Answer unto a Crafy and Sophistical Cavillation, Debate · Confutation of book 2 · Section 33 – Section 34
Caunterbury
IF that which you hauehave sayd to Gelasius be well considered and conferred with this in Theodorete, it seemeth by your processe in both, that you know not what confusion of natures is.Confusion of natures. And then your ignorance therin: must needes declare that you be vtterly ignorant of all their whole discours, which tendeth onelyonly to proue that the two natures in Christ, his diuinity and his humanity be not confounded. And for ignorance of confusion, you confounde all togither. Gelasius and Theodorete proue, that the two natures in Christ be not confounded, bicause they remayne both in their owne substances and properties, so that the remayning declareth no confusion, which should be confounded if they remayned not. If a droppe of milke be put into a pot of wine, by and by it looseth the first nature and substance, and is confounded with the nature and substance of wine. And if wine and milke be put togither in equale quantity, then both be confounded, bicause neyther remayneth, neyther perfect wine with his substāce & natural proprieties, nor perfect milke, with the substance & proprieties of milke, but a cōfusion, an humble iomble or hotch potch, a posset or sillabub is made of thē both togither, like as in mans body, the foure elemēts be cōfoūded, to ye cōstitutiō of ye same, not one of ye elemēts remayning in his proper substāce, forme & pure naturall qualities.
So that if one nature remayne not, the same is confounded. And if there be more natures that lose their substance, they be all confounded, except there be an vtter consumption or adnihilation of the thing that looseth his substance, and therfore the argument which all the old ecclesiasticall authors vse, to saue the confusion of the two natures in Christ, is to proue, that they both remayne. And if we may learne that, by the similitude of the sacrament (as Gelasius and Theodoret teach, and you here confesse the same) then must needes the substance of bread and wine remayne, or els is there none example nor similitude of the remayning of two natures in Christ, but of their confusion, as by youre fayned doctrine the substance of bread is confounded with the body of Christ, neyther being adnihilate, nor remayning, but transubstantiated, confounded and conuerted into the substance of Christes body. And thus with your well vnderstanding of the matter, you confound all togither, where as I with my ignorance, not blaspheming that holy vnion and mistery of Christes incarnation, doe saue all the natures whole, without mixtion, confusion or Transubstantiation, either of the diuine & humayne nature in Christ or of the soule and body in man, or of the bread & wine in the Sacramēt, but all ye substāce & natures be saued & remayne cleerly with their natural properties & conditions, that the proportiō in yt poynt may be like, and one to be the true Image and similitude of the other. But surely more grosse ignoraunce or wilfull impiety then you hauehave shewed in this matter, hath not lightly bene seene or red of.
And where you say, that I by ouersight, or the Printer by negligence, hauehave left out a (not,Not.) if I should hauehave put in that (not) of myne owne head contrarye to the originall in Greeke, and to all the translatours in Latine, and the translation of Master Peter Martyr also, I should hauehave bene as farre ouerseene as you bee, whiche as it seemeth of purpose confound and corrupt, you care not whether any Authors wordes, or their meanyng.
And as for my forked dilemma, you shall neuer be able to aunswer ther to, but the more you trauayle therein, the more you shall entangle your selfe. For eyther you must graunt (as vnwilling as you be) that the nature and substance of bread and wine remayne after the consecration, or els that the nature and substance of Christes humanity and diuinitie remayne not after his incarnation, wherein erred not onelyonly Eutiches (whome you say I should hauehave put for Nestorius) but also Martion, Ebion, Ualentinus, Nestorius, and other as in my booke I hauehave declared.
And one thing is principally to be noted in your answere to Theodoret how you can sophisticate and falsefy all mens sayinges, be they neuer so playne. For where betweene me and the Papistes the matter here in contention is this. Whether the bread and wine remayne in their proper nature and substauce or no. I saying that they remayne, and the Papistes saying that they remayne not, the Issue being in this poynt whether they remayne, or remayne not, I bring for me Chrisostome (who sayth, the nature of bread remayneth:) I bring Gelasius, (who sayth, that there ceaseth not the substance or nature of bread and wine) I bring this Theodoret, whose wordes be these: The bread and wine after consecration lose not their proper nature, but keepe their former substances, forme and figure. Now how can any man deuise to speake the truth in more playne wordes than these be? For they say the very same wordes that I say. And yet bicause the truth is not liked, here must be deuised a crafty Lawyers glose, of them that neuer sought other, but to calumniate the truth, and must be sayd (agaynst all learning, reason and speach) that substance is taken for the visible and palpable qualities or accidents: well yet then you confesse that those olde auncient Authors agree with me in wordes, and say as I do, that the bread and wine be not transubstantiated, but remayne in their former substance: And then the issue playnly passeth with me by the testimony of these three witnesses, vntill such tyme as you can proue that these authors spake one thing, and ment an other, and that qualities and accidents be substances. And if you vnderstoode whereunto the argument of Theodoret and Gelasius tendeth, you would not say that they spake agaynst the Eutiches, any more then they do agaynst the Nestorians. For if the bread and wine remayne not (as you say) but be swallowed vp of the body and bloud of Christ, then likewise in the principall mistery, eyther the deity must be swallowed vp of the humanity, or the humanity of the deity. The contrary wherof is not onelyonly agaynst the Eutichians, but also agaynst the Nestorians, Martionistes, and all other that denied any of his two natures to remayne perfectly in Christ.
