Answer unto a Crafy and Sophistical Cavillation, Debate · Confutation of book 2 · Section 45
Caunterbury.
OH what a capitall cryme is here committed, that I hauehave englished this word (conficere) to do, whose proper signification is to accomplish or make an end of a thing, which being once brought to passe, we vse in common spech to say, I hauehave done: as I hauehave done my house, I hauehave done my booke, I hauehave done my worke, I hauehave done my dayes iourney, that is to say, I hauehave perfectly done and finished. And is not this fully as much in spech, as to say, I hauehave made my dayes iourney, or I hauehave made my house or my booke? But some fault you must finde, where none is, partly to keep in vse your old custome of calumniatiō, and partly to satisfy a new toy that you hauehave in your head, that making is in the substaunce of the sacrament, and doing is in the effect. But whether it be translate, making or dooing, S. Ambrose spake of the wonderfull effectuall working of God in the vse and ministration of the sacramentes, and that as well in baptisme, as in the Lordes supper, and not of his working in the substaunces of the elementes reserued. As for the authority of the booke, I stand not in it, so that all your wordes therein be more then nedeth, but to length your book, and yet was the book neuer allowed amongst men learned and of iudgement, to be S. Ambroses. And Melancthon whome you alleage for the allowaunce of it, geueth it two nips, which you hauehave left out of purpose, to serue your affection. For he saith not (as you report) that it seemeth not to him vnlike, but that it seemeth not to him farre vnlike, and yet he confesseth that it is confusedly written, which is a slender approbation that it should be S. Ambroses.
And where you confesse, that S. Ambrose sayth not in wordes, that the substances of bread and wine be gone, and yet sayth so in effect, because he speaketh of chaunge, either you know that your argument is naught, and yet bring it in purposely to deceiue some simple reader, or your ignoraunce is more then I would hauehave thought, that of this word (chaunge) woulde argue chaunge in substaunce, as though there could be no chaunge, but it must be in substaunce. But if you had well considered the examples of S. Ambrose by me alleadged (which he bringeth forth for the proofes and similitudes of the chaunge of bread and wine in the sacrament) you should hauehave found that in all the sayd examples remayne the substaunces,Chaunges of things the substances remayning. notwithstanding the chaunge. As in the water of Iordane staying to runue after the naturall course, in the dry stone that contrary to his nature flowed out water, in the bitter water of Marath that was turned into sweetnesse, in the yron that contrary to nature swame aboue the water, in the spirituall generation of man aboue all naturall operation, in the sacramē tall mutation of the water of baptisme, and in the incarnation of our sauiour Christ, which all being brought by S. Ambrose for example of the chaunge in bread and wine, as in them the substaunces remayned, notwithstanding the chaunges, so is it in the bread and wine, whereof other were brought for examples.
But in your handling here of S. Ambrose, you seem to be vtterly ignoraunt, and not to know difference betweene sacramentall signes (in the vse whereof almighty God inwardly worketh) and other vayne signes which be nothing els but outward shewes to the eye. For if you vnderstood the matter, would you resemble a knaue playing in a princes coate (in whom nothing is inwardly wrought or altered) vntounto a man beyng baptised in water, who hath put vpō him outwardly water, but inwardly is aparelled with Christ, and is by the omnipotent working of God spiritually regenerated, and chaunged into a new man? Or would you compare him that banketeth at a feast to represent an anniuersary, or tryumph, vntounto that man that in remembraunce of Christes death eateth and drinketh at his holy supper, geuing thankes for his redemption, and comforting himselfe with the benefyte thereof? If you hauehave this opinion and veneration of the sacramentes, it is well knowen what spirite you hauehave, how ignoraunt you be, and what is to be iudged of you. And if you hauehave no such opinion, becommeth it you then to dally with such profane examples, tending to the profanation of the Sacraments, and deceiuing of the readers?
And as for the holines of bread, I say now as I said before,Holy bread. that neither bread, wine nor water, hauehave any capacity of holinesse, but holines is onelyonly in the receauers, and by the bread, water and wine is sacramentally signified. And therefore the marueilous alteration to an hyer estate, nature and condition, is chiefly and principally in the persons, and in the sacramentall signes it is none otherwise but sacramentally and in significatiō. And whether this be matter of trueth or a thing deuised onelyonly for a shift, let the reader iudge.
