Answer unto a Crafy and Sophistical Cavillation, Debate · Confutation of book 2 · Section 27
Caunterbury.
WHen you wrote this, it is like that you had not considered my third booke, wherin is a playne and direct answer to all that you hauehave brought in this place, or els where, concerning the reall presence of Christes body and bloud in the Sacrament. And how slender proofes you make in this place, to proue the reall presence, because of the Sacrifice, eueryevery man may iudge, being neyther your argument good, nor your antecedent true. For S. Augustine sayth not, that the body and bloud of Christ is the sacrifice of the church, and if he had so sayd, it inferreth not this conclusion, that the body of Christ should be really in the bread, and his bloud in the wine.
How bread is Christes body.And although S. Augustine sayth, that bread is Christes body, yet if you had well marked the 64.65. 66. leaues of my booke, you should there hauehave perceaued how S. Augustine declareth at length, in what manner of speach that is to be vnderstand, that is to say figuratiuely, in which speach the thing that signifieth and the thing that is signified, hauehave both one name,Ciprianus de vnctione chrismatis. as S. Ciprian manifestly teacheth. For in playne speach without figure, bread is not the body of Christ by your owne confession, who do say, that the affirmation of one substance is the negation of an other. And if the bread were made the body of Christ (as you say it is) then must you needes cōfesse, that the body of Christ is made of bread, which before you sayd was so foolish a saying, as were not tollerable by a scoffer to be deuised in a play, to supply when his fellow had forgotten his part. And seeing that the bread is not adnihilate and consumed into nothing (as the schoole authors teach) then must it needes follow, that the body of Christ is made of the matter of bread, for that it is made of the forme of bread, I suppose you will not graunt.
And as touching the second place of S. Augustine, he sayth not that the body and bloud of Christ be really in the Sacrament, but that in the Sacrifice of the church, that is to say, in the holy administration of the Lordes supper, is both a Sacrament and the thing signified by the Sacrament, the Sacrament being the bread and wine, and the thing signified and exhibited, being the body and bloud of Christ. But S. Augustine sayth not, that the thing signified is in the bread and wine (to whome it is not exhibited, nor is not in it, (but as in a figure) but that it is there in the true ministration of the Sacrament, present to the spirite and fayth of the true beleuing man, and exhibited truely and indeede, and yet spiritually not corporally.
And what neede any more euident proofes of S. Augustines mynd in this matter, how bread is called Christes body then S. Augustines owne wordes cited in the same place,De consecrat. di. 2. Hoc est. where the other is de consecratione dist. 2. Hoc est quod dicimus? These be S. Augustines wordes there cited. Sicut coelestis panis, qui Christi caro est, suo modo vocatur corpus Christi, cum re uera sit sacramentum corporis Christi, illius videlicet quod visibile, quod palpabile, mortale, in cruce positum est, vocatur que ipsa immolatio carnis (quae sacerdotis manibus fit) Christi passio, mors, crucifixio, non rei veritate, sed significanti misterio: sic Sacramentum fidei, (quod baptismus intelligitur) fides est. As the heauenly bread (which is Christes flesh) after a manner is called the body of Christ, where in very deede it is a sacrament of Christes body, that is to say, of that body which being visible, palpable, mortall, was put vppon the crosse: And as that offering of the flesh which is done by the priestes handes, is called the passion, the death the crucifying of Christ, not in truth of the thing, but in a signifying mistery so is ye Sacramēt of fayth (which is Baptisme) fayth. These wordes be so playne and manifest, that the expositour (being a very Papist) yet could not auoyd the matter, but wrote thus vponupon the sayd wordes. Immolatio quae fit a praesbitero, improprie appellatur Christi passio, velmors, vel crucifixio, non quod sit illa, sed quia illam significat. And after he sayth: Coeleste Sacramētū, quod vere repraesē tat Christi carnem, dicitur corpus Christi, sed improprie. Vnde dicitur, suo modo, sed non rei veritate, sed significanti misterio, vt sit sensus, vocatur Christi corpus, id est, significat.
