Answer unto a Crafy and Sophistical Cavillation, Debate · Confutation of book 2 · Section 5
Caunterbury.
HEre in the beginning of this chapiter, it is a strange thing to me, that you should thinke strangenes in my saying, that naturall reason and operation ioyned to Gods word should be of great moment to confirme any truth, not that they adde any authority to Gods word, but that they helpe our infirmity: as the sacraments do to Gods promises, which promises in themselues be most certayne and true. For did not the eating and drincking of Christ, his laboring and sweating, his agony and pangs of death,Act. 10. confirme the true fayth of his incarnation? And did not his eating with the Apostles confirme and stablish their fayth of his resurrection?Iohn 20. Luc. 24. Iohn. 20. Luc. 24. Dyd not the sight of Christ and feeling of his woundes induce Thomas to beleue that Christ was risen? When neyther the report of the deuout woman, nor yet of the Apostles which did see him, could cause him to beleue Christes resurrection? And when they tooke our Sauiour Christ for a spirite, did not he cause them by their sight and feeling of his flesh and bones, to beleue that he was very man, and no spirite, as they phantasied? Which sensible profes were so farre from derogation of fayth that they were a sure establishment therof. Wherfore if your vnderstanding can not reach this doctrine, it is indede very slender in godly thynges.
And as for my reason of vacuum, you hauehave not yet answered thereto, for nature suffereth not any place to be without some substance, which by meanes of his quantity filleth the place. And quantity without substance to fill any place, is so fare from the rulers of nature, that by order of nature, quantity without substance hath neither filling nor being. And although I do not say, that by the doctrine of Transubstantiation there remayneth nothing, (so that all that you speake to answere that matter, is to no purpose, but res vacua) yet by the doctrine of Transubstantiation ioyned vntounto nature, there should remayne vtterly nothing in deede: for substance remayneth none, by your doctrine of Transubstantiation, and without substance can be no accidents by the rules of nature. Therfore comparing your doctrine and nature together, eyther you must recant your doctrine of Transubstantiatiō, or confesse that nothing remayneth, or at the least graunt that your teaching repugneth to the order of nature, which suffiseth for me in this place, where my purpose is onelyonly to shew, how the doctrine of Transubstantiatiō is agaynst nature and reason.
Now where you so often speake of the visible forme of bread remayning by this word (forme) you swetely deceaue your selfe,The worde Forme. thinking that it doth much auaunce your fayth of Transubstantiation, vnderstanding by that word the accidences, similitudes, and likenes without substance remayning, misunderstanding both holy scripture and the auncient doctors. S. Paule speaking of Christes incarnation sayth,Philip. 2. that he being in forme of God, did humble him selfe, taking vponupon him the forme of man. By which wordes S. Paule ment not, that Christ was like vntounto god, and not God indede, nor yet that he was like vntounto man, and not very man in dede, but that he was and is very God and very man, hauing .ii. substances, one of his Godhead, and the other of his manhod, vnited together in one person. And the aunciēt doctors writing of this sacrament, when they speake of the formes of bread and wine, do vse this vocable (forme) (as S. Paule vseth it) to signify very bread and very wine, or the substances of bread and wine, and not the similitude or likenes of bread and wine without the substances, as you fantasy, and imagine.
And you after this sort wrasting holy scriptures and doctors, for maintenaunce of your error of Transubstantiation, do lead your selfe craftely into an other heinous errour (if this your proposition be true, that the graunt of one substance is a deniall of any other) which is, to deny Christ eyther to be very God or man. For by your sentence, if he in substance be God, then can he not hauehave the substance of man: for the graunt of one substance is a deniall of any other, as ye say.
