Answer unto a Crafy and Sophistical Cavillation, Debate · Confutation of book 2 · Section 2
Winchester.
But to the purpose, the simplicity of fayth in a christen mans brest, doth not so precisely marke and stay at the sillables of Christes wordes, as this author pretendeth, and knowing by fayth the truth of Christes wordes, that as he sayd he wrought, doth not measure gods secret working after the prolation of our sillables, whose worke is in one instant how so euer speach in vsus require a successiue vtterance, and the manner of handling, this author vseth to bring the misticall wordes in contempt, were meeter in an Ethnikes mouth to iest out all, then to passe the lippes of such an author, to play with the sillables after this sort. For although he may read in some blind glose that in the instant of the last sillable, gods worke is to be accompted wrought, being a good lesson to admonish the minister to pronounce all, yet it is so but a priuate opinion, and reuerently vttered, not to put the vertue in the last sillable, nor to scorne the catholique fayth, after which manner taking example of this author, if an Ethnicke should iest of (Fiat Lux) at (fi) was nothing, and then at (at) was yet nothing (at lu) was nothing but a litle little pearing, put an (x) to it, and it was sodenly Lux, and then the light. What christen man would handle eyther place thus? and therfore reader let this entry of the matter serue for an argument with what spirite this matter is handled, but to answere that this author noteth with an exclamation: Oh good Lord how would they hauehave bragged: if Christ had sayd, This is no bread. Here I would question with this author, whether Christ sayd so or no, and reason thus: Christes body is no materiall bread, Christ sayd: This is my body, Ergo he sayd, this is no bread. And the first part of this reason, this author affirmeth in the 59. leafe. And the second part is Christes wordes, and therfore to auoyd this conclusion the onelyonly way is to say, that Christes speach was but a figure, which the catholique doctrine sayth is false, and therfore by the catholique doctrine Christ saying, this, is my body, sayth in effect, this is no bread, wherat this author sayth: They would bragge if Christ had sayd so. In speach is to be considered, that eueryevery yea containeth a nay in it naturally, so as who so euer sayth: This is bread, sayth it is no wine: Who soeuer sayth this is wine, sayth, it is no beere. If a Lapidary sayth: This is a Diamōd, he sayth it is no glas, he sayth it is no christall, he sayth it is no white Saphir. So Christ saying this is my body, sayth it is no bread: Which plainesse of speach caused Zuinglius to say playnly, if there be presēt ye substaūce of ye body of Christ, there is trāsubstātiatiō, that is to say, not ye substaūce of bread, & therfore who wil playnly deny transubstantion, must deny the true presence of the substaunce of Christes body as this author doth, wherein I hauehave first conuinced him, and therfore vse that victory for his ouerthrow in transubstantiation. I hauehave shewed before how Christes wordes were not figuratiue when he sayd, This is my body, and yet I will touch here such testimonie, as this author bringeth out of one Hylary for the purpose of trāsubstātiation, in the xxv. leafe of this booke in these wordes: There is a figure sayth Hylary, for bread and wine be outwardly sene, and there is also a truth of that figure, for the body and bloud of Christ be of a truth inwardly beleued. These be Hylaries words as this author alledgeth them, who was he sayth within 350. yeares of Christ. Now I call to thy iudgement good reader, could any man deuise more pithy wordes for the proofe of the reall presence of Christes body and bloud, and the condemnation of this author that would hauehave an onelyonly figure? Here in Hilarius wordes is a figure compared to truth, and sight outwardly to beleue inwardly. Now our belief is grounded vponupon gods word, which is this; This is my body: in which wordes Hylary testifieth that is inwardly beleued is a truth, and the figure is in that is sene outwardly. I take Hylary here as this author alledgeth him, whereby I aske the Reader, is not this author ouerthrowē, that Christs speach is not figuratiue but true and proper beyng inwardly true that we beleue? Ye will say vntounto me, What is this to transubstantiation, to the reprofe wherof it was brought in? bicause he sayth bread and wine is seene. First I say that it ouerthroweth this author for truth of the presence of Christes body, and eueryevery ouerthrow therin ouerthroweth this author in Transubstantiation, not by authority of the church of Rome, but by consequence in truth as Zuinglius sayth, who shall serue me to auoyd papistry. If one aske me, what say ye then to Hilary that bread and wine is seene? I say they be in déede séene, for they appeare so, and therfore be called so: as Isaac sayd of Iacob, it was his voyce, and yet by his sence of féelyng, denyed him Esau, which was not Esau, but was Iacob, as the voyce frō within did declare him. If ye will aske me how can there accordyng to Hylaries wordes, be in the outward visible creatures any figure, vnlesse the same be in déede as they appeare