Answer unto a Crafy and Sophistical Cavillation, Debate · Confutation of book 2 · Section 17 – Section 22
Caunterbury.
WHere I hauehave corrupted Emissene, let the reader be iudge. But when Emissene speaketh godly of the alteration, change, and turning of a man,Turning. from the congregation of the wicked vntounto the congregation of Christ (which he calleth the body of the church) and from the childe of death vntounto the child of God, this must be made a matter of scoffing, to turne light fellowes out of the chancell into the body of the church. Such trifling now a dayes becometh gayly well godly Bishoppes, what if in the steede of (turning) I had sayd (skipt ouer) as the word transilisti signifieth, which (although peraduenture the bookes be false and should be transisti) I hauehave translated (turning) should I hauehave so escaped a mocke trow you? You would then hauehave sayd, he that so doth, goeth not out at the chancell dore into the body of the church, but skippeth ouer the stalles. But that Emissene ment of turning, is cleare, aswell by the wordes that go before, as those which go after, which I referre to the iudgement of the indifferent reader.
But forasmuch as you would perswade men, that this author maketh so much for your purpose, I shall set forth his minde playnly, that it may appeare how much you be deceaued. Emissenes mynd is this,Emissenus minde. that although our sauiour Christ hath taken his body hence from our bodely sight, Yet we see him by fayth, and by grace he is here present with vsus, so that by him we be made new creatures, regenerated by him, and fedde and nourished by him, which generation and nutrition in vsus, is spirituall without any mutation appearing outwardly, but wrought within vsus inuisibly by the omnipotent power of God. And this alteration in vsus, is so wonderfull, that we be made new creatures in Christ, grafted into his body, and of the same receaue our nourishment and encreasing. And yet visibly with our bodely eyes we see not these thinges, but they be manifest vntounto our fayth by gods worde and sacraments. And Emissene declareth none other reall presence of Christ in the sacrament of his body and bloud, then in the Sacrament of baptisme, but spiritually by fayth to be present in both.
And where Emissene speaketh of the conuersion of earthly creatures into the substance of Christ,Conuersion. he speaketh that aswell of baptisme, as of the lordes supper, as his owne wordes playnly declare. If thou wilt know (sayth he) how it ought not to seme to thee a new thing and impossible, that earthly and corruptible thinges be turned into the substance of Christ looke vppon thy selfe, which art made new in baptisme. And yet he ment not, that the water of baptisme in it selfe is really turned into the substance of Christ, nor likewise bread and wine in the Lordes supper, but that in the action, water, wine and bread, as sacraments, be sacramentally conuerted (vntounto him that duely receaueth them) into the very substance of Christ. So that the sacramentall conuersion is in the Sacraments, and the reall conuertion is in him that receaueth the sacraments, which reall conuertion is inward, inuisible and spirituall. For the outward corporall substances, aswell of the name as of the water, remayne the same that they were before. And therfore sayth Emissene. Thou visibly diddest remayne in the same measure that thou haddest before, but inuisibly thou wast made greater without any increase of thy body, thou wast the selfe same person, and yet by the encrease of fayth thou wast made an other man. Outwardly nothing was added, but all the change was inwardly. In these wordes hath Emissene playnly declared, that the conuersion in the sacraments (wherof he spake when he sayd, that earthly and corruptible thinges be turned into the substance of Christ) is to be vnderstand in the receauours by their fayth, and that in the sayd conuersion the outward substance remayneth the selfe same that was before. And that Emissene ment this, as well in the sacrament of the lordes supper, as in the sacrament of baptisme, his own wordes playnly declare. So that the substance of Christ, as well in baptisme as the Lordes supper, is seene: not with our eyes, but with our fayth: and touched not with our bodies, but with our mindes: and receaued not with our hands, but with our hartes: eaten and drunken not with our outward mouthes, but with our inward man.
And where Emissene sayth, that Christ hath taken his body from our sight into heauen, and yet in the sacrament of his holy supper he is present with his grace through fayth, he doth vsus to vnderstand, that he is not present in the formes of bread and wine out of the ministration (except you will say, that fayth and grace be in the bread, when it is kept and hanged vp) but when the bread and wine be eaten and drunken according to Christes institution, then to them that so eate and drincke, the bread and wine is the body and bloud of Christ, according to Christes wordes,The booke of common prayer. Edite, hoc est corpus meum. Bibite, hic est calix senguinis mei. And therfore in the booke of the holy communion, we do not pray that the creatures of bread and wine may be the body and bloud of Christ, but that they may be to vsus the body and bloud of Christ, that is to say, that we may so eate them, and drincke them, that we may be partakers of his body crucified, and of his bloud shed for our redemption.
