Besydes that I wolde knowe of what necessyte or profyte hys fleshe muste be present in the sacrament. For the presence of hys fleshe can no more profyte vs, thē doth the remembraunce of hys bodye, but this remembraunce maye as well be done by the sacrament, as though hys bodye were present. And therfore syth God and nature make nought in vayne, it foloweth consequentlye, that his naturall fleshe is not there, but onelye a memoryall therof.
Furthermore, the ende and fynall cause of a thynge is euer better then those thynges which are prouyded for the ende (as the house is better than the lyme, stone, & tymber, which are prouyded for the howse) but the ende and fynall cause of the sacramente is the remembraunce of Christes bodye: and thervpō yt muste folowe that yf the sacramente be hys naturall bodye, that the remembraunce of Christes bodye shulde be better then hys bodye it selfe. Whiche thynge is to be abhorred of all faythfull men.
It were fondnes to fayne that the soule ded otherwyse eate then do the Angelles in heauē, and their meate is onelye the Ioye and delectacyon that they haue of God and of hys glorye; And euen so doth the soule which is here vpon the earth eate through faythe the bodye of Christe which is in heauen. For it delyteth & reioyseth whyles yt vnderstōdeth through faythe, that Christ hath takē our synnes vpō hym and pacyfyed the Fathers wrath. Neyther yt is necessarye, that for that or for thys cause, that his fleshe shulde be present. For a man maye as well loue ād reioyse in the thynge which is from hym and not present, as though yt were presēt by hym of that maner.
More ouer, the breade is Christes bodye, euen as the breakynge of the breade is the death of hys bodye. Nowe the breakynge of breade at the maundye is not the verye death of Christes bodye, but onelye a representacyon of the same (albeit the mynde through faythe doeth spirytuallye beholde hys verye death) and euen lyke wyse that naturall breade is not the verye bodye of our Lorde, but onely a sacramēt, sygne, memoryall, or representacyō of the same, albeit through the admonycyō therof, the mynde through fayth, doth spirytually beholde the verye body. And surely yf a man be faythfull, the spirite of God worketh in his harte very swetelye at his communyon.
Fynallye, it was not laufull to eate or drynke the bloode not onelye of man, but also of a brute beaste, and the Apostles them selues moued by the rule of charyte, ded instytute that men shulde abstayne from bloode, somewhat fauourynge the infyrmyte of the Iewes. Now yf the Apostles had taught (as ye do) that in the sacrament hys verye fleshe and bloode is eaten and dronken with the teth and mouthe of faythfull and vnfaythfull, what coulde haue bene a greater occasyō to haue excluded the Iewes frō Christes fayth euen at ones? Thynke you that the Apostles wolde not haue bene to srupulous to haue dronken hys very bloode, seynge it was so playne agaynst Moses lawe, yf they had vnderstonde hym so grosselye as ye do? |Act .10.| Peter had a clothe sente downe from heauen, in whiche were all maner of beastes forbydden by the lawe, and was commaunded to fle and eate thē. And he answered, God forbyd, for I neuer eate any vncleane thynge, meanynge therbye that he neuer eate any thynge forbyddē by the lawe. Wherof it muste neades folowe, that eyther he neuer receyued the sacrament (whiche is playne false) or els that he more spyrytuallye vnderstode the wordes of Christes maundye then ye falselye fayne. For it was playnelye forbydden by the lawe, to eate or drynke any maner of bloode. |obiectyō.| And I knowe but one reason, that they haue which they counte as insoluble: how be it by Goddes grace we shall soone avoyde it. Their reason is this. Paule sayeth, he that eateth and drynketh this sacrament vnworthelye, shalbe gyltye of the bodye and bloode of the Lorde. Now saye they, how shulde they be gyltye of the Lordes bodye ād bloode whiche receyue it vnworthelye, excepte it were the verye bodye and bloode of the Lorde.
|Solutiō.| This argument I saye, is verye weake and slender. For I can shewe manye examples by the whiche it may be dyssolued. For he that dyspyseth the Kynges seale or Letters offendeth agaynste hys owne parson, and yet the Letters or Seale is not hys owne parson. He that vyolentlye plucketh downe hys graces Armes, or breaketh hys brode Seale wyth a furyouse mynde or wyth vyolence, commytteth treason agaynste hys owne parson. And yet hys Armes and brode Seale are not hys owne parsō. He that clyppyth the Kynges coyne, commytteth treason agaynste the Kynges parson and the common wealth: and yet the money is neyther hys graces parson nor the common wealth. And therfore your argument is but weake and slēder. For euē as a man doth offende agaynste the Prynces parson by dyspysinge his Armes, Seale, or Letters, so doth a mā offende agaynste Christes bodye and bloode, by abvsynge the sacrament of hys bodye and bloode, although he be not there present, as the Kynges parsō is not presente in hys Armes, Seale, or Letters.