bread and wine? I will aunswere. Euen as well as this outward obiect of the sensible hearynes of Iacob, resemblyng Esau, was a figure of Christes humanitie and of the very humanitie in déede. Thus may Hylary be aunswered to auoyde his authoritie from contrarying transubstantiation. But this author shall neuer auoyde that him selfe hath brought out of Hylary, which ouerthroweth him in his figuratiue speach, & consequently in his deniall of transubstantiation also, as shall appeare in the further handlyng of this matter. Where this author in the 18. leaf compareth these S. Paules wordes: The bread that we breake, is it not the communion of the body of Christ: to the expoundyng of Christes wordes, This is my body: I deny that: for Christes wordes declared the substaunce of the Sacrament when he sayd, This is my body: and S. Paul declareth the worthy vse of it accordyng to Christes institution, and by the wordes, (The bread that we breake) doth signifie the whole vse of the Supper, wherein is breakyng, blessing, thankesgeuyng, dispensing, receiuyng and eatyng, So as onelyonly breakyng is not the communion, and yet by that part in a figure of speach S. Paul meaneth all, beyng the same as appeareth by the Scripture, a terme in speach, to goe breake bread, although it be not alwayes so taken, whereby to signifie to go celebrate our Lordes Supper: and therfore bread in that place may signifie the commō bread, as it is adhibite to be consecrat, which by the secret power of God turned into the body of Christ, and so distributed and receaued, is the communiō of the body of Christ, as the cup is likewise of the bloud of Christ, after the benediction, which benediction was not spoken of in the bread, but yet must be vnderstanded. As for callyng of Christes bread his body, is to make it his body, who as S. Paule sayth calleth that is not, as it were, and so maketh it to be.
The argumentes this author vseth in the 19. and 20. leafe of the order of Christes speaches as the Euangelistes rehearse them, be captious deuises of this author, in case he knoweth what S. Augustine writeth: or els ignoraunce, if he hath not read S. Augustine De doctrina Christiana, where he geueth a rule of recapitulation as he calleth it, when that is told after, that was done afore, and therfore we may not argue so firmely vponupon the order of the tellyng in the speach. S. Augustine bringeth an example that by order of tellyng.Augustine lib. 3 cap. 36. Adam was in Paradise or any trée was brought forth for féedyng, with diuers other, wherewith I will not encomber the Reader. The Euangelist rehearseth what Christ sayd and did simply and truely, whiche story we must so place in vnderstandyng, as we trifle not with the mysterie, at staying and stoppyng of letters and sillables. And therfore though the word (take, eate) go before the wordes (This is my body) we may not argue that they tooke it and eate it afore Christ had told them what he gaue them, & all these often rehearsalles of bread, with he tooke bread, and breake bread, and blessed bread, and if ye will adde held bread, all this induce no consequence that he therfore gaue bread. For hee gaue that he had consecrate, and gaue that he made of bread. If Christ when he was tempted to make stones bread, had taken the stones and blessed them and deliuered them saying, This is bread, had he than deliuered stones, or rather that hee made of stones bread? Such maner of reasonyng vseth Peter Martyr as this author doth, whose folie I may well say he saw not to eschew it, but as appeareth rather to follow it: And yet not content to vse this fonde reasonyng, this author calleth Papistes to witnes that they might laugh at it, bicause the Euangelist telleth the story so as Christ sayd, (drinke) and then told after what it was, this author phantasieth that the Apostles should be so hasty to thinke ere Christ had told them what he gaue, which and they had, I thinke hee would hauehave stayed the cup with his hand, or byd them tary, whiles he had told them more. I will no further trauaile with this reasoning, which is pitie to heare in such a matter of grauitie, of such consequence as it is both in body and soule. We may not trifle with Christes wordes after this sort. When S. Paule sayth, we be partakers of one bread, hee speaketh not of materiall bread, but of Christes body our heauenly bread, which to all is one and can not be consumed, but able to féede all the world, and if this author gyueth credite to Theodoreths, whom he calleth an holyman, then shall he neuer finde the Sacrament called bread after the sanctification, but the bread of lyfe, the like whereof should be in an Epistle of Chrisostome, as Peter Martyr alledgeth, not yet printed, by whose authoritie if they hauehave any, as in their place this author maketh much of them, all these argumentes be all trifles, for all the namyng of bread by Christ and S. Paule and all other, must be vnderstanded before the sanctification and not after. And if thou (Reader) lookest after vponupon Theodoretus & that Epistle, thou shalt finde true that I say, whereby all this questionyng with the Papistes is onelyonly a calying for this authors pleasure, agaynst his owne authors, and all learnyng.