Answer unto a Crafy and Sophistical Cavillation, Debate · Confutation of book 2 · Section 59
Caunterbury.
FOr the conclusion of al these questions, when you see that you can make no aunswere, but that you be driuen to so many absurdities, and that I hauehave answered so playnely vntounto eueryevery one, that there is left neither absurdity nor difficulty at al, then you deuise the best way and most easy for your selfe, to lay apart all questions and idle talke, when all these questions and idle talke needed not, if the papistes of their idle braines had not deuised their transubstantiation, and thereupon moued this idle talke themselues, which hath bene occasion not onelyonly of much dissention in all Christian realmes, but of the effusion also of much innocent bloud.
But when the Papistes, like vntounto Lucifer, hauehave ascended into heauen, and searched by vayne and arrogant questions the bowels and secrets of gods maiesty and his wisedome. Yea euen whether God hauehave made the world so well as he might hauehave done, theu they commaund other to keepe silence, and not to enter into the bottomles secrecy of Gods misteries, nor to seeke that is aboue their reach, but to eudeuour themselues to doe that God commanndeth, which counsaile as it is most godly and holesome, so if the Papistes themselues had obserued in the beginning, no man should hauehave needed to hauehave troubled his braynes with such fryuolous questions, and idle talke. But the Papists do like boyes in the schole, that make rods to beat other, aud when they should be beaten with the roddes which they made themselues, then they wish that al rods were in the fier. So the Papistes when they see themselues ouerthrowne in their owne questions which they first deuised themselues, & to be beaten with their owne rods, then they cry peace, hold hands, and question no more.
But to aunswere the absurdityes layed vntounto the Papistes charge, you recompence me agayne with … great huge absurdities. One is that Christ is really but in heauen onelyonly, the other is that bread is stil bread. Here thou mayst iudge (gentle reader) what errours I defend, that am by force driuen to such two absurdities, that I am fayne to say as I hauehave written in my booke, and as the Apostles and Euangelistes sayd. But beware I would aduise thee, that thou say not as Gods word teacheth, for if thou doost, thou mayst be sure to be taken of the Papistes for an hereticke.
Bread and no bread.Fynally you come to your contradictions of bread and no bread, the body and not the body, simulation and dissimulation, wherin when you hauehave well practised your selfe in all your booke thorow, at the last you make as it were a play in a dialogue betweene Chrysostome, Theodoret and me. But Chrysostome, Theodoret and I shall agree well enough,Theodoretus. Chrisostomus. for they tell not what in no wise may be, but what was commonly vsed, that is to say not to call the bread by his proper name after consecration, but by ye name of the body of Christ. And if you had well considered, what I wrote in my booke concerning figuratiue speaches, and negatiues by cōparisō (which you also hauehave allowed) you should hauehave well perceiued your labor here spēt all in vaine. For in all figures and sacramentes, the signes remayning in their owne proper natures, chaunge neuertheles their names,Why the names of ye sacraments be chaunged. and be called by the names of the more high and excellent thinges which they signify. And both Chrysostome and Theodoret shew a cause thereof which is this, that we should not rest in the sight of the sacramentes and figures, but lift vp our mindes to the thinges that be thereby represented. And yet in the sacramentes is neither simulation nor dissimulation, except you will call all figuratiue speaches, simulation, and say that Christ simuled, when he sayd, he was a vine, a dore, a herdman, the light of the world, and suche like speaches. But it pleaseth you for refreshing of your wit (being now so sore trauailed with impugning of the truth) to deuise a prety mery dialog of Quoth he and quoth he. And if I were disposed to dally and trifle, I could make a like dialogue of simulation or dissimulation, of quoth he and quoth you, euen betwene you and Christ.
But (as I hauehave declared before,) all thinges which be exalted to an hier dignity, be called by the names of their dignity (So muche the many times their former names be forgotten,) and yet neuertheles they be the same thinges that they were before, although they be not vsually so called, As the surnames of Kinges and Emperours, to how many be they knowen? or how many doe call them thereby? but eueryevery man calleth them by their royall and imperiall dignities. And in like maner is it of fygures and sacramentes, sauing that their exaltation is in a figure, and the dignities royall and imperiall be reall and indeed. And yet he should not offend that should call the princes by their original names, so that he did it not in contempt of their estates. And no more should he offend that did call a figure by the name of the thing that it is indeed, so that he did it not in contempt of the thing that is signified. And therefore Theodoret sayth not, that the bread in the sacrament may not be called bread, and that he offendeth that so calleth it, for he calleth it bread himselfe, but with this addition of dignity, calling it the bread of life, which it signifieth. As the cap of maintenāce is not called barely and simply a cap, but with addition of maintenaunce. And in like manner we vse not in common speach to call bread, wine and water in the sacraments, simple and common water, bread and wine: but according to that they represent vntounto vsus, we call them the water of baptisme, the water of life, sacramentall water, sacramentall and celestiall bread and wine, the bread of lyfe, the drinke that quencheth our thirst for euer. And the cause Theodoret sheweth, why they be so called, that we hearing those names should lift vp our mindes vntounto the thinges that they bee called, and comfort our selues therewithall. And yet neither in the sacraments, iu the cap of maintenaunce, nor in the imperiall or royall maiesties is any simulation or dissimulation, but all be playn speaches in common vsage, which eueryevery man vnderstandeth.
