Answer unto a Crafy and Sophistical Cavillation, Debate · Confutation of book 4 · Section 5 – Section 6
Caunterbury.
HEre the reader shall euidently see your accustomed maner, that whē you be destitute of answer, and hauehave none other shyft, then fall you to scoffing and scolding out the matter, as Sophisters sometymes do at theyr problemes. But as ignorant as I am, you shall not so escape me. First you byd the reader marke, that I talke of the sacrament, not as I teach my selfe: But I would hauehave the reader here marke, that you report my wordes as you list your selfe, not as I speake them. For you report my question as I should say, that an vnrepentant sinner should receaue Christes body, where as I speake of the receauing of the sacrament of the body, and not of the very body it selfe.
Moreouer I make my question of the being of Christes body in an vnpenitent sinner, and you turne being into abiding, because being biteth you so sore. Fyrst you confes that an vnrepentaunt sinner, receauing the sacrament,Whether a sinner hauehave Christ within him. hath not Christes body within him, and then may I say that he eateth not Christes body, except he eate it without him. And although it followeth not, he receaued Christ, eego he hath him in him: yet it followeth necessarily, he receaueth him, ergo he hath him within him, for the tyme of the receipt: As a bottomleffe vessell, although it keepe no licour, yet for the tyme of the receauing, it hath the licour in it. And how can Christ departe from an vnpenitent sinner (as you say he doeth) if he hauehave him not at all? And because of myne ignoraunce, I would fayne leran of you (that take vponupon you to be a man of knowledge) how an euill man receauing Christes very body, and whole Christ God and man (as you say an euell man doth) and Christes body being such as it cannot be deuided from his spirite (as you say also) how this euell man receauing Christes spirite, should be an euell man, for the tyme that he hath Christes spirit within him? Or how can he receaue Christes body and spirite (according to your saying) and hauehave them not in him for the tyme he receaueth them? Or how can Christ enter into an euell man (as you confesse) and be not in him, into whome he entreth at that present tyme? These be matters of your knowledge (as you pretend) which if you can teach me, I must confesse myne ignoraunce. And if you cannot, for so much as you hauehave spoken them, you must confesse the ignoraunce to be vponupon your owne part.
And S. Paule sayth not (as you vntruely recite him) that in him that receaueth vnworthely,1. Cor. 12. remayneth iudgement and condemnation, but that he eateth and drincketh condemnation. And where you say, that S. Paules wordes playnly import, that those did eate the very body of Christ, which did eate vnworthely, euer still you take for a supposition the thing which you should proue. For S. Paule speaketh playnly of the eating of the bread and drincking of the cup, and not one word of eating of the body and drincking of the bloud of Christ. And let any indifferent reader looke vponupon my questions, and he shall see, that there is not one word answered here directly vntounto them, except mocking and scorning be taken for aunswere.
And where you deny, that of your doctrine it should follow, that one man should be both the temple of God and the temple of the deuell, you can not deny, but that your owne teaching is, that Christ entreth into euell men, when they receaue the sacrament. And if they be his temple into whome he entreth, then must euell men be his temple, for the tyme they receaue the sacrament, although he tary not long with them. And for the same tyme they be euell men (as you say) and so must nedes be the temple of the deuell. And so it followeth of your doctrine and teaching, that at one tyme a man shall be the temple of God and the temple of the deuell. And in your figure of Christ vponupon earth, although he taryed not long with eueryevery man that receaued him, yet for a tyme he taried with them. And the word of God tarieth for the tyme with many, which after forget it, and kepe it not. And then so must it be by these examples in euell men receauing the sacrament, that for a tyme Christ must tary in them, although that tyme be very short. And yet for that tyme by your doctrine those euell men must be both the temples of God and of Beliall.
And where you pretend to conclude this matter by the authoritie of S. Paule,2. Cor. 6. 1. Cor. 11. it is no small contumely and iniury to S. Paule, to asscribe your fayned and vntrue glose vntounto him, that taught nothing but ye truth, as he learned the same of Christ. For he maketh mentiō of the eating and drincking of the bread and cuppe, but not one word of ye eating and drincking of Christes body and bloud. Now followeth in my booke my answer to the Papistes in this wise.
