Answer unto a Crafy and Sophistical Cavillation, Debate · Confutation of book 2 · Section 35 – Section 36
Caunterbury.
WHen I hauehave proued most euidently, as well by the testimony of the scripture, as by the consent of the olde authors of Christes church both greekes and Latines, from the beginning continually from tyme to tyme, that transubstantiation is agaynst gods most holy word, agaynst the olde church of Christ, agaynst all experience of our sences, agaynst all reason, and agaynst the doctrine of all ages (vntill the Bishops of Rome deuised the contrary) therfore. I conclude that the sayd doctrine of Transubstantiation may iustely be called the Romish or papisticall doctrine. And where I hauehave shewed further, that the chiefe pillers of the papisticall doctrine, as Duns, Gabriell, Durand, with other do acknowledge, that if it had not bene for the determination of the church of Rome, they would hauehave thought otherwise (which is a most certayne argument, that this doctrine of Transubstantiation came from Rome, and therfore is worthely called a papisticall doctrine) all this must be answered with these wordes (as this author reporteth) and Duns and Gabriell boast what they could do) wheras neither Duns nor any of the other, eyther bragge or bost, but playnly and franckely declare what they thinke. And if I report then otherwise then they say, reproue me therfore, and tell me wherin. But these be but shiftes to shake of the matter that you cannot answer vntounto. Therfore vntill you hauehave made me a more full and direct answer, I am more confirmed in my assertion, to call transubstantiation a papisticall doctrine, then I was before.
But here you put me in remembrance of an ignorant reader, whose scholler I was in Cambridge almost forty yeares passed, who when he came to any hard chapiter, which he well vnderstoode not, he would find some preaty toy to shift it of, and to scip ouer vntounto an other chapiter which he could better skill of. The same is a common practise of you through out your whole booke, that when any thing in my booke presseth you so sore that you cannot answere it, then finely with some mery iest, or vnsemely taunt you passe it ouer, and go to some other thing, that you perswade yourselfe, you can better answere, which sleight you vse here in ii. matters togither, the one is where I proue the doctrine of Transubstantiation to come from Rome, the other is, that of your sayd doctrine of Transubstantiation it followeth, that Christ eueryevery day is made a new and of a new matter. In which ii. matters you craftely slide away from myne arguments, and answere not to one of them. Wherfore I referre to the iudgement of the indifferent reader, whither you ought not to be taken for conuinced in these ii. poyntes, vntill such tyme as you hauehave made a full answere to my profes and arguments.
For where you say that Christ is not made of the substaunce of bread as of a matter, this is but a slippery euasion. For if Christ be made of bread, eyther he is made of the matter of bread, or of the forme therof. But the fourme say you remayneth, and is not turned into Christes body. Therfore if Christ be made of bread you must needes graunt that he is made of the matter of bread. Now for the the answere to the second reason of the Papistes my booke hath thus.
An other reason hauehave they of like strength.Chap. 9. The second argument for trā substantiation. If the bread should remayne (say they) than should follow many absurdities, and chiefly, that Christ hath taken the nature of bread, as he tooke the nature of man, and so ioyned it to his substance. And than as we hauehave God verely incarnate for our redemption, so should we hauehave him Impanate.
Thou maist consider good reader, that the rest of their reasons be very weake and feeble,The aunswer. when these be the chiefe and strongest. Truth it is in deede, that Christ should hauehave bene impanate, if he had ioyned the bread vntounto his substance in vnity of person, that is to say, if he had ioyned the bread vntounto him in such sort, that he had made the bread one person with himselfe. But for as much as he is ioyned to the bread but sacramentally, there followeth no Impanation therof, no more than the holy Ghost is Inaquate, that is to say, made water, being sacramentally ioyned to the water in baptisme.Math. 3. Mark. 1. Luc. 3. Nor he was not made a doue, when he tooke vponupon him the forme of a doue, to signifie that he, whome S. Ihon did baptise, was very Christ.
But rather of the errour of the Papistes them selues (as one errour draweth an other after it) should follow the great absurdite which they speake vppon, that is to say, that Christ should be Impanate and Inuinate. For if Christ doe vse the bread in such wise, that he doth not adnihilate and make nothing of it (as the Papistes say) but maketh of it his owne body, than is the bread ioyned to his body in a greater vnity, than is his humanity to his Godhead. For his Godhead is adioyned vntounto his humanity in vnity of person, and not of nature. But our Sauiour Christ by their saying adioyneth bread vntounto his body in vntie both of nature and person. So that the bread and the body of Christ be but one thing, both in nature and person. And so is there a more entier vnion betwene Christ and bread, than betwene his Godhead and manhod, or betwen his soule and his body. And thus these arguments of the Papistes, returne (like riuited nayles) vponupon their owne heades.
Winchester.
The solution to the second reason is almost as fondly handled, alluding from Impanation to Inaquation, although it was neuer sayd in scripture, This water is the holy ghost, but in baptisme to be water and the holy Ghost also. And of the doue is not sayd, This is the holy Ghost, but the holy Ghost descended as in the resemblance of a done. The substance of bread is not adnihilate, bicause Gods worke is not adnihilation, who geueth all being: and adnihilation is a defection of the creature from God, and yet Christes body is not augmented by the substance of bread, in which body it endeth by conuersion (as in the better) without adnihilation, which is a changing by miracle. And when this Author knoweth this, or should hauehave knowen it, or hath forgotten it, he writeth like one that were ignorant, and had read nothing in the matter, as it were to make himselfe popular, to ioyne himselfe in ignorāce with the rude vnlearned people.