Answer unto a Crafy and Sophistical Cavillation, Debate · Confutation of book 2 · Section 61 – Section 67
Caunterbury.
AS for your foure markes & tokens (if you marke them well) you shall perceaue most manifestly your ignoraūce and errour, how they note and appoint (as it were with their fingers) your doctrine to be erronious, as well of Transubstantiation, as of the reall presence.
Irenaeus.And to begyn with your first marke, Irenee in deede proued the resurrection of our bodyes vntounto eternall lyfe, bycause our bodyes be nourished with the euerlastyng foode of Christes body. And therfore as that foode is euerlastyng, so it beyng ioyned vntounto his eternall deitie, giueth to our bodies euerlastyng lyfe. And if the beyng of Christes body in any creature should geue the same lyfe, then it might peraduenture be thought of some fooles, that if it were in the bread, it should giuegive life to the bread. But neither reason, learnyng nor fayth beareth, that Christes body beyng onelyonly in bread, should gyue life vntounto a man. So yt if it were an Article of our faith, to beleue that Christ is present in the formes of bread and wine, it were an vnprofitable Article, seyng that his being in ye bread, should profit no man.
The meaning of Irene and other.Irenee therefore meaneth not of the beyng of Christ in the bread and wyne, but of the eatyng of him. And yet he meaneth not of corporall eating (for so Christ sayth him selfe,Iohn. 6. that his flesh auayleth nothing) but spirituall eatyng by fayth. Nor he speaketh not of spirituall eatyng in receauyng of the Sacrament onelyonly, for then our lyfe should not be eternall, nor endure no longer then we be eating of the sacrament: for our spirituall life cōtinueth no lōger thē our spirituall feedyng. And then could none hauehave lyfe, but that receaue the Sacramēt, and all should hauehave perished that dyed before Christes Supper and institutiō of the Sacrament, or that dye vnderunder age before they receiue the Sacrament.
But the true meaning of Irenee, Hilary, Cyprian, Cyrill, and other that treated of this matter was this, that as Christ was truely made man and crucified for vsus, and shed his bloud vponupon the Crosse for our redemption, & now reigneth for euer in heauen, so as many as hauehave a true fayth and belefe in him, chawyng their cuddes, and perfectly remembryng the same death and passion (which is the spirituall eatyng of his flesh and drinkyng of his bloud) they shall reigne in euerlastyng lyfe with him. For they spiritually and truely by faith eate his flesh and drinke his bloud, whether they were before the institution of the Sacrament or after. And the beyng or not beyng of Christes body and bloud really and corporally in the Sacrament vnderunder the formes of bread and wine, neither maketh nor marreth, nor is to no purpose in this matter. But for confirmation of this our fayth in Christes death and passion, & for a perpetuall memory of the same, hath Christ ordeined this holy Sacrament, not to be kept, but to be ministred among vsus, to our singular comfort, that as outwardly and corporally we eate the very bread and drinke the very wine, and call them the body and bloud of Christ, so inwardly and spiritually we eate & drinke the very body and bloud of Christ. And yet carnally and corporally he is in heauen, and shall be vntill the last Iudgement, when he shall come to Iudge both the quicke and the dead. And in the Sacrament, (that is to say, in the due ministration of the Sacrament) Christ is not onelyonly figuratiuely, but effectually vntounto euerlastyng lyfe.
And this teachyng impugneth the heresies of the Ualentinians, Arrians, and other heretickes, and so doth not your fayned doctrine of Transubstantiation, of the reall presence of Christes flesh and bloud in the Sacrament, vnderunder the formes of bread and wine: and that vngodly and wicked men eate and drinke the same, which shall be cast away from the eternall lyfe, and perish for euer. And for further aunswere to Hilary, I referre the Reader to myne other aunswere made to him before.
And for S. Chrisostome, Gelasius, and Theodorete, if there be no bread and wine in the Sacrament, their Argumentes serue for the heretickes purpose, and cleane directly agaynst them selues. For their entent agaynst the heretickes, is to proue that to the full perfection of Christ is required a perfect soule, and a perfect body, and to be perfect God and perfect man. As to the full perfection of the Sacrament is required pure and perfect bread and wine, and the perfect body and bloud of Christ. So that now turnyng the Argument, if there be no perfect bread and wine (as the Papistes falsely surmise) then may the heretickes cōclude agaynst the Catholicke fayth, and conuince Chrisostome, Gelasius & Theodorete with their own weapon, that is to say, with their own similitude, that as in the Sacramēt lacketh the earthly part, so doth in Christ lacke his humanitie. And as to all our senses seemeth to be bread and wine, and yet is none in deede, so shall they argue by this similitude, that in Christ seemed to all our senses flesh and bloud, and yet was there none in very deede. And thus by your deuilish Trāsubstantiation of bread and wine, do you trāsubstantiate also the body and bloud of Christ, not conuincyng but confirmyng most haynous heresies. And this is the conclusion of your vngodly fayned doctrine of transubstantiation.