And like as ye do erre in misunderstanding of the Scripture and Doctours, so do you erre in reason and iudgement of thinges: your owne eyes, nose, mouth, and fingers, bearing witnes agaynst you of your wilfull error and folly. For what man is liuing (which hath his right wittes) that can beleeue as you teach, that the proper obiect of eueryevery sence remayneth (that is to say, colour, taste, sauoure &c) and yet the former substance of bread and wine is gone? And here, to further your belefe of Transubstantiation, you do exaggerat your accustomed absurdity of Impanation of Christes body, as if eueryevery man that beleueth not your errour of Transubstantiation, must of necessity fall into the errour of Impanation, or as if I defended ye sayd Impanatiō.Impanation. But whether I defended any such fonde opinion or no, or whether I hauehave herein sufficiently answered the Papistes, I referre to the iudgement of all wise and learned men (that be any thing indifferent) which hauehave redde my booke.
And as concerning naturall reason, where you say it will agree with the doctrine of Transubstantiation well inough, if the fayth of the true presence of Christes very body be true. For aunswere hereto I say, that if your phantasticall belefe of the reall presence of Christes naturall body in the sacrament were as true as the gospell (as none opinion can be more erronious and fond) yet would both fayth and reason iudge, that there were still bread. Fayth, bicause holy scripture manifestly sayth so: Reason, bicause it is so, not onelyonly to all our sences, but also in all the effects and opperations of bread. And reason can not discerne, but that Christes body may be as well present with the substance of bread, as with the accidents, and that rather also, forasmuch as you confesse your selfe, that after the rules of nature, quantity filleth the place rather then substaunce. And so may reason iudge the body of Christ, to be the body of Christ, and yet the bread to be the bread still, and wine to be wine and no bread, nor none other confusion of natures to be there agaynst reason.
And as touching naturall operation, in the handling therof, you shew your ignoraunce in naturall philosophy, which teacheth that in mutation from one quality to an other, is required one substance to receaue both the qualities. For white of it selfe can not be made blacke, nor colde hotte, but one substance may be now hote now colde, now blacke now white. As cold water may be made hote although colde in it selfe can not be hote. Therfore you can not blame me, to thinke in this a great inconuenience and absurdity in nature, that swetenes of it selfe should change into sowernes, when the substance of wine is gone, and no substance remayning to receaue this mutation, this matter being so cleane contrary to the precepts and rules of naturall philosophy.
Ulpian.And I meruayle that you can not see how much Ulpian whome you alleadge, maketh agaynst your selfe, and with my saying, that both in wine and viniger remayneth substance, which is changed from swete to sower, so that ye sweete of it selfe is not made sower, but that substaunce which before was sweete, is after sower. And therfore what great skill you hauehave in citing of Ulpian, to proue that the accidents of wine without substance do sower and waxe viniger, let the wise reader iudge.
But Ulpian semeth to me to hauehave an other sense then all men can perceaue, but I will not discusse the minde of Ulpian, because I am no lawyer, least you should cast the prouerbe in my teeth, Ne sutor vltra crepidam.
But to what purpose you should bring in the diuersity of iudgements in naturall operations, and the extreme fondnes of philosophers, some in mouing, some in staying, I can not deuise, except it be the permission of God, that as some of the philosophers by their fond opinions in nature, made themselues laughing stocks to all men, of reason so should ye Papists do. And yet so much more is the Papisticall opinion of Transubstantiation to be laughed to scorne of all men, as it passeth the fondnes of all the philosophers, and that so farre, that the fondest of the philosophers would hauehave laughed at it, and hauehave clapped it out of their scholes with one consent, as an opinion more mete for frantike and mad men, then for men of naturall reason. And as fond opinions as some philosophers had, yet was there none that so farre erred in reason, to say that accidences might stand without any substance, but all with one vniforme consent agreed, that accidences had none other being or remayning, but in their substances. And yet if the fayth of our religion taught vsus the contrary, then reason must yelde to fayth. But your doctrine of Transubstantiation is as directly contrary to the playne wordes of scripture, as it is agaynst the order of naturall reason.