The offering which the priest maketh, is called improperly the passion, death, or crucifying of Christ, not that it is that, but that it signifieth it. And the heauenly Sacrament (which truly represēteth Christes flesh) is called Christes body, but improperly. And therfore is sayd (after a manner, but not in the truth of the thing, but in the signifying mistery.) So that the sence is this, it is called the body of Christ, that is to say, signifieth. Now the wordes of S. Augustine being so playne, that none can be more, and following the other wordes within tenne lines (so that you can alleadge no ignorance, but you must needes see them) it can be none other but a wilfull blindnes, that you will not see, and also a wilfull concealing and hiding of the truth from other men, that they should not see neyther.
And this one place is sufficient at full to answere what so euer you can bring of the presence of Christ in the Sacrament of bread and wine. For after consecration, the body & bloud of Christ be in them but as in figures, although in the godly receauors, he is really present by his omnipotent power, which is as great a miracle in our dayly nurrishing, as is wrought before in our regeneration. And therfore is Christ no lesse to be honored of them that feede of him in his holy supper, then of them that be grafted in him by regeneration.
And where as I sayd vponupon S. Augustines wordes, that the Sacrament consisteth of two natures, in that place I collected more of S. Augustines wordes in your fauour, then indeed S. Augustine sayth, bicause you should not say, that I nipt him. For S. Augustine sayth not, that the sacrament consisteth of two natures, and therfore both these natures must needes remayne in the Sacrament, but he sayth that the Sacrifice consisteth of two thinges, which he calleth also natures, and therof it followeth, that those two thinges must be in the sacrifice, which is to be vnderstande, in the ministration not in the bread and wine reserued. And very true it is (as S Augustine sayth) that the sacrifice of the church consisteth of two thinges, of the Sacrament, and of the thing therby signified, which is Christes body, as the person of Christ consisteth of god and man.
But yet this resemblance is not altogither like (as you say truely for so much) for the person of Christ consisteth so of his godhead and manhod, that they be both in him in reall presence and vnity of person. But in the sacrifice it is otherwise, where neither is any such vnion betwene the sacrament, and the truth of the Sacrament, nor any such presence of the body of Christ. For in the bread and wine Christ is but figuratiuely (as I sayd before) and in the godly receauours spiritually, in whome also he tarieth & remayneth so long as they remayne the mēbers of his body.
Similitudes may not be pressed in at poynts, but in the purpose wherfore they be brought Luc. 16.But if Christes similitudes should be so narrowly pressed, as you presse here the similitude of the two natures of Christ in the sacrament, collecting that bicause the body and bloud of Christ be truely present in the due administration of the Sacrament, therfore they must be there naturally present, as the two natures of the humanity and diuinity be in Christ, many wicked errours should be established by them. As if the similitude of the wicked steward were strayned as you strayne and force this similitude, men might gather, that it is lawfull for Christen men to begile theire lordes and masters whiles they be in office, to helpe them selues when they be out of office, bicause the Lord praysed the wicked steward. Yet you know the similitude was not taught of our Sauiour Christ for that purpose (for God is no fauourer of falsehod and vntruth.) So you do wrong both to the holy Doctoures and to me, to gather of oure similitude any other doctrine, than we meane by the sayd similitude. Nor any reasonable man can say, that I am forced by confessing two natures in Christes person really, naturally and substantially, to confesse also the nature of the body and bloud of Christ to be likewise in the Sacrament, except he could proue that the holy Doctoures, and I following their doctrine, do teach and affirme, that the natures of bread and wine are ioyned in the Sacrament with the naturall body and bloud of Christ in vnity of person, as the natures of God and man be ioyned in our Sauiour Christ, which we do not teach, bicause we finde no such doctrine taught by Christ, by his Apostles, nor Euangilistes.
Therfore take your owne collection to your selfe, and make your selfe aunswere to such absurdities and inconuenience, as you do inferre, by abusing and forcing of the Doctours similitude to an other ende than they did vse it.