Thus hauehave I declared the truth of Emissenes mynd, which is agreable to Gods word,Absurdities. and the olde catholike Church. But now what illusions and dreames you fantasy of Emissenes wordes, it is a wonder to heare. First that the substance of bread and wine is an inward nature, and that in baptisme the whole man is not regenerated but the soule onelyonly, and that the soule of man is the substance of man, and made the sonne of God. And now when it serueth for your purpose, the body of Christ is a corporall substance, which in all your booke before was but a spirituall body, and the substance of bread and wine be visible creatures, which were wont with you to be inward and inuisible natures: and now is the inward nature of the bread the substance of the bread, where as in other places the outward fourmes be the substance, so litle substance is in your doctrine, that from tyme to tyme you thus alter your sayings. This is no tripping, but so shamefull a fall, and in so foule and stincking a place, that you shall neuer be able to spunge the filthines out of your clothes, and to make your selfe sweete agayne.
And you appoynt at your pleasure both terminum a quo, terminum ad quem, and the changes, and the thinges that be changed, altogither otherwise then Emissene doth. For in Emissene the changes be regeneration and nourishing or augmentation, the thing that is changed is the man, both in regeneration and in nutrition or augmentation, and in regeneration terminus a quo, is the sonne of perdition, and terminus ad quem, is the sonne of God. And in nutrition terminus a quo, is the hunger and thirst of the man, and terminus ad quem, is the feeding and satisfying of his hunger and thirst. But you appoynt the changes to be Transubstātiatiō and regeneration, and the thinges that be changed in Transubstantiation, you say is the substance of bread and wine, and the same to be terminum a quo, and the flesh and bloud of Christ (say you) is terminus ad quem. And in regeneration you assigne terminum a quo, to be the soule of man onelyonly, and terminum ad quem, to be regenerated the sonne of God. And so being viii. thinges in these ii. mutations, in each of them the change, the thing that is changed, the thing from whence it is changed, and the thing wherunto it is changed, you hauehave mist the butte clearly in all, sauing ii. that is to say, regeneration and the thing wherunto regeneration is made, and in all other vi. you missed the quishion quite. And yet if the change were in the substance of bread and wine, proportionably to the change of the soule (being the substance of man as you say) if you should make the proportions agree, then as the soule, being the mans substance, remayneth without Transubstantiation, so must the bread and wine remayne without transubstantiation. And if the substance of the bread and wine be not the visible signe in the lordes supper (because substance) as you say (is a thing inuisible,) then is not the substance of water the visible signe in baptisme bring no more visible the substance of the one, then the substance of the other. Now of Hilary I write thus.
Hilarius also in few wordes sayth the same.Hilarius. There is a figure (sayth he) for bread and wine be outwardly seene. And there is also a truth of that figure, for the body and bloud of Christ be of a truth inwardly beleued. And this Hilarius was within lesse then 350. yeares after Christ.
Winchester.
But I will examine moe particularieties. I hauehave before answered to Hilary,Hilarius. so whome neuerthelesse I would aptly hauehave sayd somewhat now to note, how he distincteth outwardly and inwardly by beleefe and corporall sight. For outwardly as Emissene sayth, we see no change, and therfore we see after Consecration, as before, which we may therfore call bread, but we beleue that inwardly is, which as Emissene sayth, is the substance of the body of Christ, wherunto the change is made of the inward nature of bread, as by the comparison of Emissene doth appeare.
Caunterbury.
YOur distinction made here of outwardly and inwardly, is a playne confusion of Hilarius mynd, and contrary to that which you wrote before in Emissene. For there you sayd, that the visible creatures be changed (meaning by the visible creatures, the substances of bread and wine) and now when Hilary sayth, that bread and wine be seene, you say that their substances be not seene, but the outward formes onelyonly, which you say, be called bread and wine. But here appeareth into how narrow a straight you be driuen, that be fayne for a shift to say, that the accidents of bread without the substance, be called bread.
Epiphanius is next in my booke.
And Epiphanius shortly after the same tyme, sayth, that the bread is meat, but the vertue that is in it,Epiphanius cō tra haereses lib. 3. to. 2. et in Anacephaleosi. is it that giueth life. But if there were no bread at all, how could it be meate?
Winchester.
These wordes of Epiphanius do playnly ouerturne this authors doctrine of a figuratiue speach: for a figure can not geue life, onelyonly God giueth life, and the speach of this Epiphanius of the sacrament doth necessarily imply the very true presence of Christes body author of life. And then as often as the author is ouerthrowen in the truth of the presence, so often is he (by Zuinglius rule) ouerthrowen in Transubstantiation. As for the name of bread is granted bicause it was so, and Transubstantiation doth not take away, but it is meate bicause of the visible matter remayning.
These sayings be sought out by this author onelyonly to wrangle, not taken out, where the mistery is declared and preached to be taught as a doctrine therof, but onelyonly signified by the way and spoken of vponupon occasion, the sence wherof faythfull men know otherwise then appeareth at the first readings to the carnall man, but by such like speaches the Arrians impugned the diuinity of Christ.