And where you say that the doctrine of Transubstantiation doth not teach, that no earthly thing remayneth, but that the visible forme of bread and wine remayneth the same in greatnes, in thicknes, in weight, in sauour, in tast, in property also to corrupt, putrify, and nourish, as it did before, tell playnly I pray you, what thing it is which you call the visible fourme of bread and wine, whether it be an accidence or a substance, and if it be an accidence, shew whether it be a quantity or quality, or what other accidence it is, that all men may vnderstand what thing it is which (as you say) is the same in greatnes, thicknes, weight, sauour, and other properties.
And where you alleadge Emissen for the conuersion of the substaunce of bread and wine,Emissen. this conuersion (as Emissene sayth, and as I hauehave declared before) is like to our conuersion in baptisme, where outwardly is no alteration of substance (for no sacramentall alteration maketh alteration of the substance) but the meruaylous and secret alteration is inwardly in our soules. And as the water in baptisme is not changed, but sacramentally (that is to say, made a sacrament of spirituall regeneration, which before was none) so in the lordes supper, neyther the substance nor accidences of bread and wine be changed, but sacramentally: but the alteration is inwardly in the soules of them that spiritually be refreshed and nourished with Christes flesh and bloud. And this our fayth teacheth vsus, and naturall reason doth good seruice to fayth herein agaynst your imagined Transubstantiation. So that you hauehave not gotten reasons, good wil, nor consent to your vayne doctrine of Transubstantiation, although you had proued your reall presence. Which hitherto you hauehave not don, but hauehave taken greate payne to shoote away all your boltes in vayne, missing quite and cleane both the pricke and the whole butte.
And yet in the end you take a good ready way for your owne aduantage, like vntounto a man that had shot all his shaftes cleane wide from the butte, and yet would beare all men in hand that he had hitte the pricke. And when other should go about the measure how farre his shaftes were wide from the butte, he would take vp the matter himselfe, and cōmaund them to leaue measuring, and beleue his owne saying, that his arrowes stacke all fast in the marke, and that this were the nearest way to finish the contention: Euen so do you in this matter, willing all men to leaue searching of (how) in the mistery of Christes presence in the sacrament, saying that to be the nearest way. And it were a much nerer way for you in dede, if all men would leaue searching of (how) and without ground or reason beleue as well your Transubstātiation as the corporall presence of Christes body onelyonly bicause you do say it is so. But S. Peter requireth eueryevery christen man to be ready to render a reason of his fayth to eueryevery one that asketh,1. Pet. 3. Tit. 1. and S. Paule requireth in a christen Bishop, that he should be able to exhorte by holsome doctrine, and to conuince the gaynsayers, and not to require other men to giuegive fayth vntounto him without asking of (how or why) only because he sayth so himselfe. The olde catholique Authors tell, wherfore Christ called bread his body, and how christen people fed of his body. And the blessed virgine Mary asked how she should conceaue a child, neuer hauing company with man.Luc. 1. And you tell yourselfe how Christ is in heauen, how in vsus, and how in the sacrament, declaring all to be but after a spirituall maner. And what maner of men be you, that we may not aske you (how) to render a reason of your Transubstantiation, being a matter by you onelyonly deuised, clearly without Gods word.
But at length when you hauehave swette well fauoredly in answering to myne arguments of naturall reason and naturall operation,Miracles. you be fayne to confesse a great part to be true, and to turne altogether into miracles, and that into such kind of miracles, as the old catholike writers neuer knowledged nor touched in none of their workes. For besides the chief miracle, which you say is in the conuertiō of the substance of bread into the substance of Christes body, and of the wine into his bloud, there be other miracles when the formes of wine tourue into viniger, and when bread mouldeth, or a man doth vomite it, or the mouse eateth it, or the fire burneth it, or wormes breed in it, and in all like chaunces, God still worketh miracles, yea euen in poysoning with the consecrated wine. And the multitude of such miracles (as you do iudge) pertayneth to the excellency of the Sacrament, where as among the schoole authors this is a common receaued proposition, non esse ponenda miracula sine necessitate.