And where you would gather the same cōclusion, if Christes flesh and bloud be not really present, it seemeth that you vnderstand not the purpose and intent of these Authors. For they bring not this similitude of the Sacrament for the reall presence, but for the reall beyng. That as the Sacrament consisteth in two partes, one earthly & an other heauenly, (the earthly part beyng the bread and wine, and the heauenly the body and bloud of Christ) and these partes be all truely and really in deede, without colour, or simulation (that is to say very true bread and wine, in deede, the very true body and bloud of Christ in deede:) euē likewise in Christ be two natures, his humanitie and earthly substaunce, and his diuinitie and heauēly substaunce, and both these be true natures and substaunces, without colour or dissemblyng. And thus is this similitude of the Sacrament brought in, for the truth of the natures, not for the presence of the natures. For Christ was perfect God and perfect man, whē his soule went downe to hell, and his body lay in the graue (bycause the body and soule were both still vnited vntounto his diuinitie) and yet it was not required that his soule should be present with the body in the sepulture, no more is it now required that his body should be really present in the Sacrament, but as the soule was then in hell, so is his body now in heauen. And as it is not required, that where so euer Christes diuinitie is, there should be really and corporally his manhode: so it is not required, that where the bread and wyne be, there should be corporally his flesh and bloud.
But as you frame the Argument agaynst the heretickes, it serueth so litle agaynst them, that they may with the same frame and engine, ouerthrow the whole Catholicke Church. For thus you frame the Argument: As the presence of Christes body in this mystery doth not alter the proprietie of the visible natures, no more doth the Godhead in the person of Christ extinguish his humanitie. Marke well now good Reader what foloweth hereof. As the presence of Christes body in this mysterie, doth not alter (say you) the proprietie of ye visible natures, no more doth the Godhead in the person of Christ extinguish his humanitie. But the presence of Christes body in this mystery doth so alter the visible natures (as the Papistes say) that the substaunces of bread and wyne be extinguished, and there remayneth no substaūce but of the body of Christ, Ergo likewise in the mysterie of Christes incarnation the humanitie is extinguished by the presence of his Godhead, and so there remayneth no more but the substaunce of his diuinitie, as the Eutichians sayd.
And thus the similitude of Chrisostome, Gelasius, and Theodorete ioyned to the saying of the Papistes, frameth a good Argument for the heretickes. But those Authours framed their Argumēt cleane cōtrary, on this wise: that the bread and wyne be not transubstantiate or extinguished, but continue still in their owne substaunces, figures, fashion, and all naturall proprieties, and therfore doth the humanitie of Christ likewise endure and remayne in proper substaunce with his naturall proprieties, without extinction or transubstantiation. For those Authours take no bread and wyne for the visible proprieties onelyonly of bread and wyne, but for very true bread and wyne, with all their naturall qualities and conditions.
And the heretickes shall soone finde out your cauillation, where (to auoyde the matter) you say that the mysterie of the Sacrament requireth not the truth of the substaunce. For why should the Authours bryng them forth, to proue the truth of the substaunce in Christ, if there were no true substaunce in them? Thus all your shiftes and Sophistications be but wynde, or colours cast ouer the truth to bleare mens eyes, which colours rubbed of, the truth appeareth cleare and playne. And your first marke is not clearely put out, but turned to a marke & spectacle for your selfe, wherin you may clearely see your owne errour, and how foule you hauehave bene deceaued in this matter, and open your eyes, (if God will geue you grace to put away your inducate hart) to see the cleare truth.
Winchester.