Caunterbury.
Epiphanius speaking of the bread in ye Lordes supper, and the water in baptisme sayth that they hauehave no power nor strength of thē selues but by Christ. So that the bread feedeth, and the water washeth the body, but neither the bread nor water giuegive life, nor purge to saluation, but onelyonly the might and power of Christ that is in them. And yet not in them reserued, but in the action and ministration, as it is manifest of his wordes. And therfore as in baptisme is neyther the reall and corporall presence of Christes body, nor transubstantiation of the water, no more is in the Lordes supper, eyther Christes flesh and bloud really and corporally present, or the bread and wine transubstantiated. And therfore Epiphanius calleth not bread by that name, bicause it was so, but bicause it is so in deede, and nourished the body. As Hilary sayd, there is a figure, (for bread and wine be openly seene) he sayth not there was a figure, for bread and wine were openly seene. And the figure giueth not life, nor washeth not inwardly, but Christ that is in the figure, tanquam signatum in signo. And where you be fayne to say, that accidents be meate without substance, all the world may iudge how shamefull a shift this is, and how contrary to this principle of philosophy, Ex eisdem sunt, & nutriuntur omnia. Oh what absurdities you be driuen vntounto, for the defence of your Papisticall inuentions? Now cometh S. Iohn Chrisostome, of whome in my booke is thus written.
Chrisosto. in Math. ca. 27. Ho. 83.About the same tyme of shortly after, about the yeare of our Lord 400. S. Iohn Chrisostom writeth thus, agaynst them that vsed onelyonly water in the Sacrament. Christ (sayth he) minding to plucke vp that heresy by the rootes, vsed wine, as well before his resurrection, when he gaue the misteries, as after at his table without misteries. For the sayth of the fruite of the vine, which surely bringeth forth no water but wine.
These wordes of Chrisostome declare playnly, that Christ in his holy table, both drancke wine and gaue wine to drincke, which had not bene true, if no wine had remayned after the consecration, as the Papistes fayne. And yet more playnly S. Chrisostome declareth this matter in an other place, saying:Ad Cesarium Monachum. The bread before it be sanctified, is called bread, but when it is sanctified by the meanes of the priest, it is deliuered from the name of bread, and is exalted to the name of the Lordes body, although the nature of bread dooth still remayne.
The nature of bread (sayth he) doth still remayne, to the vtter and manifest confutation of the Papists, which say that the accidents of bread do remayne, but not the nature and substance.
Winchester.
Christostome speaketh in this place of wine,Chrisost…m. as Ciprian did before agaynst those that offer no wine but water. Chrisostome sayth thus: Christ vsed wine, and I graunt he did so. For he did consecrate that creature, and as Emissene sayth, turned it in the celebration and dispensation of these misteries. But this saying toucheth nothing the doctrine of Transubstantiation. The second saying of Chrisostom which I neuer redde but in Peter Martirs booke, who sayth it is not printed, toucheth this authors doctrine much, if the bread by consecration be deliuered from the name of bread, and exalted to the name of our Lordes body. Now consider reader, if this manner of speach by Chrisostome here meaneth an effectuall naming, to make the substance of the body of Christ present, as Chrisostome in his publike approued workes is vnderstanded of all to teach, then is the deliuerance from the name of bread of like effect, to take away the reason of the name of bread, which is the change in substance therof. Or if the author will say that by the name of bread Chrisostome vnderstandeth the bare name, how can that stand without reprofe of S. Paule: who after this authors mynde calleth it bread after consecration, and so do many other by this author alleadged. Here percase may be sayd what should I reason what he ment, when he sayth playnly the nature of bread still remayneth? To this I say that as Chrisostome in this place (of an epistle not published by credite) sayth that the nature of bread remayneth: So Ciprian that was older then he, sayth the nature of bread is changed, which Chrisostome in his other workes, by publique credite set abrode, semeth not to deny. Now the word (nature) signifieth both the substance,The word Nature hath two significations. and also propriety of the nature. The substance therfore after Ciprian by the word of God is changed, but yet the proper effect is not changed, but in the accidences remayne without illusion, by which diuers signification and acception of the word nature, both the sayings of S. Ciprian and S. Chrisostome (if this be his saying) may be accorded, and notwithstanding the contrariete in letter, agree neuertheles in sence betwene themselfe, and agree with the true doctrine of Transubstantiation. Adde to this how the wordes of Chrisostome next following this sentence, alleadged by this author, and as it semeth of purpose left her out, do both confound this authors enterprise, and confirme the true doctrine. Which wordes be these, (And is not called two bodies but one body of the sonne of God.) Of Chrisostome I shall speake agayne hereafter.