the eaters and drinkers of them, saying: Eat, this is my body. Drink this is my bloud, signifying to thē that worthely do eat that bread & drink that cuppe, that they be inwardly and inuisibly fed with Christes flesh and bloud, as they outwardly and visibly receaue the sacraments of them.
To be short, here in this processe you vse plenty of words at your pleasure to make the reader beleue, that I should suppose confusion, monstrousnes, absurditie and vnseemelinesse to be in Gods holy sacraments, where as I do no more but tel what monstrous absurdities and errors the Papists do teach in the sacraments. But if the reader take good heede to your talk, he shall finde, that you lacking good matter to aunswere this comparison, do fall vntounto railing, and enforce your pen to inuent such stuffe as might bring me into hatred vndeserued, which kind of rhetorick is called Canma facunda, and is vsed onelyonly of them that hunt for their own praise by the dispraise of their aduersary, which is yet an other trick of the deuils sophistry.
Sabellius. Arrius.And because you would bring me into more extreme hatred, you couple me with Sabellius and Arrius, whose doctrines (as you say) were facile and easy, as here you confesse mine for to be. But if all such expositions as make the Scriptures plain, should by and by be slaunderously compared to the doctrines of Arrius and Sabellius, then should all the expositions of ye doctors be brought in danger, because that by their paines they hauehave made hard questions facile and easy. And yet whether the doctrine which I set forth be easy to vnderstand or not, I cannot define, but it seemeth so hard, that you cannot vnderstand it, except you will put all the fault in your own wilfulnes, that you can, and wil not vnderstād it. Now followeth the sixt comparison.
Furthermore the Papistes say, that a dog or a cat eateth the body of Christ, if they by chaunce doe eate the Sacramentall bread. We say: That no earthly creature can eat the body of Christ, nor drink his bloud, but onelyonly man.
Winchester.
The contrary hereof is noted for a doctrine.I hauehave red that some intreate these chances of dogges and cattes, but I neuer heard any of that opinion, to say or write so (as a doctrine) that a dogge or a catte eateth the body of Christ, and set it forth for a teaching, as this author most impudently supposeth, and I maruell much that such a worde, and such a reporte, can come out of a christian mānes mouth, and therefore this is by the author a maruelous surmise, Whereupon to take occasion to bring the aduersatiue (But) for the Authors parte, being such a saying on that side, as all christendome hath euer taught, that no creature can eate the body, and drinke the bloud of Christ, but onelyonly man.Pugnat cum alijs Papistis. But this abhominable surmysed no truth in the former parte of his comparison, may be taken for a proofe, whether such beastly asseuerations procéede from the spirite of truth or now, And whether truth be there intended, where such blasphemy is surmised. But let vsus see the rest.
Caunterbury.
YEt stil in these comparisons you graūt, that part of the difference to be true, which I affirme, but you say that I reporte vntruely of the Papistes, impudently bearing them in hand, to say such abhominable & beastly asseuerations as you neuer heard. Whereby appeareth your impudent arrogancy in deniall of that thing, which either you know the Papists do say, or you are in doubt whether they say, or saying hauing not read what it is that they say.Whether a bird or …east eat the body of Christ. For why doe they reiect the Master of the sentences in this point, that he said, a mouse or bruite beast receaueth not the body of Christ, although they seeme to receau it? Wherin if you say (as the Master did) that ye mouse receiueth not the body of Christ,Lib. 4. distinct. 13. In erroribus fol 134. b. Vide Marcum Constantium. fol. 72. obiect. 94. looke for no fauor at ye papists hands, but to be reiected as the Master was, unles they forbeare you vponupon fauour, and because that in other matters you hauehave bene so good a captayne for them, they will pardon you this one faulte. A…d so is this first parte of the difference no vntrue surmise of me, but a determination of the Papistes, condemning who so euer would say the contrary. And this is a common proposition among the schoole diuines, that the body of Christ remaineth so long as the forme of the bread is remayning, where so euer it be, whereof your S. Thomas wryteth thus:Thomas. 3. part. sum. q. 80. art. 3. Quidam vero dixerunt, quod quā primum Sacramentum sumitur à mure vel cane, desinit ibi esse corpus Christi. Sed hoc deregat veritati huius Sacramenti. Substantia enim panis sumpta à peccatore, I am diu manet, dion per calorem naturalem est in digestione, igitur tam diu manet corpus Christi sub speciebus Sacramentalibus. And Perin in his booke printed,Peryn. and set abroad in this matter for all men to read, saith: That although the mouse, or any other beast doe eate the Sacrament, yet neuerthelesse the same is the very, and reall body of Christ. And he asketh what inconuenience it is against the verity of Christs reall body in the Sacrament, though the impassible body lye in the mouth or maw of the beast? Is it not therfore the body of Christ? Yes vndoubtedly saith he. So that now these abhominable opinions, and beastly asseuerations (as you truely terme them, meaning thereby to bite me as appeareth) be fitte termes and meete for the Papists, whose asseuerations they be. Now followeth the seuenth comparyson.
They say, that eueryevery man, good and euill, eateth the body of Christ. We say that both doe eate the Sacramentall bread, and drink the wine, but none do eate the very body of Christ, and drinke his bloud, but only they that be liuely members of his body.
Winchester.
In this comparison the former part, speaking of such men as be by baptisme receiued into Christes church, is very true, confirmed by S. Paule, and euer since affirmed in the church, in the proofe whereof here in this booke I wil not trauell, but make it a demurre as it were in law,A demurre vpō this Issue. whereupon to fly the truth of the hole matter, if that doctrin, called by this author the doctrine of the Papistes, and is in déede the Catholick doctrine, be not in this point true, let all be so iudged for me. If it be true, as it is most true, let that be a marke whereby to iudge the rest of this authors vntrue asseuerations. For vndoubtedly S. Augustine sayth:August. contra litteras Pe til. lib. 20. We may not of mens matters estéeme the Sacraments, they be made by him whose they be, but worthely vsed they bring reward, vnworthely handled they bring iudgement. He that dispenseth the Sacrament worthely, and he that vseth it vnworthely, lie not one, but that thyng is one, whether it be handled worthely or vnworthely, so as if is neither better ne worse, but life or death of them that vse it. Thus saith S. Augustine, and therefore be the receauers worthy or vnworthy,Marcus constā tius dicit quod Ethnici idē fortasse sumunt quod bruti i. sacramētumtantū good or euil, the substance of Christs Sacrament is all one, as beyng Gods worke, who worketh vniformely, and yet is not in all that receaue of like effect, not of any alteration or diminution in it, but for the diuersitie of him that receaueth. So as the report made here of the doctrine of the Catholicke Church vnderunder the name of Papists, is a very true report, and for want of grace reproued by the Author as though it were no true doctrine. And the second part of the comparison on the authors side, contained vnderunder (We say) by them that in hypocrisy pretend to bée fruethes frendes, conteineth an vntrueth to the simple reader, and yet hath a matter of wrangling to the learned reader, because of the word (very) which referred to the effect of eating the body of Christ,The word (very) may make wrangling. whereby to receaue lyfe, may be so spoaken, that none receaue the body of Christ with the very effect of lyfe, but such as eate the sacrament spiritually, that is to say with true fayth worthely. And yet euill men as Iudas, receaue the same very body, touching the truth of the presence thereof, that S. Peter did. For in the substāce of the Sacrament, which is Gods worke is no varietie, who ordeineth all (as afore) vniformely, but in man is the varietie, amongst whom he that receaueth worthely Christes body, receaueth life, and be that receaueth vnworthely, receaueth condemnation. There followeth further.