An other certaine token is the wondryng and great marueling that the old authors make, how the substaunce of this Sacrament is wrought by Gods omnipotencie. Baptisme is marueiled at, for the wonderfull effect that is in man by it, how man is regenerate, not how the water, or the holy Ghost is there. But the wonder in this Sacrament is specially directed to the worke of God in the visible creatures, how they be so chaunged into the body & bloud of Christ, which is a worke wrought of God before we receiue the Sacrament. Which worke Cyprian sayth is ineffable, that is to say, not speakeable, which is not so if it be but a figure, for then it may be easely spoken, as this authour speaketh it with ease (I thinke) he speaketh it so often, of a presence by signification (if it may so be called) eueryevery man may speake and tell how, but of the very presence in déede, and therfore the reall presence of Christes body in the Sacrament, no creature can tell how it may be, that Christ ascended into heauen with his humaine body, and therewith continually reignyng there, should make present in the Sacrament the same body in déede, which Christ in déede worketh, being neuerthelesse then at the same houre present in heauen, as S. Chrisostome doth with a maruaile say. If the maruaile were onelyonly of Gods worke in man in the effect of the Sacrament, as it is in Baptisme, it were an other matter, but I sayd before, the wonder is in the worke of God, in the substaunce of the Sacrament, before it be receiued, which declareth the old authours that so wonder to vnderstand the reall presence of Christes very body, and not an onelyonly signification, which hath no wonder at all. And therfore seyng S. Cyprian wondreth at it, and calleth the worke ineffable, S. Chrisostome wondreth at it, S. Ambrose wondreth at it, Emissene wondreth at it. Cyrill wondreth at it. What should we now doubt whether their sayth were of a signification onelyonly as this authour would hauehave it, which is no wonder at all, or of the reall presence, which is in déede a wonderfull worke. Wherfore where this manifest token and certaine marke appeareth in the old fathers, there can no construction of sillables or wordes disswade, or peruert the truth thus testified.
Caunterbury.
AS touchyng this your second marke in the ministration of the Sacramentes, aswell of the Lordes holy Supper as of Baptisme, God worketh wonderfully by his omnipotent power in the true receauers, not in the outward visible signes. For it is the person Baptised, that is so regenerate, that he is made a new creature, without any reall alteration of the water. And none otherwise it is the Lordes Supper, for the bread & wine remaine in their former substaunce, & neither be fed nor nourished, & yet in the man that worthely receiueth them, is such a wonderfull nourishmēt wrought by ye mighty power of God, that he hath thereby euerlasting life. And this is the ineffable worke of God, wherof Cyprian speaketh.
So that aswell in the Lords Supper as in Baptisme, the marueilous workyng of God (passing the comprehension of all mans wit) is in the spirituall receiuers, not in the bread, wine & water, nor in the carnall & vngodly receauers. For what should it auayle the liuely members of Christ that God worketh in his dead and insensible creatures? But in his members he is present, not figuratiuely, but effectually, and effectually and ineffably worketh in them, nourishyng and feedyng them so wonderfully, that it passeth all wittes and toungues to expresse.
And neuerthelesse corporally he is ascended into heauen, and there shall tarry vntill the world shall hauehave an end. And therfore sayth Chrisostome, that Christ is both gone vp into heauen, and yet is here receaued of vsus, but diuersly. For he is gone vp to heauen carnally, & is here receaued of vsus spiritually. And this wonder is not in the woorkyng of God in the substaunce of the Sacrament before it be receaued, (as you fayne it to be) nor in thē that vnworthely receaue it carnally, but in them that receaue Christ spiritually, beyng nourished by him spiritually as they be spiritually by him regenerated, that they may be fed of the same thyng wherof they be regenerated, and so be throughly Os ex ossibus eius, & caro ex carne eius: Ephe. 5.Bone of his bones, and flesh of his flesh.
And consideryng deepely this matter,The wonder in the Sacramentes. Cyprian wondreth as much at Gods worke in Baptisme, as in the Lordes Supper, Chrisostome wondreth as much, Emissene wondreth as much, Cyrill wondreth as much, all Catholicke writers wonder as much, as well how God doth spiritually regenerate vsus to a new lyfe, as how he doth spiritually feede and nourish vsus to euerlastyng lyfe. And although these thyngs be outwardly signified vntounto vsus by the Sacramentall bread, wine and water, yet they be effectually wrought in vsus by the omnipotent power of God. Therefore you had neede to seeke out some other marke or token for your purpose, for this serueth nothyng at all. For by his wonderfull workyng Christ is no more declared to be present in the bread and wine, then in the water of Baptisme.
Winchester.
A thyrd token there is by declaration of figures, as for example S. Hierome when he declareth vponupon the Epistle Ad Titum, so aduisedly at lēgth how Panes propositionis were the figure of the body of Christ in the Sacrament: that processe declareth the mynde of the author to be, that in the Sacrament is present the very truth of Christes body not in a figure agayne to ioyne one shadow to an other, but euen the very truth to aunswere the figure, and therfore no particular wordes in S. Hierome can hauehave any vnderstādyng contrary to his mynde declared in this processe.
