Answer unto a Crafy and Sophistical Cavillation, Debate · Confutation of book 2 · Section 9 – Section 14
Caunterbury.
IN this holy Martire Iustinus, I do not goe about to be a translator of him, nor I bynde not my selfe precisely to follow the forme of his wordes (which no translatour is bound vntounto) but I set forth onelyonly his sence and meaning. For where Iustine hath a good long processe in this matter, I take no more but that is directly to the purpose of Transubstantiation, which is the matter being here in question. And the long wordes of Iustine, I knit vp togither in as fewe wordes as I can, rendring the sense truly, and not varying farre from the wordes. And this hauehave I done,Myne Issue. not willingly to corrupt Iustine (as you maliciously depraue, and therupon wil I ioyne with you in your issue) but I do it to recite to the reader Iustines mind shortly and playnly, where as you professing to obserue scrupulously the wordes, obserue in dede neither the wordes, nor the sentence of Iustine. But this is your fashion when you lacke good matter to answere, then (to finde something to fill vp your booke) you turne the matter into trifling and cauilation in wordes.
You say that Iustine hath not this speach (the bread, water and wine in this Sacrameut, are meates ordeined purposely to giuegive thankes to God) and yet by your owne translation he hath the same thing in effect, and yet in deede the wordes be neither as you nor as I say, and as they be in greeke, they cannot be expressed in English but by a paraphrasis: The wordes be these in greke, foreign, and in our tongue as nere as may be englished, signify thus, The bread and wine and water of thankes giuing, or (as Ireneus sayth, In which thankes be giuen). And neither hath Iustine this word Sacrameut (as I say) nor this word Consecrated, as you say. May not all men therfore euidently see, that your chief study is to make cauilations & daylying in wordes… And all the rest of my sayinges, which you deny to be in Iustine, be there very playnly in sense, as I will be iudged by the indifferent reader.
And what neede I willingly to corrupt Iustine, when his wordes after your allegation, serue more for my purpose agaynst your fayned transubstantiation, then as I alleadge them my selfe. For if the Deacons giuegive to eueryevery one present a part of the bread, wine and water consecrated, and send parte to them that be absent (as you reporte Iustines wordes) do not then bread, wine and water remayne after consecration? seing that they be distributed to diuers men in partes? For I thincke you will not say that the body of Christ is deuided into partes, so that one man receaueth an hand, and an other a legge. And Iustine sayth further, that the same foode of bread, wine and water called Eucharistia, nourisheth our flesh and bloud by alteration, which they could not do, if no bread, wine nor water were there at all.
But here is not to be passed ouer one exceeding great craft and vntruth in your translation, that to cast a mist before the readers eyes, you alter the order of Iustines wordes in that place, where the pith of the matter standeth: For where Iustine sayth of the foode of bread, wine and water after the consecration, that they nourish our flesh and bloud by alteration, the nourishment which Iustine putteth after consecration, you vntruly put it before the consecration, and so wilfully and craftely alter the order of Iustinus wordes, to deceaue the reader,Myne Issue. and in this poynt will I ioyne an issue with you. Is such craft and vntruth to be vsed of Bishoppes? and then in matters of fayth and religion, wherof they pretend and ought to be true professors? But I meruayle not so much at your sleights in this place seeing that in the whole booke through out you seeke nothing lesse, then the truth. And yet all your sleightes will not serue you, for how can the foode (called Eucharistia) nourish before the consecration, seeing it is not eaten vntill after the consecration?
The next author in my booke is Irene, whome I alleadge thus.
Next him was Irenaeus,Irenaeus contra Valentinum. li. 4. cap. 34. aboue 150. yeares after Christ, who (as it is supposed) could not be deceaued in the necessary poyntes of our fayth, for he was a disciple of Policarpus, which was disciple to S. Ihon the Euangelist.
This Irenaeus followeth the sense of Iustinus wholy in this matter, and almost also his wordes, saying, that the bread wherein we geue thankes vntounto God, although it be of the earth, yet when the name of God is called vponupon it, it is not than common bread, but the bread of thankes geuing, hauing two thinges in it, one earthly, and the other heauenly. What ment he by the heauenly thing, but the sanctification which cōmeth by the inuocation of the name of God? And what by the earthly thing: but the very bread which (as he sayd before) is of the earth: and which also (he sayth) doeth nourish our bodies as other bread doth which we do vse?
