Answer unto a Crafy and Sophistical Cavillation, Debate · Confutation of book 2 · Section 58
Winchester.
The best plaster and medicine that could now be deuised, were to leaue a part questions and idle talke, and meekly to submit our capacities to the true fayth, and not to ouerwhelme our vnderstandinges with search and inquiry, wherof we shall neuer finde an ende, entring the bottomles secresy of Gods misteries. Let vsus not seeke that is aboue our reach, but that God hath commaunded vsus let vsus do. Each man impugneth an others learning with wordes, none controleth in others liuing with better dedes. Let all endeuour themselues to do that God commaundeth, and the good occupation therof shall exclude al such idlenes as is cause and occasion of this vayne and noysome curiosity. And now to returne to this author, whiles he seeth a mate in an other mans iye, he feeleth not a beame in his owne. Who recommendeth vntounto vsus specially Theodoret, whome he calleth an holy Bishop, and with him doth bring forth a pece of an Epistle of S. Chrisostome. The doctrine of which two ioyned with the doctrine of this author, in such sence as this author would hauehave all vnderstanded to be called catholike, touching the fayth of the sacrament, hath such an absurdity in it, as was neuer hard of in religion. For this author teacheth for his part that the body of Christ is onelyonly really in heauen and not indeed in the sacrament, according wherunto this author teacheth also the bread to be very bread still, which doctrine if it be true as this author will needes hauehave it, then ioyne vntounto it the doctrine of the secret Epistle of Chrisostome and Theodoret, whose doctrine is that after the consecration, that is consecrate, shalbe called no more bread, but the body of Christ. By these two doctrines ioyned togither it shall apeare that we must call that is consecrate, by a name that we be learned by, this author it is not, and may not by the doctrine of Theodoret call it by the name of the which this author teacheth vsus in deede it is. And thus: It is in deede bread quoth this author, but call it not so quoth this Theodoret: It is not in deede the body of Christ quoth this author, but yet in any wise call it so quoth Theodoret. Here is playne simulation and dissimulation both togither. For by forbidding of the name of bread, according to Theodorets teaching we dissemble and hide that it is by this authors teaching, and by vsing the name of our Lordes body, according to Theodorets teaching, we fayne it to be that it is not by this authors teaching, which sayth, there is onelyonly a figure, and by this meanes in so high a mistery we should vse vntruthes on both sides, in simulation and dissimulation, which is a meruaylous teaching.
I deny not but thinges signifying may hauehave the name of that they signify by a figure of speach, but we read not in any doctrine giuen that the thing signifying should hauehave the name by figure, and be deliuered from the name of that it is in deede. And yet this is now the teaching of this author in defence of his new Catholike fayth ioyned with the teaching of Theodoret, and the secret Epistle of S. Chrisostom, as this author would hauehave them vnderstanded. But those men Theodoret and Chrisostome in the sence they ment, as I vnderstand them, taught a true doctrine. For they take the name of the body of Christ in the sacrament to be a reall naming of the body of Christ there present in deede, and therfore a true perfect name, which as S. Chrisostomes secret Epistle sayth, the thing is worthy to hauehave declaring, by that worthines the thing named to be there in deed. And likewise I vnderstand the other name of bread worthely done away, bicause the substance wherupon in reason the name was grounded, is changed, according to the true doctrine of Transubstantiation, therfore that name of bread in their doctrine is truely layd away although Theodoret writeth the visible matter of bread and wine to be seene and felt as they were before, and therfore sayth their substance which there signifieth the outward nature is séene and felt to remayne, which termes with conuenient vnderstanding may thus agrée with the catholicke teaching of transubstantiation, and so in the sacrament on eueryevery part, but in the heauenly and earthlye part to be a full, whole and perfect truth, as the high mystery being the sacrament of our perfect vnity in body and soule with Christ, doth require. Wherby in my iudgement as this author hath agaynst his owne determination in this enterprise vttered that confirmeth the truth of the reall presence of Christes most precious bodye in the sacrament, which he doth in speciall entreating the wordes of S Augustine in the xxvii. leafe of hys book besides that in diuers other places he doth ye like: so bringing vsus forth this Theodoret and his secret epistle of S. Chrisostome, he hath brought forth that may serue to conuince him in transubstantiation. Howbeit as for transubstantiation Zuinglius taketh it truely for a necessary consequence of the trueth, if there bee in the sacrament the reall presence of Christes body, as there is in déed. For as a carnall man not instruct by fayth aswell after consecration as before as he is of the earth, speaketh and calleth it bread and asking him what it is, will neuer aunswere otherwise, and if one asked him whether it were the body of Christ, would thinke the questioner mocked him, so the faythfull spirituall man answering to that question what it is, would after consecration according to fayth, aunswere the body of Christ, and thinke himself mocked if he were asked is it not bread? vnles he had bene taught Christ to hauehave sayd it had bene both his body and bread. As for calling it by the name of bread which it was, he would not greatly stick, and one thing may hauehave many names, but one thing is but one substance, whereby to aunswere to the question what it is, sauing onelyonly in the person of Christ, wherein we know vnited the two substances of god and man. And this matter I repeate and summarily touch agayne to leaue in the readers brest the principall poynt of our beliefe of this mistery to be of the reall presence, that is to say, vnfayned substantiall presence, and therefore the true presence of Christes most precious body in the Sacrament, which hath bene in al ages taught, and bene as it is the Catholick fayth of Christendome, as appeareth by the testimony of the old authors in all ages.