And where you say in your further aunswere here to S. Ambrose, that,Uisible matter Formes. the visible matter of the bread outwardly remayneth, it seemeth you hauehave not well marked the wordes of S. Ambrose, who sayth that the words of Christ chaungeth species elementorum. And then if species (as you hauehave sayd before in many places) signify the visible matter, then the visible matter remayneth not (as you say) but is changed as S. Ambrose sayth. And so S. Ambrose wordes, that species elementorum mutantur, be cleane contrary to your wordes, that the visible matter remayneth. I will passe ouer here how you call accidents of bread the matter of bread, agaynst all order of speach, bicause I hauehave touched that matter sufficiently before.
And yet this is not to be passed ouer, but to be noted by the way, how playnly S. Ambrose speaketh agaynst the Papistes, which say, that the body and bloud of Christ remayne sub speciebus panis & vini, vnderunder ye formes of bread and wine. And S. Ambrose sayth, that species elementorum mut antur, the formes of bread and wine be changed.
Aud where you say, that in the examples of mutation brought in by S. Ambrose, although the substance remayne still the same, yet that skilleth not: your answer here seemeth very strange, to say that that thing skilleth not, which skilleth all togither, and maketh the whole matter. For if in the examples the substances remayne, notwithstanding the mutation of the natures by benediction, then do not these examples proue, that the substance of bread and wine remayne not. And if this were singuler from the examples (as you say it is) then were not the other examples of this. For if the substances remayne in them, how can they be brought for examples to proue that the substances of bread and wine remayne not? when they be brought for examples, and thinges that be like, and not that the one should be singular, and vnlike from the other. And where you alleadge this place of S. Ambrose for you, nothing can be spoken more directly agaynst you. For the natures (sayth S. Ambrose) of bread and wine, be changed. And the nature (say you) is the outward visible formes, and that that is changed remayneth not (say you also) and so followeth then, that the substances of bread and wine remayne, and not the outward visible formes, which is directly agaynst your fayned Transubstantiation, and agaynst all that you sayd hitherto cōcerning that matter.
And wher a sacramentall mutatiō is to you a new tearme, it declareth nothing els but your ignorance in the matter. And although you seeme to be ignorant in other authors, yet if you had expended diligently but one chapter of S. Ambrose, you should hauehave found three examples of this sacramentall mutation, wherin the substances remayne entier and whole: one is in the sacrament of Christes incarnation, an other is in a person that is baptised, and the third in the water of baptisme, which three examples I alleadged in my booke, but you thought it better slightly to passe them ouer, then to trouble your brayne with answering to them.
Calling. Making.And where you say that calling bread the body of Christ, is making it in deed the body of Christ, as Christ was called Iesus, bicause he is the sauiour of all men in deed here it appeareth, that you consider not the nature of a sacrament. For when sacraments be named or called by the names of the thinges which they signifie, yet they be not the same thinges indeed, but be so called (as S. Augustine sayth) bicause they hauehave some similitude or likenes to the thinges which they be called. But Christ was called Iesus our Sauiour, as the very true Sauiour in deed, not as a sacrament or figure of saluation, as the bread is the sacrament of Christes flesh, and wine the sacrament of his bloud, by which names they be called, and yet be not the very thinges in deed. Thus hauehave I answered to the chiefe authors, which you alleadge for Transubstantiation, making your owne authors not onelyonly to ouerthrow your building, but to digge vp your foundation cleane from the botome, and nothing is left yon, but arrogancy of mynd, and bosting of words (as men say that you still phansye with your selfe, and bragge that you be bishop of Winchester) euen as a captayne that glorieth in his folly, when he hath lost his castle with ordinaunce and all that he had.
And at length you be driuen to your church, which you call the consent of christendome vniuersall, when it is no more but the Papisticall church, that defendeth your transubstantiation. Now declareth my booke the absurdities that follow the errour of Transubstantiation.
And now I will reherse diuers difficulties, absurdities and inconueniences,Chap. 14. Absurdities that follow of Transubstantiation. which must needes follow vponupon this errour of Transubstantiation, wherof not one doth follow of the true & right fayth, which is according to Gods word.
First if the Papists be demaunded, what thing it is that is broken what is eaten, what is dronken, and what is chawed with the teeth, lippes and mouth in this sacrament, they hauehave nothing to answere, but the accidentes. For (as they say) bread and wine be not the visible elements in this sacrament, but onelyonly their accidents. And so they be forced to say, that accidentes be broken, eaten, drunken, chawen, and swallowed without any substance at all: which is not onelyonly agaynst all reason, but also agaynst the doctrine of all auncient authors.