Winchester.
Next Iustine is Irene, in the allegation of whome, this author maketh also an vntrue reporte, how hath not this for mē of wordes in the forth booke contra Valentinum, that the bread wherein we geue thankes vntounto God, although it be of the earth, yet when the name of god is called vponupon, it is not thru common bread, but the bread of thankes giuing, hauing two thinges in it, one earthly and the other heauenly. This is Irene alleadged by this author, who I say writeth not in such forme of wordes. For his wordes be these. Like as the bread which is of the earth, receauing the calling of God, is now no common bread, but Eucharistia, consisting of two thinges, earthly and heauenly, so our bodies receauing Eucharistian, be no more corruptible. These be Irenes wordes where Irene doth not call the bread receauing, the calling of God, the bread of thankes giuing, but Eucharistia, and in this Eucharistia, he sheweth how that, that he calleth the heauenly thinges, is the body and bloud of Christ, and therfore sayth in his fift booke, When the chalice mixt, and the bread broken, receaue the word of God, it is made Eucharistia, of the body and bloud of Christ, of which the substance of our flesh is stayed and increased. And how say they that our flesh is not able to receaue gods gift. who is eternall life which flesh is nourished with the body and bloud of Christ? These be also Irenes wordes, wherby appeareth, what he ment by the heauenly thing in Eucharistia, which is the very presence of Christes body and bloud. And for the playne testimony of this fayth, this Irene hath bene commonly alleadged, and specially of Melancton to Decolampadius, as one most auncient and most playnly testifying the same. So as his very wordes truly alleadged, ouerthrow this author in the impugnation of Christes reall presence in the Sacrament, and therfore can nothing help this authors purpose agaynst Transubstantiation. Is not this a goodly and godly entre of this Author, in the first two authorities that he bringeth in, to corrupt them both?
Caunterbury.
WHo seeth not, that as you did before in Iustine, so agayne in Irene you seeke nothing els, but meare cauilations and wrangling in wordes? Is not Eucharistia called in english, thankes giuing? If it be not, tell you what it is called in English? And doth not Iren say, Panes in qup gratiae actae sunt, that is so say, bread wherein thankes be giuen, what hauehave I offended then in englishing Eucharistiam; thankes giuing? Do not I write to English men, which vnderstand not what this greeke word Eucharistia, meaneth: what greate offence is it then in me to put it into English, that English men may vnderstaud what is sayde Should I do as you do, put greeke for English and write so obscurely, that English men should not know the authors meaning?
And do you not see, how much the words of Ireneus by you aleadged, make agaynst your selfe? These be his wordes after your citation: When the chalice mixt, and the bread broken, receaue the word of God, it is made Eucharistia of the body and bloud of Christ, of which the substance of our flesh is stayd and encreased. Doth not Irene say here playnly, that the chalice mixt, and the bread broken, after the word of God (which you call, the wordes of consecration) is made Eucharistia of the body and bloud of Christ, and not the body and bloud of Christ? And sayth he not further, that they stay and increase the substance of our bodies? But how can those thinges stay and increase our bodies, which be transubstantiated and gone before we receaue them? And hauehave you forgotten now in Irene, what you sayd in the next leafe before in Iustine, that the alteration and nourishment by the foode of bread and wine was vnderstande before the consecration? which you confesse now to be after the consecration? And when you thus obscure the authors wordes, peruerting and corrupting both the wordes and sences, yet shall you conclude your vntrue dealing with these wordes concerning me? Is not this a goodly and godly entres of this author in the first two authorities that he bringeth in to corrupt them both? Now followeth Origene next in my booke.
Shortly after Ireneus, was Origene,Origenes in Math. Cap. 15. Origene. about 200. yeares after Christs ascension. Who also affirmeth, that the materiall bread remayneth, saying that the matter of the bread auayleth nothing, but goeth downe into the bealy, and is auoyded dounward, but the word of God spoken vponupon the bread, is it that auayleth.
Winchester.