The fayth of the reall presēce in the formes is vnprofitable & vncomfortable.And it is not necessary for our eternall saluation, nor yet profitable for our comfort in this life, to beleeue that the naturall body and bloud of Christ is really, substancially, and naturally present in the Sacrament. For if it were necessary or comfortable for vsus, it is without doubt, that our sauiour Christ, his Apostles, and Euangelistes, would not hauehave omitted to teach this doctrine, distinctly and playnly. Yea our Sauiour would not hauehave sayd,Iohn. 6. Spiritus est qui viuificat, caro non prodest quitquam, The spirite giueth life, the flesh auayleth nothing.
But this doctrine which the holy doctors do teach,The profit and comfort of the true doctrine. is agreable to holy scripture, necessary for all christen persons to beleue for their euerlasting saluation, and profitable for their spirituall comfort in this present life, that is to say, that the Sacrament of Christes body and bloud in the natures and substances of bread and wine, is distributed vntounto all men, both good and euill which receaue it, and yet that onelyonly faythfull persons do receaue spiritually by fayth, the very body and bloud of our Sauiour Christ. So that Christes naturall body is not in the Sacrament really, substancially, and corporally, but onelyonly by representation and signification, and in his liuely members by spirituall and effectuall operation.
But it appeareth that you be foule deceaued in iudgement of the doctrine set out in my booke. And if you were not eyther vtterly ignorant in holy scriptures and doctors, or not obstinately bent to peruert the true doctrine of this holy Sacrament, you would neuer hauehave vttered this sentence. That there was neuer man ouerturned his owne assertions more euidently, then this Author doth. For I am well assured, that my doctrine is sound, and therfore do trust that I shall able to stand by myne assertions before all men that are learned, and be any thing indifferent, and not bent obstinately to mayntayne errors as you be, when you tumbling and tossing your selfe in your filthy fantasies of Transubstantiation, and of the reall and carnall presence of Christes body, shalbe ashamed of your assertiōs. But I meruayle not much of your stout bragging here, bicause it is a common thing with you, to dashe me in the teeth with your owne faultes.
And it is vntrue that you say, that the sacrifice is parfited before the perfection. For if the sacrifice be parfited before the perception, it is parfited also before the consecration. For betwene the consecration and perception was no sacrifice made by Christ (as appeareth in the Euangelistes) but the one followed immediately of the other. And although Christ being in heauen be one of the partes wherof the sacrifice consisteth, & be present in the sacrifice, yet he is not naturally there present, but sacramentally in the sacrament, and spiritually in the receauours.
And by this which I hauehave now answered, I hauehave wrastled with you so in the matter of Christes presence, that I hauehave not fallen vponupon my back my selfe to pull you ouer me, but I standing vp right my selfe, hauehave geuen you such a fall, that you shall neuer be able to recouer. And now that I hauehave brought you to the ground (although it be but a small peece of manhoode to strike a man when he is downe) yet for the truthes sake, (vntounto whome you hauehave euer bene so great an aduersary) I shall beate you with your Transubstantiation (as they say) both backe and bone. Now say you syr, is whitenes or other colours the nature of bread and wine? (for the colours be onelyonly visible by your doctrine) or be they elements, or be accidents the bodely matter? Lye still, ye shall be better beaten yet, for your wilfulnes. Be the accidents of bread substances, as you sayd not long before? And if they be substances, what manner of substances be they: corporall or spirituall? If they be spirituall, then be they soules, deuils, or angels. And if they be corporall substances, eyther they hauehave life or no life. I trust you will say at the least, that bread hath life, bicause you sayd but euen now almost, that the substance of bread is the soule of it. Such absurdities they fall into, that mayntayne errours.
But at length when the similitude of the two natures in Christ, remayning both in their proper kindes, must needes be answered vntounto, then commeth in agayne the cuttill with his colours to hide him selfe, that he should not be seene, bicause he perceaueth what danger he is in to be taken: And when he commeth to the very nette, he so stoutly striueth, wrangleth and wresteth, as he would breake the nette, or els by some craft, wind himselfe out of it, but the net is so strong, and he so surely masted therein, that he shall neuer be able to gette out.