Caunterbury.
TO S. Hierome I hauehave aunswered sufficiently before to your confutation of my third booke, almost in the end, which should be in vayne to repeate her agayne, therfore I will go to your last marke.
Winchester.
Fourthly an other certaine marke is, where the old authors write of the adoration of this Sacrament, which can not be but to the thynges godly, really present. And therfore Saint Augustine writyng in his booke De Catechisandis rudibus, how the inuisible thynges be honoured in this Sacrament, meanyng the body and bloud of Christ, and in the 98. Psalme speaketh of adoration. Theodoretus also speakyng specially of adoration of this Sacrament. These authors by this marke that is most certaine, take away all such ambiguitie as men might by suspicious diuination gather sometyme of their seuerall wordes, and declare by this marke of adoration playnly their fayth to hauehave bene, and also their doctrine vnderstanded as they ment of the reall presence of Christes very body and bloud in the Sacrament, and Christ him selfe God and mā to be there present, to whose diuine nature, and the humanitie vnite thereunto, adoration may onelyonly be directed of vsus. And so to conclude vp this matter, for as much as one of these foure markes and notes maybe founde testified and apparaunt in the auncient writers, with other wordes and sentences conformable to the same, this should suffice to exclude all argumentes of any by sentences and ambiguous speaches, and to vphold the certaintie of the true Catholicke fayth in déede, which this author by a wrong name of the Catholicke fayth impugneth, to the great slaunder of the truth, and his owne reproch.
Caunterbury.
YOur fourth marke also of adoratiō proueth no more that Christ is present in the Lordes Supper, then that he is present in Baptisme. For no lesse is Christ to be honored of him that is Baptised,Gal. …. thē of him that receaueth the holy Communiō. And no lesse ought he that is Baptised to beleue, that in Baptisme he doth presently in deede and in truth put Christ vponupon him, and apparell him with Christ, then he that receaueth the holy Communion ought to beleue, that he doth presently feede vponupon Christ, eatyng his flesh and drinkyng his bloud: which thyng the Scripture doth playnly declare, and the old authours in many places do teach. And moreouer the forme of Baptisme doth so manifestly declare Christ to be honored, that it cōmaundeth the Deuill therein to honour him by these wordes: Da honorem Deo: Da gloriam Iesu Christo. With many other wordes declaryng Christ to bee honored in Baptisme. And although our Sauiour Christ is specially to be adored and honored, when he by his holy word and Sacramentes doth assure vsus of his present grace & benefites, yet not onelyonly then, but alway in all our actes and deedes, we should lift vp our hartes to heauen, and ther glorifie Christ with his celestiall father and coeternall spirit. So vntrue it is, that you say, that adoration can not be done to Christ, but if he be really present. The Papistes teach vsus to hauehave in honour and reuerence the formes and accidentes of bread and wyne (if they be vomited vp) after the body and bloud of Christ be gone away, and say, that they must be had in great reuerence, bicause the body and bloud of Christ had bene there. And not onelyonly the formes of bread and wyne (say they) must be kept with great reuerence, but also the ashes of them (for they commaund them to be burned into ashes) must be kept with like reuerence. And shall you than forbid any man to worshyp Christ him selfe, when he doth spiritually and effectually eate his very flesh and drinke his very bloud, when you will hauehave such honour and reuerēce done to the ashes, which come not of the body and bloud of Christ, but onelyonly (as you teach) of the accidents of bread and wyne? Thus hauehave I confuted your confutation of my second book, concernyng Transubstātiation, wherin you be so far from the cōfutation of my booke (as you promised) that you hauehave done nothyng els but confounded your selfe, studying to seeke out such shiftes and cauillations, as before your tyme were neuer deuised, & yet constrayned to graunt such errours and monstrous speaches as to Christen eares be intollerable. So that my former booke aswell cōcernyng the reall presence of Christes flesh and bloud, as the eatyng and drinkyng of the same and also transubstantiation, standeth fast and sure, not once moued or shaken with all your ordinaunce shot agaynst it. But is now much stronger then it was before, beyng so mured and bulwarked, that it neuer neede hereafter to feare any assault of the enemies. And now let vsus examine your confutation of the last part of my booke, conteinyng the oblation and sacrifice of our Sauiuiour Christ.
¶The end of the second booke.