But least they should seme to hauehave nothing to say for them selues, they alleadge S. Paule in the eleuenth to the Corinth. where he sayth:Chap. 6. The aunswere to the Papists. 2. Cor. 11. He that eateth and drincketh vnworthely, eateth and drincketh his owne damnation, not discerning the Lordes body.
But S. Paule in that place speaketh of the eating of the bread and drinking of the wine, and not of the corporall eating of Christes flesh and bloud, as it is manifest to eueryevery man that will reade the text. For these be the wordes of S. Paule: Let a man examin him selfe, and so eat of the bread and drincke of the cup, for he that eateth and drincketh vnworthely, eateth and drincketh his owne damnation, not discerning the Lordes body.
In these wordes S. Paules mynd is, that for asmuch as the bread and wine in the Lordes supper, do represent vntounto vsus the very body and bloud of our sauiour Christ, by his owne institution and ordinance, therfore although he sit in heauen at his fathers right hand, yet should we come to this misticall bread and wine with fayth, reuerence, purite and feare, as we would do, if we should come to see and receaue Christ him selfe sensibly present. For vntounto the faythfull Christ is at his own holy table presēt, with his mighty spirite & grace and is of them more fruitfully receaued, then if corporally they should receaue him bodely present. and therfore they that shall worthely com to this Gods boord, must after due triall of them selues, consider first who ordeined this table, also what meat and drincke they shall hauehave that come therto, and how they ought to behaue them selues therat. He that prepared the table, is Christ him selfe: The meat and drincke wherwith he fedeth them that come therto as they ought to do, is his own body, flesh and bloud. They that com therto, must occupy theyr myndes in considering how his body was broken for them, and his bloud shed for theyr redemption, and so ought they to approch to this heauenly table with all humblenes of hart, and godlynes of mynd, as to the table wherin Christ hym selfe is giuen. And they that come otherwise to this holy table, they come vnworthely, and do not eat & drincke Christes flesh and bloud, but eat and drincke theyr own damnation; bicause they do not duely consider Christes very flesh and bloud, which be offred there spiritually to be eaten and drinken, but dispising Christes most holy supper, do come therto as it were to other common meates & drinckes, without regarde of the Lordes body, which is the spirituall meat of that table.
Winchester.
In the .97. leafe and the second columne, the Author beginneth to trauerse ye wordes of S. Paule to the Corinthians, and would distinct vnworthy eating in the substance of the Sacrament receyued, which can not be: For our vnworthines can not alter the substance of Gods sacrament, that is euermore all one, howsoeuer we swarue from worthynes to vnworthynes. And this I would aske of this Author why should it be a fault in the vnworthy not to esteme the Lordes body, when he is taught (yf this authors doctrine be true) that it is not there at all? If the bread after this authors teaching be but a figure of Christes body, it is then but as Manna was, the eating wherof vnworthily and vnfaythfully,… was no gift of Christes body. Erasmus noteth these wordes of S. Paule to be gylty of our Lordes body, to proue the presence of Christes body there, who compareth such an offender to the Iewes, that did shed Christes bloud maliciously, as those do prophane it vnprofitably, in which sense the Grke commentaries do also expound it. And where this author bringeth in the wordes of S. Paule as it were to poynt out the matter, Let a man examine him selfe, and so eate of the bread and drincke of the cup,To eate. for he that eateth vnworthely, &c. these wordes of examining and so eatyng, declare the thing to be ordered to be eaten, and all the care to be vsed on our side, to eate worthely, or els S. Paule had not sayd (and so eat.) And when S. Paule sayth, Eate iudgement, and this Author well remember him selfe, he must call Iudgement, the effect of that is eaten, and not the thing eaten, for iudgment is neyther spirituall meat nor corporall, but the effect of the eating of Christ in euyll men, who is saluation to good, and iudgement to euell. And therfore as good men, eating Christ hauehave saluation, so euill men eating Christ hauehave condemnation, and so for the diuersite of the eaters of Christes body, followeth as they be worthy and vnworthy, the effect of condemnation or lyfe. Christes sacrament and his worke also in the substance of that sacrament bring alwayes one. And what so euer this author talketh otherwise in this matter, is mere trifles.