Two examples of the two natures in Christ, one in a mā, the other in the Sacrament.For the olde catholike Authors, to declare that two natures remayne in Christ togither (that is to say, his humanity and his diuinity) without corruption or wasting of any of the sayd two natures, do geue two examples therof, one is of the body and soule, which both be in a man togither, and the presence of the one putteth not away the other.
The other example is of the Lordes Supper or ministration of the Sacrament, where is also togither the substaunce and nature of bread and wine with the body and bloud of Christ, and the presence of the one putteth not away the other, no more then the presence of Christes humanitie putteth away hys diuinitie. And as the presence of the soule driueth not away the body, nor the presence of the fleshe and bloud of Christ driueth not away the bread and wine, so doth not the presence of Christes humanity, expell his diuinitie, but his diuinitie remayneth still with his humanitie, as the soule doth with the body, and the body of Christ with the bread. And then if there remayne not the nature and substaunce of bread, it must follow also, that there remaineth not the diuine nature of Christ, with his humanity, or els the similitude is clearely dissolued.
But yet say you, we may not presse all partes of the resemblance with a through equality, but onelyonly hauehave respect to the end, wherfore the resemblance is made. And do you not see, how this your saying taketh away your owne argument of the reall presence in the sacrament? and neuerthelesse setteth you no whitte more at liberty concerning Transubstantiation, but masteth you faster in the nette, and maketh it more stronger to holde you. For the olde Authors make this resemblance, onelyonly to declare the remayning of two natures, not the manner and forme of remayning, which is farre diuers in the person of Christ, from the vnion in the Sacrament. For the two natures of Christ be ioyned togither in vnity of person, which vnity is not betwene the Sacrament and the body of Christ. But in that poynt wherein the resemblance is made, there must needes be an equality by your owne saying. And for as much as the resemblance was made onelyonly for the remayning of two natures, therfore as the perfite natures of Christes manhod & godhead, do both remayne, and the perfite nature of the soule and the body both also remayne so must the perfite nature of Christes body and bloud, and of bread and wine also remayne. But for as much as the similitude was not made for the manner of remayning, nor for the place, therfore the resemblance requireth not, that the body and bloud of Christ should be vnited to the bread and wine in person or in place, but onelyonly that the natures should remayne eueryevery one in his kind. And so be you cleane ouerthrowen with your transubstantiation, except you will ioyne your selfe with those Heretikes, which denied Christes humanity & diuinity to remayne both togithers.
And it seemeth that your doctrine varieth very little from Ualentine and Martion (if it vary any thing at all) when you say that Christes flesh was a spirituall flesh.Spirituall flesh. For when S. Paule speaking of Christes body, sayd (we bee members of his body, of his fleshe and of his bones) he ment not of a spirituall body (as Ireneus sayth) for a spirite hath no flesh nor bones,Iraeneus contra Valētinia. lib. 5. but of a very mans body, that is made of flesh, sinewes and bones, And so with striuing to gette out of the nette you roll your selfe faster in it.
And as for the wordes of S. Augustine, make nothing for the reall presence, as I hauehave before declared. So that therin I neyther hauehave foyle nor trippe, but for all your bragges, hookes and crookes, you hauehave such a fall, as you shall neuer be able to stand vpright agayne in this matter. And my shaftes be shot so straight agaynst you, and with such a force, that they perse through shilde & haburgen, in such sort that all the harnes you hauehave, is not able to withstand them, or to make one arrow to start backe, although to auoyde the stroke you shift your place, seeking some meane to flye the fight. For when I make mine argument of Transubstantiation, you turne the matter to the reall presence like vntounto a surgeon that hath no knowledge, but when the head is wounded or sore, he layth a playster to the heele. Or (as the prouerbe sayth) Interrogatus de alijs, respondet de caepis. when you be asked of garlicke, you answer of onions.