And where as you with all the route of the Papistes, both priuately and openly report me to be vnlearned and ignorant, bycause you would therby impayre my credite in this weighty matter of our fayth, my knowledge is not any whit the lesse, bicause the Papistes say it is nothing, nor yours any deale the more, bicause the Papistes do say, that you onelyonly be learned, whome for any thing that euer I could perceaue in you, I hauehave found more full of wordes and talke then of learning. And yet the note of ignorance, I nothing passe of, if therby the truth and Gods glory should not be hindered.
Now after the reproofe of your doctrine of Transubstantiation, by all the old writers of Christes church, I write in my booke after this māner.
Now forasmuch as it is proued sufficiently (as well by the holy Scripture,Chap. 6. Transubstantiation came from Rome. as by naturall operation, by naturall reason, by all our sences, and by the most olde and best learned authors, and holy martirs of Christes church,) that the substance of bread and wine do remayne, and be receaued of faythfull people in the blessed Sacrament, or supper of the Lord: It is a thing worthy to be considered and well wayed, what moued the Schoole authors of late yeares to defend the contrary opinion, not onelyonly so far from all experience of our sences, and so farre from all reason, but also cleane contrary to the olde church of Christ, and to Godes most holy word. Surely nothing moued them therto so much, as did the vayne fayth which they had in the church and sea of Rome.
For Ioannes Scotus,Scotus super 4. sen. distinct. 11. otherwise called Duns, (the subtillest of all the schoole authors) intreating of this matter of Transubstantiation, sheweth playnly the cause therof. For (sayth he) the wordes of the Scripture might be expounded more easely, and more playnly without Transubstantiation, but the church did choose this sense, (which is more hard, being moued therto (as it seemeth) chiefly, bicause that of the Sacramentes men ought to hold, as the holy churh of Rome holdeth: But it holdeth, that bread is transubstantiate or turned into the body, and wine into the bloud, as it is shewed De summa Trinitate & fide Catholicae. Firmiter credimus.
And Gabriell also (who of all other wrote most largely vponupon the Canon of the Masse) sayth thus.Gabriel. super Canonè missae lect. 40. It is to be noted, that although it be taught in the scripture, that the body of Christ is truely conteined and receaued of christen people vnderunder the kindes of bread & wine, yet how the body of Christ is there, whether by conuersion of any thing into it, or without conuersion the body is there with the bread, both the substance and accidence of bread remayning there still, it is not found expressed in the Bible. Yet forasmuch as of the sacraments men must hold as the holy church of Rome holdeth, as it is written De haereticis, Ad abolendum. And that church holdeth and hath determined, that the bread is trāsubstantiated into the body of Christ, and the wine into his bloud, Therfore is this opinion receaued of all them that be catholike, that the substance of bread remayneth not, but really and truely is tourned, transubstantiated and changed into the substance of the body of Christ.
Chap. 7.Thus you hauehave heard the cause, wherfore this opinion of Transubstantiation at this present is holden and defended among christen people, that is to say, bicause the church of Rome hath so determined, although the contrary, by the Papistes owne confession, appeare to be more easy, more true, and more according to the Scripture.
But bicause our english papistes (who speake more grossely herein then the Pope himselfe, affirming that the naturall body of Christ is naturally in the bread and wine) can not, nor dare not ground their fayth, concerning transubstantiation, vponupon the church of Rome: which although in name it be called most holy, yet in deede it is the most stinking dongehill of all wickednes that is vnderunder heauen, and the very sinagoge of the deuill, which whosoeuer followeth, can not but stumble, and fall into a pit ful of erroures. Bicause I say the English papistes dare not now stablish their fayth vponupon that foundation of Rome, therfore they seeke Figge leaues, that is to say, vayne reasons, gathered of their owne braynes and authorities, wrested from the intent and minde of the authors, wherwith to couer and hide their shamefull errours. Wherfore I thought it good somwhat to trauayle herein, to take away those figge leaues, that their shamefull errours may playnly to eueryevery man appeare.
Chap. 8. The first reasō of the Papists to proue their Transubtantiation. Math. 26. Mar. 14. Lue. 22. The answere.The greatest reason and of most importance, and of such strength (as they thinke) or at the least as they pretend, that all the world can not answere therto, is this: Our sauiour Christ, taking the bread, brake it, and gaue it to his disciples, saying: This is my body. Now (say they) as sone as Christ had spoken these wordes, the bread was straight way altered and changed, and the substāce therof was conuerted into the substance of his precious body.