Besydes that S. Paule sayeth, that euerye man whiche prayeth or preacheth with covered heade shameth hys heade, & hys head is Christe; shall we therfore Imagen that Christe is naturallye in euerye mās heade, as your argument cōcludeth? Forsoth that were a preatye fantasye. Fynally S. Austen sayeth, that he doth no lesse synne whiche neglygētlye heareth the wordes of God, thē doth the other which vnworthelye receyueth the sacrament of Christes bodye and bloode. Nowe yf this be true, then is your reason not worth a ry she, for Christes naturall bodye is not in the worde whiche is preached, as all men knowe. And yet he synneth no lesse that neglygentlye heareth it, then doth he that vnworthelye receyueth the sacramēt. And thus you see their insoluble argument easelye dyssolued.
|More.| ❧ But now muste thys yonge man consyder agayne that he hym selfe confesseth, that the cause for which hym selfe sayeth, that Christe in so sayenge ded so meane, is because that yf he shulde haue mēt so, yt was impossyble to God to brynge hys meanynge a bought: that is to saye, that Christes bodye myght be in two places at ones. And therfore but yf he proue that thynge impossyble for God to do, els he confesseth that God not onelye sayde it but also mente it in dede. And yet ouer thys, yf Christ had neuer sayde it, yet doubt I nothynge, but he is able to do it, or els were there somwhat that he coulde not do; And then were God not almyghtye.
|Fryth.| ¶ Here Master More wolde myre me with his sophystrye, ād wyth wyles wolde wynne hys spores. For as he before ded discant on these wordes, can, and impossyble, and wolde haue made mē beleue that I mente it coulde not be, because it coulde not be by reason, and that I mente it was impossyble, because reason coulde not reache it: So now he dysputeth with lyke maner of sophystycacyon, concludynge that I confesse that it is impossyble and cā not be, because that yf God shulde so haue mente, it was impossyble for God to brynge hys meanynge a bought. Deare bretherne, thys bablynge is suffycyentlye discussed alreadye. For I mente not that it was impossyble for God to brynge it aboute, yf he had so mēte, but I mente that it is impossyble to stonde with the processe of the scrypture whiche we haue receyued. And I saye more ouer, that though it was possyble for God to haue done it (yf it had pleased hym) yet now, the scrypture thus stondynge, it is impossyble for hym to do it. For then he muste make hys sone a lyer. And I saye, that yf he had so ment as the letter stondeth, that he wolde then haue geuen vs other scrypture, and wolde not haue sayde that he muste departe to hym that sente hym, with other textes as are before rehearsed.
And where master More sayeth, that yf there were somwhat that he coulde not do, than were God not almyghtye. I saye it is ashame for our Prelates that they haue gottō suche an ignoraunte proctoure to defende them. And I am sure that they thēselues coulde haue sayde moche better. For els how shulde they enstructe other and leade them in the ryght waye, yf they themselues were so rude and vnlearned? Shulde they not knowe what thys meaneth, that God is almyghtye, whych is a peace of the fyrste artycle of our Crede? Then how shulde their shepe haue any sure syght? More thynketh that God is called almyghtye, because he can do all thynges. And then in dede it shulde folowe that he were not almyghtye. For all thynges he can not do, he cā not saue the vnfaythfull, he can not restore vyrgynyte ones vyolated, sayeth S. Thomas and also (as I remember) S. Hierome wrytynge of vyrgynyte vnto Paula and Eustochium: he can not synne sayeth Dunce: he can not denye hym selfe sayeth .S. Paule. |2. Tim.| Now yf thys mans learnynge were alowed, thē myght not God be almyghtye, because there is sumwhat that he cā not do. But they that are a customed with scrypture, do knowe that he is called almyghtye, not because he can do all thynge: but because there is no superyour power aboue hym, but that he maye do all that he wyll: and all that hys pleasure is to do that maye he brynge to passe. And no power is able to resyste hym. But he hath no pleasure nor wyll to make hys sone alyer nor to make hys scripture false, and in dede he maye not do it. And yet notwithstondynge he abydeth almyghtye. For he may do all thynge that he wyll.