And this is one prety sleight of sophistry,A sleight. or of a subtill warrier, when he seeth him selfe ouermatched, and not able to resist, then by some policy quite to put of, or at the least to delay the conflict, and so do you commonly in this booke of Transubstantiation. For when you be sore pressed therin, than you turne the matter to the reall presence. But I shall so straytly pursue you, that you shall not so escape. For where you say, that the fathers (which vsed the examples of the Sacrament, and of the body and bloud of Christ to shew the vnity of two natures in Christ did beleue that as really and as truely the soule of man is present in the body, so really and so truly is the body of Christ present in the Sacrament: the fathers neither sayd nor beleued as you here report, but they taught that both the Sacrament and the thing therby represented (which is Christes body) remayne in their proper substaunce and nature, the signe being here and the thing signified being in heauen, and yet of these two consisteth the sacrifice of the church.
But it is not required, that the thing signified should be really and corporally present in the signe and figure, as the soule is in the body (bicause there is no such vnion of person) nor it is not required in the soule and body that they should be euer togither, for Christes body and soule remayned both, without eyther corruption or Transubstantiation, when the soule was gone downe into hell, and the body rested in the sepulcher. And yet was he than a perfect man, although his soule was not than really present with the body. And it is not so great a meruayle that his body should be in heauen, and the sacrament of it here, as it is that his body should be here, and his soule in hell.
And if the Sacrament were a man, and the body of Christ the soule of it, (as you dreame in your traunse) then were the Sacrament not in a traunse, but dead for the tyme, whilest it were here, and the soule in heauen. And like scoffing you might make of the Sacrament of Baptisme, as you doe in the Sacrament of Christes body, that it lyeth here in a traunse, when Christ being the life therof is in heauen.
And where you thinke that my second booke agaynst Transubstantiation was a collection of me, when I minded to mayntayne Luthers opinion agaynst Trāsubstantiation onelyonly, you hauehave no probatiō of your thought, but still you remayne in your dreames, traunses and vayne phantasies, which you hauehave vsed throughout your booke, so that what so euer is in the bread and wine, there is in you no Transubstantiation, nor alteration in this thing at all.
And what auayleth it you so often to affirme this vntruth, that the body of Christ is present in the Sacrament, as the soule of man is present in the body, except you be like to them that tell a lye so often, that with often repeating they think men beleue it, and sometyme by often telling they beleue it them selues. But the authors bring not this similitude of the body and soule of man, to proue therby the presence of Christes body in the Sacrament, but to proue the two natures of the godhead and the manhoode in the person of Christ. Lette vsus now discusse the minde of Chrisostome in this matter, whome I bring thus in my booke.
Chrisostom. ad Caesarium Monachum.S. Iohn Chrisostom writeth against the pestilēt errour of Apolinaris, which affirmed that the Godhead and manhod in Christ, were so mixed and confounded togither, that they both made but one nature. Agaynst whome S. Iohn Chrisostome writeth thus.
When thou speakest of God, thou must consider a thing that in nature is single without composition, without conuersion that is inuisible, immortall, incircumscriptible, incomprehensible with such like. And when thou speakest of man thou meanest a nature that is weake, subiect to hunger, thirst, weeping, feare, sweating, and such like passions, which can not be in the diuine nature. And when thou speakest of Christ, thou ioynest two natures togither in one persone, who is both passible and impassible: Passible as concerning his flesh, and impassible in his deite.
And after he concludeth saying: Wherfore Christ is both God and man: God by his impassible nature, and man bicause he suffered. He himselfe being one person, one sonne, one Lord, hath the dominion and power of two natures ioyned togither, which be not of one substance, but ech of them hath his properties distinct from the other. And therfore remayneth there two natures, distinct, and not confounded. For as before the consecration of the bread, we call it bread, but when Gods grace hath sanctified it by the priest, it is deliuered from the name of bread, and is exalted to the name of the body of the Lord although the nature of the bread remayne still in it, and it is not called two bodies, but one body of Gods sonne: so likewise here, the diuine nature resteth in the body of Christ, and these two make one sonne, and one person.
These wordes of S. Chrisostome declare, and that not in obscure termes, but in playne wordes, that after the consecration, the nature of bread remayneth still, although it hauehave an higher name, and be called the body of Christ: to signifie vntounto the godly eaters of that bread, that they spiritually eate the supernaturall bread of the body of Christ, who spiritually is there present, and dwelleth in them, and they in him, although corporally he sitteth in heauen at the right hand of his father.