But what christen eares canne paciently heare this doctrine, that Christ is eueryevery day made a new, and made of an other substance, than he was made of in his mothers wombe? For where as at his incarnation he was made of the nature and substance of his blessed mother, now (by these papistes opinion) he is made eueryevery day of the nature and substance of bread and wine, which (as they say) be turned into the substance, of his body and bloud. O what a meruaylous Metamorphosis and abhominable heresie is this? to say, that Christ is dayly made a new, and of a new matter? wherof it followeth necessarely, that they make vsus eueryevery day a new Christ, and not the same that was borne of the virgine Mary, nor that was crucified vponupon the crosse, and that it was not the same Christ that was eaten in the supper, which was borne and crucified, as it shall be playnly proued by these arguments folowing.
First thus: If Christes body that was crucified was not made of bread, but the body that was eaten in the supper was made of bread, (as the papistes say) than Christes body that was eaten in the supper was not the same that was crucified. For if they were all one body, than it must needes follow, that either Christes body that was eaten was not made of bread, or els that his body that was crucified was made of bread.
And in like manner it followeth: If the body of Christ in the Sacrament, be made of the substance of bread and wine, and the same body was conceaued in the Virgines wombe, than the body of Christ in the Virgines wombe was made of bread and wine.
Or els turne the argument thus: The body of Christ in the Virgines wombe was not made of bread and wine, but this body of Christ in the Sacrament is made of bread and wine, than this body of Christ is not the same that was conceaued in the virgines wombe.
An other argument. Christ that was borne in the Virgines wombe, as concerning his body, was made of none other substance, but of the substance of his blessed mother, but Christ in the Sacrament is made of an other substance, and so it followeth, that he is an other Christ.
And so the Antichrist of Rome, the chiefe author of all idolatrie, would bring faythfull christen people from the true worshipping of Christ that was made and borne of the blessed virgine Mary, through the operation of the holy ghost, and suffered for vsus vponupon the crosse, to worship an other Christ made of bread and wine through the consecration of Popish priestes, which make themselues the makers of God. For (say they) the priest by the wordes of consecration maketh that thing which is eaten and dronken in the Lordes supper, and that (say they) is Christ himselfe both God and man, and so they take vponupon them to make both God and man.
But let all true worshipers worship one God, one Christ, once corporally made, of one onelyonly corporall substance, that is to say, of the blessed virgin Mary, that once dyed, and rose once agayne, once assended into heauen, and there sitteth and shall sit at the right hand of his father euermore, although spiritually he be eueryevery day amongst vsus, and who so euer come togither in his name, he is in the middest among them. And he is the spirituall pasture and food of our soules, as meat and drincke is of our bodyes, which he signifieth vntounto vsus by the institution of his most holy supper in the bread and wine, declaring that as the bread and wine corporally comfort and feed our bodyes, so doth he with his flesh and bloud spiritually comfort and feed our soules.
And now may be easely answered the Papistes argument wherof they do so much boast,The aunswere more directly. For bragge they neuer so much of their conuersion of bread and wine into the body and bloud of Christ, yet that conuersion is spirituall, and putteth not away the corporall presence of the materiall bread and wine. But for as much as the same is a most holy sacrament of our spirituall norishment (which we hauehave by the body and bloud of our sauiour Christ) there must needes remayne the sensible element, that is to say, bread and wine, without the which there can be no sacrament.
As in our spirituall regeneration there can be no sacrament of baptisme, if there be no water. For as baptisme is no perfect sacrament of spirituall regeneration, without there be aswell the element of water, as the holy ghost, spiritually regenerating the person that is baptised (which is signified by the sayd water) euen so the supper of the Lord can be no perfect Sacrament of spirituall food, except there be as well bread and wine, as the body and bloud of our sauiour Christ, spiritually feeding vsus, which by the sayd bread and wine is signified.
And how so euer the body and bloud of our Sauiour Christ be there present, they may as well be present there with the substance of bread and wine, as with the accidents of the same, as the scholeauthors, do confesse them selues, and it shall be well proued if the aduersaries will deny it. Thus you see the strongest argument of the Papistes answered vntounto, and the chiefe foundation wherupon they buyld their errour of Transubstantiation, vtterly subuerted and ouerthrowen.
Winchester.
Wherein this author not seeing how little he hath done, concludeth yet as constantly as though he had throwen all downe afore him, entending to shew that the doctrine of Transubstantiation dependeth onelyonly of authority, which is not so, using the sayinges of Duns and Gabriell (as he reporteth them) for his purpose, bicause they (as he sayth) boast themselues what they could doe, if the determination of the counsaile were not, and thus eueryevery idle speach may hauehave estimation with this author agaynst the receaued truth. And from this poynt of the matter, the author of this booke maketh a passage with a litle sport at them, he fan…eth or liketh to call so English Papistes by the way to enterprise to answere all such as he supposeth reasons for Transubstantiation and authorities also.
Read Smith. fol 91. &c.First he findeth himselfe mirth in divissing as he calleth them the Papistes, to say yt Christ is made a new, which fansie if it were so, is agaynst the reall presence as well as transubstantiation. In which wordes bicause eueryevery wise reader may see how this author playeth: I will say no more but this, Christ is not made a new, nor made of the substance of bread, as of a matter, and that to be the Catholique doctrine, this author if he be right named, knoweth well enough, and yet spendeth two leaues in it.