But there was neuer man that vnderstood any author further from his meaning, then you do Theodoret and Chrysostome in this place. For they ment not of any reall calling, by chaungyng of substances, but of a sacramentall chaunge of the names remaining the substaunces. For Theodoret sayth in playne wordes, that as Christ called bread his body, so he called his body corne, and called himselfe a vine. Was therefore the substance of his body transubstantiated and turned into corne, or he into a vine? And yet this must needes follow of your saying, if Christes calling were a putting away of the former substance, according to the doctrine of Transubstantiation. But that Theodoret ment not of any such chaunging of substances, but of chaunging of names, he declareth so playnely, that no man can doubt of his meaning. These be Theodorets owne wordes. Our Sauiour without doubt chaunged the names and gaue to his body the name of the signe, and to the signe the name of his body, and yet (sayth he) they kept their former substaunce, fashion, and figure. And the cause wherfore Christ doth vouchsafe to call the sacramental bread by the name of hys body, & to dignify so earthly a thing by so heauenly a name, Theodoret sheweth to be this, that the godly receiuers of the Sacrament, when they heare the heauenly names, should lift vp their mindes from earth vntounto heauen, and not to hauehave respect vntounto the bread outwardly only, but principally to looke vponupon Christ, who with his heauenly grace and omnipotent power feedeth them inwardly.
But there was neuer such vntrueth vsed, as you vse in this author, to hide the trueth, and to set forth your vntrueth. For you alter Theodoretes wordes, and yet that suffiseth not, but you geue such new and straunge significations to wordes, as before was neuer inuented. For where Theodoret sayth, that the sacramentes remayne, you turne that into the visible matter, and then that visible matter (as you take it) must signify accidents. And where Theodoret sayth in playne termes, that the substaunce remayneth, there must substaunce also by your saying signify accidentes, which you call here outward nature, cōtrary to your own doctrine, which hauehave taught hetherto, that substaunce is an inward nature, inuisible and insensible. And thus your saying here neither agreeth with the trueth nor with your selfe in other places.
And all these cantelless and false interpretations, altering of the words, and corrupting of the sence both of all authors and also of scripture, is nothing els but shameles shiftes to deceiue simple people, and to draw them from the olde Catholicke fayth of Christes Churche, vntounto your newe Romish errors, deuised by Antichrist, not aboue foure or fiue hundred yeares passed.
And where you say, that in the sacrament, in eueryevery part both in the heauenly & earthly part, is an whole & perfect truth. Now is perfect truth in the earthly part of the sacrament, if there be no bread there at all, but the color and accidents of bread? For if there be none other truth in the heauē ly part of the sacrament, then is not Christ there at all, but onelyonly his qualities and accidentes.
And as concerning your vniust gathering of mine owne wordes vponupon S. Augustine, I hauehave aunswered thereunto in the same place.
And where you hauehave set out the aunswere of the carnall and spirituall man, after your owne imagination, you hauehave so well deuised the matter, that you hauehave made ii. extremities without any meane. For the true faythfull man would answere, not as you hauehave deuised, but he would say (according to the old catholick fayth and teaching of the Apostles, Euangelists, Martyrs and confessours of Christes Churche) that in the Sacrament or true ministration thereof be two parts, the earthly and the heauenly. The earthly is the bread and wine, the other is Christ himselfe: The earthly is without vsus, the heauenlye is within vsus: The earthlye is eaten with our mouthes, and carnally feedeth our bodies, the heauenly is eaten with our inward man, and spiritually feedeth the same: The earthly feedeth vsus but for a tyme, the heauenly feedeth vsus for euer. Thus would the true faythfull man answere, without leaning vntounto any extremity, either to deny ye bread or inclosing Christ really in ye accidēces of bread, but professing & beleuing Christ really and corporally to be ascended into heauen, and yet spiritually to dwell in his faythfull people, and they in him vntounto the worldes ende. This is the true catholicke fayth of Christ, taught from the first beginning, and neuer corrupted but by Antichrist and his ministers.
Our thing one substaunce.And where you say, that one thing is but one substaunce, sauing onelye in the person of Christ, your teaching is vntrue, not onelyonly in the person of Christ, but also in eueryevery man, who is made of ij. substaunces, the body and soule. And if you had beene learned in philosophy, you would hauehave founde your saying false also in eueryevery corporall thing, which consisteth of ij. substaunces, of the matter, and of the forme. And Gelasius sheweth the same likewise in this matter of the sacrament. So vntrue it is that you moste vainely boast here, that your doctrine hath bene taught in all ages, and bene the catholicke faith, which was neuer the catholique, but onelyonly the Papisticall fayth, as I hauehave euidentlye proued by holy scripture and the old catholick authors, wherein truely and directly you hauehave not aunswered to one.