And where you say that I make my principall foundation vponupon the arguments of the scholasticall writers, although myne arguments deduced out of the scholasticall authors be vntounto you insoluble (and therfore you passe them ouer vnanswered) yet I make no foundation at all vponupon them, but my very foundation is onelyonly vponupon Gods word, which foundation is so sure, that it will neuer fayle. And myne arguments in this place, I bring in onelyonly to this end, to shew how farre your imagined Transubstantiation is, not onelyonly from Gods word, but also from the order and precepts of nature, and how many and portentuous absurdities you fall into by meanes of the same. Which it semeth you do confesse by holding your peace, without making answere therto. But now lette vsus consider what is next in my booke.
Chap. 4. The papisticall doctrine is also agaynst, all our sences.The Papisticall doctrine is also agaynst all our outward senses, called our fiue wits. For our eyes say, they see there bread and wine: our noses smell bread and wine: our mouthes tast, and our handes fele bread and wine. And although the articles of our fayth be aboue all our outward senses, so that we beleue thinges which we can neyther see, feele, heare, smell nor tast, yet they be not contrary to our senses, at the least so contrary, that in such thinges, which we from tyme to tyme do see, smell, fele, heare and tast, we shall not trust our fenses, but beleue cleane contray. Christ neuer made no such article of our fayth. Our fayth teacheth vsus to beleue thinges that we see not, but it doth not bid vsus, that we shall not beleue that we see dayly with our eyes, and heare with our eares, and grope with our handes. For although our senses can not reach so farre as our fayth doth, yet so farre as the compasse of our sences doth vsually reach, our fayth is not contrary to the same, but rather our senses do confirme our fayth.Ihon. 20. Or els what auayled it to S. Thomas, for the confirmation of Christes resurrection, that he did put his hand into Christes syde, and felt his woundes, if he might not trust his sences, nor geue no credite thereto?
And what a wide doore is here opened to Valentinianus, Martion, and other heretikes, which sayd, that Christ was not crucified, but that Simon Cireneus was crucified for him, although to the sight of the people, it semed that Christ was crucified, Or to such heretikes as sayd, that Christ was no man, although to mens sightes he appeared in the forme of man, and semed to be hungry, drie, weary, to wepe, sleepe, eate, drincke, yea and to dye like as other men do. For if we once admitte this doctrine, that no credite is to be geuen to our senses, we open a large field, and geue a greate occasion vntounto an innumerable rablement of most heinous heresies.
And if there be no trust to be geuen to our senses in this matter of the sacrament, why then do the Papistes so stoutly affirme, that the accidents remayne after the consecration, which can not be iudged but by the sences? For the scripture speaketh no word of the accidents of bread & wine but of the bread & wine themselues. And it is agaynst the nature & diffinitiō of accidētes, to be alone without any substāce. Wherfore if we may not trust our sences in this matter of the sacramēt, than if the substance of the bread & wine be gone, why may we not then say, that the accidēts be gone also? And if we must nedes beleue our senses, as conserning the accidēts of bread and wine, why may we not do the like of the substance, and that rather than of the accidents: forasmuch as after the consecration, the Scripture sayth in no place that there is no substance of bread nor of wine, but calleth them still by such names as signifie the substances, and not the accidents?
And finally, if our senses be dayly deceaued in this matter, than is the sensible sacrament nothing els, but an elution of our senses. And so we make much for theyr purpose, that sayd that Christ was a crafty iugglar, that made thinges to appeare to mens sightes, that in dede were no such thinges, but formes onelyonly, figures, and apparances of them.
But to conclude in fewe wordes this processe of our senses, let al the Papists lay their heades togither, and they shall neuer be able to shew one article of our fayth, so directly contrary to our senses that all our senses by dayly experience shall affirme a thynge to be, and yet our fayth shall teache vsus the contrary thereunto.