Answer unto a Crafy and Sophistical Cavillation, Debate · Confutation of book 4 · Section 9 – Section 10
Caunterbury.
IN this poynt I will ioyne a playne issue with you,An issue. that I neyther willingly goe about to deceaue the reader in the serching of S. Augustine (as you vse to do in eueryevery place,) nor I hauehave not trusted my man or frende herein, (as it semeth you hauehave done ouermuch) but I hauehave diligently expended and wayed the matter my selfe. For although in such waightie matters of scripture and aunciēt authors you must nedes trust your men, (without whom I know you can doe very litle, being brought vp from your tender age in other kindes of study (yet I hauing exercised my selfe in the study of scripture, and diuinitye from my youth (wherof I geue most harty laudes and thankes to God) hauehave learned now to goe alone, and do examine, iudge, and write all such waighty matters my selfe, although (I thanke God). I am neyther so arrogant nor so wilfull, that I will refuse the good aduise, counsailie, and admonition of any man, be he man or master, frende or foe.
But as concerning ye place alleadged by you out of S. Augustine, let the reader diligently expend myne whole aunswer to S. Augustine,Augustin de Bapti. con. Dona. li. 5. cap. 8. and he shall (I trust) be fully satisfied. For S. Augustine in his booke De baptismo contra Donatistas (as I hauehave declared in my booke) speaketh of the morsell of bread and sacrament (which Iudas also dyd eate as S. Augustine sayth? And in this speach he considered (as he writeth Contra Maximinū ) not what it is, but what it signifieth, and therfore he expresseth ye matter by Iudas more playnly in an other place saying: that he did eate ye bread of the Lord,August. In Iohn tract. 19. not the bread being the Lord (as the other Apostles dyd) signifying therby that the euell eate the bread, but not the Lord himselfe. As S. Paule sayth that they eate and drincke Panem & calicem Domini, the bread and the cup of the Lord, and not that they eate the Lord himselfe. And S. Augustine sayth not (as you faine of him) that the substaunce of this sacrament is the body and bloud of Christ, but the substaunce of this sacrament is bread and wine, (as water is in the sacramēt of Baptisme) and the same be all one, not altered, by the vnworthines of the receauors. And although S. Augustine in the wordes by you recited, call the sacrament of Christes body and bloud, his body and bloud, yet is the sacrament no more but the sacrament therof, and yet is it called the body and bloud of Christ, as sacraments hauehave the names of the thinges wherof they be sacraments, as the same S. Augustine teacheth most playnly ad Bonifacium.
And I hauehave not so far ouershot my selfe or bene ouersene, that I would hauehave atempted to publish this matter, if I had not before hand excussed the whole truth therin from the botome. But bicause I my selfe am certayne of the truth (which hath bene hid these many yeares, and persecuted by the Papistes with fyer and fagot, and should be so yet still if you might hauehave your owne will) and bicause also I am desirous that all my contrey men of England (vntounto whome I hauehave no smale cure and charge to tell the truth) should no longer be kept from the same truth, therfore hauehave I published the truth which I know, in the English tongue, to the entent that I may edefy all by that tongue, which all do perfectly know and vnderstand. Which my doing it semeth you take in very euell part, and be not a litle greued therat, bycause you would rather hauehave the light of truth hid still vnderunder the bushell, then openlye to be set abroad that all men may see it. And I thinke that it so little greueth M. Peter Martyre, that his booke is in english, that he would wish it to be trāslated likewise into all other languages.
August. de verbis Domini ser. 11.Now where you gather of the wordes of S. Augustine, De verbis Domini, that both the euill and good eat one body of Christ, the selfesame in substance,The selfe same flesh yt was crucified & is sensible, is eaten of Christē people. excluding all difference that deuise of fygure might imagine, to this I aunswere, that although you expresse the bodye of Christ, with what tearmes you can deuise, calling it (as you do in deed) the flesh yt was borne of the virgine Mary, the same flesh, the flesh it selfe, yet I confesse that it is eaten in the sacrament. And to expresse it yet more playnely then paraduenture you would hauehave me, I say, that the same visible & palpable flesh that was for vsus crucified and appeared after his resurrection, and was seene, felt, and groped, and ascended into heauen, and there sitteth at his fathers right hand, and at the last day shall come to iudge the quick & the dead, that selfe same body, hauing all the partes of a mans body, in good order and proportion, and being visible and tangible, I say is eaten of christen people at his holy supper, what will you now require more of me, concerning the truth of the body? I suppose you be sory that I graunt you so much, and yet what doth this helpe you? For the diuersitie is not in the body, but in the eating therof, no man eating it carnally, but the good eating it both sacramentally and spiritually, and the euill onelyonly sacramentally, that is to say, figuratiuely. And therfore hath S. Augustine these wordes (Certo quodam modo, after a certayne manner) bicause that the euill eate the sacrament, which after a certayne manner, is called the very body of Christ: which maner S. Augustine himselfe declareth most truely and playnly in a pistle ad Bonifacium, August. ad Bonifacium episto. 23.saying: If sacramentes had not some similitude or likenes of those thinges wherof they be sacraments, they could in no wise be sacramentes. And for theyr similitude and likenes, they hauehave commonly the name of the thinges wherof they be sacraments. Therfore after a certayne manner the sacrament of Christes body is. Christes body the sacrament of Christes bloud is Christes bloud. This epistle is set out in my booke the 64. leafe, which I pray the reader to looke vponupon for a more full answer vntounto this place. And after that maner Iudas and such like did eat ye morsell of the lordes bread, but not the bread that is the Lord, but a sacrament therof which is called the Lord, as S. Augustine sayth. So that with the bread entred not Christ with his spirit into Iudas, (as you say he doth into the wicked,) but Sathan entred into him, as the gospell testifieth. And if Christ entred than into Iudas with the bread (as you write) then the deuill and Christ entred into Iudas both at once.Ioh. 13.