As for Origene in his owne wordes sayth, the matter of the bread remayneth, which as I hauehave before opened,Origene. it may be graunted, but yet he termeth it not as this author doeth, to call it materiall bread. When God formed Adam of clay, the matter of the clay remayned in Adam and yet the materiall clay remayned not: for it was altered into an other substance, which I speake not to compare equally the forming of Adam to the Sacrament, but to shew it not to be all one to say the materiall bread and the matter of bread. For the accidents of bread may be called the matter of bread, but not the materiall bread, as I hauehave sumwhat spoken therof before: but such shiftes be vsed in this matter, notwithstanding the importunance of it.
Caunterbury.
WHat should I tarry much in Origene, seeing that you confesse that he sayth, the matter of bread remayneth, and Origene sayth, that the meate which is sanctified, iuxta id quod habet materiale in ventrem abit, that is to say, as concerning the materiall parte therof, goeth into the belly. So that by Origens teaching both the bread and the materiall part of bread remayne. So that your example of cley, releueth you nothing in this your aunswer vntounto Origene.
But when you see that this shift will not serue, then you flie to an other, and say that the accidentes of bread be called the matter of bread, which is so shamefull a shift, as all that hauehave any manner of knowledge, may playnly see your manifest impudency. But many such shiftes you vse in this matter, not withstanding the importaunce of it. Now let vsus come to Ciprian,Ciprian ad Cecili. li. 2. epist. 3. of whome I write in this manner.
After Origene came Ciprian the holy martir about the yeare of our Lord 250. who writeth agaynst them that ministred this Sacrament with water onelyonly, and without wine. For as much (sayth he) as Christ sayd: I am a true vine, therfore the bloud of Christ is not water, but wine, nor it can not be thought that his bloud (wherby we be redemed and hauehave life) is in the cup, when wine is not in the cup, wherby the bloud of Christ is shewed.
What wordes could Ciprian hauehave spoken more playnly, to shew that the wine doth remayne, than to say thus: If there be no wine, there is no bloud of Christ?
And yet he speaketh shortly after, as playnly in the same Epistle.Math. … Christ sayth he) taking the cup, blessed it, and gaue it to his disciples, saying: Drincke you all of this, for this is the bloud of the newe testament, which shall be shed for many, for the remission of sinnes. I say vntounto you, that from hence forth I will not drincke of this creature of the vine, vntil I shal drincke with you newe wine in the kingdome of my father. By these wordes of Christ (sayth S. Ciprian) we perceaue, that the cuppe which the Lord offered, was not onelyonly water, but also wine, And that it was wine that Christ called his bloud, wherby it is cleare that Christes bloud is not offered if, there be no wine in the Chalice. And after it followeth: How shal we drincke with Christ new wine of the creature of the vine if in the sacrifice of God the father and of Christ we do not offer wine.
In these wordes of S. Ciprian appeareth most manifestly, that in this sacrament is not onelyonly offered very wine, that is made of grapes, that come of the vine, but also that we drincke the same. And yet the same giueth vsus to vnderstand, that if we drincke that wine worthely, we drincke also spiritually the very bloud of Christ, which was shed for our sinnes.
Winchester.
Ciprian.S. Ciprians wordes do not impugne Transubstantiation, for they tend onelyonly to shew that wine is the creature appoynted to the celebration of this mistery, and therfore water onelyonly is no due matter according to Christes institution. And as the name wine must be vsed before the consecration, to shew the truth of it then, so it may also be vsed for a name of it after to shew what it was, which is often vsed. And in one place of Ciprian by this author here alleadged, it appeareth S. Ciprian by the word wine, signifieth the heauenly wine of the vineyard of the Lord of Saba…th, calling it new wine, and alluding therin to Dauid. And this doth Cyprian shew in these wordes, How shall we drincke with Christ new wine of the creature of the vine, if in the sacrifice to God the father and Christ we do not offer wine? Is not here mention of new wine of the creature of the vine: what new wine can be but the bloud of Christ, the very wine consecrate by Gods omnipotency, of the creature of the vine offered? And therfore this one place may geue vsus a lesson in Ciprian, that as he vseth the word (wine) to signifie the heauenly drincke of the bloud of Christ, made by consecration, of the creature of wine, so when he nameth the bread consecrate bread, he meaneth the heauenly bread Christ, who is the bread of life. And so Ciprian can make nothing by those wordes agaynst Transubstantiation, who writeth playnly of the change of the bread by Gods omnipotency into the flesh of Christ, as shall after appeare, where this author goeth about to answere to him.