« PoprzedniaDalej »
BOOK after this sort, that Berengarius doth. For although they I. say sometimes, that we see Christ, touch him, and break
him, (understanding that speech not of Christ himself, but of the sacraments which represent him,) yet they use no such form of speech, as was prescribed to Berengarius, that we see, feel, and break not only the sacraments, but also Christ himself.
And likewise of Loth, Abraham, Jacob, Josue, Marye Magdalene, and the Apostles, whom you bring forth in this matter, there is no such speech in the Scripture as Berengarius useth. So that all these things be brought out in vain, having no colour to serve for your purpose, saving that something you must say to make out your book.
And as for all the rest that you say in this process, concerning the presence of Christ visible and invisible, needeth no answer at all, because you prove nothing of all that you say in that matter; which may therefore easily be denied, by as good authority as you affirm the same. And yet all the old writers that speak of the diversity of Christ's substantial presence and absence, declare this diversity to be in the diversity of his two natures, (that in the nature of his humanity he is gone hence, and present in the nature of his Divinity,) and not that in divers respects and qualities of one nature he is both present and absent; which I have proved in my third book the fifth chapter.
And forasmuch as you have not brought one author for the proof of your saying, but your own bare words, nor have answered to the authorities alleged by me in the foresaid place of my third book, reason would that my proofs should stand and have place, until such time as you have proved your sayings, or brought some evident matter to improve mine. And this I trust shall suffice to any indifferent reader for the defence of my first book.
WHEREIN I will keep this order. First, to consider the third book, that speaketh against the faith of the real presence of Christ's most precious body and blood in the sacrament: then
against the fourth, and so return to the second, speaking of tran- BOOK substantiation; whereof to talk, the real presence not being discussed, were clearly superfluous. And finally, I will somewhat say of the fifth book also.
But now to return to the conclusion of the Bishop's book. Why the order of my As it began with a marvellous sleight and subtlety, so doth book was he conclude the same with a like notable subtlety, changing altered by the Bishop. the order of my books, not answering them in such order as I wrote them, nor as the nature of the things requireth. For seeing that by all men's confessions there is bread and wine before the consecration, the first thing to be discussed in this matter is, Whether th same bread and wine remain still after the consecration, as sacraments of Christ's most precious body and blood. And next by order of nature and reason is to be discussed, Whether the body and blood of Christ represented by those sacraments, be present also with the said sacraments: and what manner of presence Christ hath, both in the sacraments and in them that receive the sacraments.
But for what intent the Bishop changed this order, it is easy to perceive. For he saw the matter of transubstantiation so flat and plain against him, that it was hard for him to devise an answer in that matter, that should have any appearance of truth, but all the world should evidently see him clearly overthrown at the first onset. Wherefore he thought, that although the matter of the real presence hath no truth in it at all, yet forasmuch as it seemed to him to have some more appearance of truth, than the matter of transubstantiation hath, he thought best to begin with that first, trusting so to juggle in the matter, and to dazzle the eyes of them that be simple and ignorant, and specially of such as were already persuaded in the matter, that they should not well see, nor perceive his legerdemain. And when he had won credit with them in that matter, by making them to wonder at his crafty juggling, then thought he, it should be a fit and meet time for him to bring in the matter of transubstantiation. For when men be amazed, they do
BOOK wonder rather than judge: and when they be muffled and blindfolded, they cannot find the right way, though they seek it never so fast, nor yet follow it, if it chance them to find it, but give up clearly their own judgment, and follow whomsoever they take to be their guide. And so shall they lightly follow me in this matter of transubstantiation, thought the Bishop, if I can first persuade them, and get their good wills in the real presence. This sleight and subtilty, thou mayest judge certainly, good reader, to be the cause, and none other, wherefore the order of my book is changed without ground or reason.
THE END OF THE FIRST BOOK.
The Confutation of the Third Book.
In the beginning of the third book, the author hath thought BOOK good to note certain differences, which I will also particularly con
It followeth in him thus:
"They teach, that Christ is in the bread and wine: but we The author. say, according to the truth, that he is in them that worthily eat " and drink the bread and wine."
I Note here, reader, even in the entry of the comparison of these The andifferences, how untruly the true faith of the Church is reported, Untrue rewhich doth not teach that Christ is in the bread and wine, which port. was the doctrine of Luther; but the true faith is, that Christ's [1580.] most precious body and blood is, by the might of his word and determination of his will which he declareth by his word, in his holy Supper present, under form of bread and wine: the substance of which natures of bread and wine is converted into his most precious body and blood, as it is truly believed and taught in the catholic Church, of which teaching this author cannot be ig
even at this
So as the author of this book reporteth an untruth wit- The teachtingly against his conscience, to say, they teach, (calling them pa- ing hitherto pists,) that Christ is in the bread and wine; but they agree in form day of the Church of 3 of teaching with that the Church of England teacheth at this day England, in the distribution of the holy communion, in that it is there said agreeth the body and blood of Christ to be under the form of bread and with that this author wine. And thus much serveth for declaration of the wrong and calleth pauntrue report of the faith of the catholic Church made of this author, in the setting forth of this difference on that part, which it pleaseth him to name papists.
And now to speak of the other part of the difference on the au- Crafty conthor's side, when he would tell what he and his say, he conveyeth veyance of speech by a sense craftily in words to serve for a difference: such as no this author. 4 catholic man would deny. For every catholic teacher granteth, [1580.] that no man can receive worthily Christ's precious body and blood Worthy rein the sacrament, unless he hath by faith and charity Christ dwel-ceiving of ling in him, for otherwise, such one as hath not Christ in him,
BOOK receiveth Christ's body in the sacrament unworthily, to his condemnation. Christ cannot be received worthily, but into his own temple, which be ye, St. Paul saith, and yet, he that hath not Christ's Spirit in him, is not his. As for calling it bread and 5 wine, a catholic man forbeareth not that name, signifying what those creatures were before the consecration in substance. Wherefore appeareth, how the author of this book in the lieu and place of a difference, which he pretendeth he would show, bringeth in that under a "but" which every catholic man must needs confess, that Christ is in them who worthily eat and drink the sacrament of his body and blood, or the bread and wine, as this author speaketh.
But and this author would have spoken plainly, and compared truly the difference of the two teachings, he should in the second 6 part have said somewhat contrary to that the catholic Church teacheth, which he doth not, and therefore, as he showeth untruth in the first report, so he showeth a sleight and shift in the declaration of the second part, to say that repugneth not to the first matter, and that no catholic man will deny, considering the said two teachings be not of one matter, nor shoot not, as 7 one might say, to one mark. For the first part is of the substance of the sacrament to be received, where it is truth, Christ to be present, God and man: the second part is of Christ's spiritual presence in the man that receiveth, which in deed must be in him before he receive the sacrament, or he cannot receive the sacrament worthily, as afore is said; which two parts may stand well together, without any repugnancy, and so both the differences, thus taught, make but one catholic doctrine. Let us see what the author saith further.
A difference should be of contraries.
Now the crafts, wiles, and untruths of the first book being partly detected, after I have also answered to this book, I shall leave to the indifferent reader to judge whether it be of the same sort or no. But before I make further answer, I shall rehearse the words of mine own third book, which you attempt next, out of order, to impugn. My words be these.
[See vol. ii. p. 355-356. "Now this matter"
"bread and wine."