Maister Bucer.As concerning M. Bucer, what meane you to vse his authoritie, whose authoritie you neuer estemed heretofore? And yet Bucer varieth much from your errour: for he denieth vtterly, that Christ is really and substancially present in the bread, either by conuersion or inclusion, but in the ministration he affirmeth Christ to be present: and so do I also, but not to be eaten and drunken of them that be wicked and members of the deuill, whome Christ neyther fedeth, nor hath any communiō with them. And to conclude in few wordes the doctrine of M. Bucer in the place by you alleadged, he di…enteth in nothing from Ecolampadius and Zuinglius. Wherfore it semeth to me somwhat strange, that you should alleadge him for the confirmation of your vntrue doctrine, being so clerely repugnant vntounto his doctrine.
The wordes of Theodoretus (if they were his) be so far from your report,Theodoretus. that you be ashamed to reherse his wordes as they be writtē, which when you shall do, you shall be answered. But in his dialogs he declareth in playne termes not onelyonly the figuratiue speach of Christ in this matter, but also wherfore Christ vsed those figuratiue speaches, as the reader may find in my booke the 67, 68. 69. and 70. leaues. By which maner of speach it may be sayd, that Christ deliuered to Iudas his body and bloud, when he deliuered it him in a figure therof.
And as concerning S. Hierome,Hieronimus. he calleth the misteries or misticall bread and wine Christes flesh and bloud (as Christ called them him selfe) and the eating of them he calleth the eating of Christes flesh and bloud, bicause they be sacraments and figures, which represent vntounto vsus his very flesh and bloud. And all that do eate the sayd sacraments, be sayd to eate the body of Christ, bicause they eate the thing which is a representacion therof. But S. Hierom ment not, that euell men do indede eate the very body of Christ, for then he would not hauehave written vponupon Esaie, Hieremie, and Osee the contrary, saying, that heretikes and euill men neither eate his flesh nor drincke his bloud, which whosoeuer eateth and drincketh, hath euerlasting lyfe. Non comedunt carnem Iesu (sayth he vponupon Esai) ne que , bibunt sanguinem eius, de quo ipse loquitur: Qui comedit carnem meam & bibit meum sanguinem, habet vitam aternam. Hieroni. in Esaiam cap. 66.And yet he that cometh defiled vntounto the visible sacraments, defileth not onelyonly the sacraments, but the contumely therof pertayneth also vntounto Christ him selfe who is the author of the sacraments. And as the same S. Hierom sayth: Dum sacramenta violantur, ipse cuius sunt sacramenta violatur, Hieron. in Malachiam cap. 1.When the sacramentes (sayth he) be violated, then is he violated also to whom the sacraments apertayne. Now heare what followeth in the order of my booke.
And (as before is at length declared) a figure hath the name of the thing that is signified therby.Chap. 8. As a mans image is called a man, a Lyons image, a Lion: a byrdes image a byrd: and an image of a tree and herbe, is called a tree or herbe.Figures be called by ye names of the thinges which they signify. So were we wont to say: Our lady of Walsingham: Our Lady of Ipswich: Our Lady of Grace: Our Lady of pity: S. Peter of Millan: S. Ihon of Amyas, and such like, not meaning the things them selues, but calling their images by the name of the things by them represented. And likewise we were wont to say, Great S. Christopher of Yorke or Lyncoln: Our Lady smileth, or rocketh her child: Let vsus goe in pylgrimage to S. Peter at Rome, and S. Iames in Compostella. And a thousand like speaches, which were not vnderstande of the very things, but only of the images of them.
So doth S. Ihon Chrisostom say, that we see Christ with our eyes, touch hym, feele him, and grope him with our handes, fixe our teeth in his flesh, taste it, breake it, eate it, and digest it, make redde our tongues and dye them with his bloud, and swallow it, and drincke it.
And in a Catechisme by me translated and set forth, I vsed like maner of speach, saying, that with our bodily mouthes we receaue the body and bloud of Christ. Which my saying diuers ignorant persons (not vsed to reade olde auncient authors, nor acquanted with theyr phra… and manner of speach) dyd carpe and reprehend, for lacke of good vnderstanding.
For this speach, and other before rehersed of Chrisostom, and all other like, be not vnderstād of the very flesh and bloud of our sauiour Christ (which in very deede we neither feele nor see) but that which we doe to the bread and wine by a figuratiue speach, is spoken to be done to the flesh and bloud, bicause they be the very signes, figures, and tokens instituted of Christ, to represent vntounto vsus his very flesh and bloud.
And yet as with our corporall eyes, corporall handes, and mouthes we do corporally see, feele, tast and eate the bread, and drincke the wine (being the signe and sacramēts of Christes body) euen so with our spirituall eyes, handes, and mouthes, we do spiritually see, feele, taste and eate his very flesh, and drincke his very bloud.
Eusebius Emissenus in sermo. de Eucharistia.As Eusebus Emissenus sayth: Whan thou comest to the reuerend aulter to be filled with spiritual meates, with thy fayth looke vpō the body & bloud of him that is thy God, honor him, touch him with thy mynd, take him with the hand of thy hart, and drincke him with the draught of thine inward man. And these spirituall thinges require no corporall presence of Christ himselfe, who sitteth continually in heauen at the right hand of his Father.
And as this is most true, so is it full and sufficient to answere all thinges that the Papistes can bring in this matter, that hath any apparāce for their partie.
Winchester.
And yet these playne places of authority dissembled of purpose, or by ignoraunce passed ouer, this author, as though all thinges were by him clerely discussed to his entent, would by many conceptes furnish and further his matters, and therfore playeth with our Ladyes smiling rocking her Child, and many good mowes, so vnsemely for his person, as it maketh me almost forget him and my selfe also. But with such matter he filleth his leaues, and forgetting him selfe, maketh mention of the Catechisme by him translate, the originall wherof confuteth these two partes of this booke in few wordes, being Printed in Germany, wherin besides the matter written, is set forth in picture the manner of the minestring of this sacrament, where is the aulter with candle light set forth, the priest apparaled after the old sort, and the man to receaue kneling, barehead, and holding vp his handes, whiles the priest ministreth the host to his mouth, a matter as cleare contrary to the matter of this Booke, as is light and darkenesse, which now this Author would colour with speaches of authors in a boke written to instruct rude children, which is as sclender an excuse as euer was heard, and none at all, when the originall is loked one.
Emissenus.Emissene to stire vp mens deuotion comming to receaue this sacrament, requireth the roote and foundation therof in the mynd of man as it ought to be, and therfore exhorteth men to take the sacrament with the hand of the hart, and drincke with the draught of the inward man, which men needes do that will worthely repayre to this feast. And as Emissen speaketh these deuout wordes of the inward office of the receiuer, so doth he in declaration of the mistery shew how the inuisible priest with his secret power by his word doth conuert the visible creatures into the substance of his body and bloud, wherof I hauehave before intreated. The author vponupon these wordes deuoutly spoken by Emissen sayth, there is required no corporall precense of Christes precious body in the sacrament, continuing in his ignorance what the woord (Corporall) meaneth. But to speake of Emissene, if by his fayth the very body and bloud of Christ were not present vponupon the aultar, why doth he call it a reuerend aultar? Why to be fed there with spirituall meat? and why should fayth be required to looke vponupon the body & bloud of Christ, that is not there on the aultar, but as this Author teacheth onelyonly in heauen? And why should he that cometh to be fedde honor these misteries there? And why should Emissene allude to the hand of the hart, and draught of the inward man, if the hand of the body, and draught of the outward man had none office there? All this were vaine eloquence, and a mere abuse and illusion, if the sacramental tokens were only a figure. And if there were no presence but in figure, why should not Emissen rather hauehave followed the playne speach of the angell to the women that sought Christ, Iesum queritis, non est hic, Ye seeke Iesus, he is not here, and say as this author doeth, this is onelyonly a figure, do no worship here, goe vp to heauen: and downe with the aulter, for feare of illusion, which Emissen did not, but called it a reuerend alter, and inuiteth him that should receiue to honour that foode, with such good wordes as before, so far discrepant from this authors teaching as may be, & yet frō him he taketh occasiō to speake agaynst adoratiō.