Answer unto a Crafy and Sophistical Cavillation, Debate · Confutation of book 2 · Section 4
Winchester.
In the third chapiter written in the xxi. leafe it troubleth this author that ye doctrine of Transubstantiation is in his iudgement agaynst naturall reason and naturall operation: in the entry of which matter he graunteth wisely that they should not preuayle agaynst gods worde, and yet he sayth, when they be ioyned with gods word, they be of great moment to confirme any truth: wherin if he meaneth to confirme Gods worde by reason, or gods misteries by naturall operation, myne vnderstanding cannot reach that doctrine, and is more strange to me, then this author maketh Transubstantiation to be to him. As for the reason of (vacuum) declareth a vacuum, that nature abhorreth not. And if we speake after the rules of nature, quantity filleth the place rather than substaunce. And shortly to answere this Author, it is not sayd in the doctrine of Transubstantiation, that there remayneth nothing: for in the visible forme of bread remayneth the proper obiect of eueryevery sence truely: that is seene with the bodely eye, is truely seene, that is felt, is truely felt, that is sauored, is truely sauored, and those thinges corrupt, putrifie, norish and consume after the truth of the former nature, God so ordering it that creat all, vsing singularly that creature of bread, not to vnite it vntounto him as he did mans nature, to be in bread impanate, & breaded as he was in flesh incarnate. And as for reason in place of seruice as being inferiour to sayth, will agree with the fayth of Transubstantiation well inough. For if our fayth of the true presence of Christes very body be true, as it is most true grounded vponupon these wordes of Christ (This is my body,) then reason yelding to that truth, will not striue with Transubstantiation, but playnly affirme that by his iudgement, if it be the body of Christ, it is not bread. For in the rule of common reason, the graunt of one substance is the deniall of an other,Conclusions of reason. and therfore reason hath these conclusions throughly, whatsoeuer is bread is no wine whatsoeuer is wine, is no milke, and so forth.
And therfore being once beleued this to be the body of Christ, reason sayth by and by, it is not bread by the rule aforesayd, wherby appeareth how reason doth not striue with Transubstantiation, being once conquered with sayth of the true presence of Christes body, which is most euident, and no whit darkened by any thing this Author hath brought. As for naturall operation is not in all mens iudgements as this Author taketh it, who semeth to repute it for an inconuenience, to say that the accidents of wine do sower and ware viniger. But vlpian, a man of notable learning, is not afrayd to write in the law,Reode Smith fol. 64. In venditionibus, de contrahenda emptione, in the Pandeas, that of wine and viniger there is (prope eadem foreign ) in manner one substance, wherin he sheweth him selfe farre agaynst this Authors skill, which I put for an example to shew that naturall operations hauehave had in naturall mens iudgements diuers considerations, one sometime repugnant to an other, and yet the Authors of both opinions called Philosophers all. Among which some thought (for example) they spake wisely, that estemed all thing to alter as swiftly as the water runneth in the streme, and thought therfore no man could vtter a word, being the same man in the end of the word that he was when he began to speake, and vsed a similitude. Like as a man standing in one place can not touch the same one water twise in a running streame, no more can a man be touched the same man twise, but he altereth as swiftely as both the streame. These were laughed to skorne, yet they thought themselues wise in naturall speculation, Aristotle (that is much estemed and worthely) fansied a first matter in all thinges to be one, in which consideration he semeth to be as extreame in a stay, as the other fond Philosophers were in mouing. By which two extremeties I condemne not naturall speculation, wherwith I thinke God pleased for man to meruayle in contemplation of his inferiour workes, and to tame his rash wit in the inexplicable variety of it, but to vse it so, as to make it an open aduersary to religion, it is me semeth without all purpose. The doctrine of Transubstantiation doth not teach no earthly thing to remayne in the Sacrament, but contrarywise, that the visible forme of bread and wine is there as the visible figure of the Sacrament, and to be the same in greatnes, in thicknes, in wayght in sauor, in tast, in propriety also to corrupt, putrifie, and nourish, as it did before, and yet the substance of those visible creatures, to be conuerted into the substance (as Emissene sayth) of the body of Christ. And here will reason do seruice is sayth, to say if there be a conuersion in deede as fayth teacheth, and none of the accidents be conuerted, then the substance is conuerted, for in eueryevery thing all is substance and accidents, but the accidents be not chaunged, and yet a change there is, it must nedes be then that substance is changed. Which deduction reason will make, and so agree with Transubstantiatiō in conuenient due seruice. And thus I hauehave gotten reasons good will, whatsoeuer this author sayth, and from the ground of fayth hauehave by reason deduced such a conclusion to proue transubstantiation, as vnles he destroy the true fayth of the presence of Christes very body which he can not, must nedes be allowed. And as for naturall operation of putrifying, engendring wormes, burning, and such experiences, which being the substance of bread absent, this Author thincketh can not be so; when he hath thought throughly, he can of his thought conclude it onelyonly to be a meruayle, and it be so as agaynst the common rules of philosophy, wherin as me semeth it were a nearer way, as we be admonished to leaue searching of (how) of the worke of God in the mistery of Christes presence being that the celestiall parte of the sacrament so not to search (how) in the experience of the operation of nature, of the visible earthly part of the Sacrament. When God sent Manna in desert, the people saw many meruayles in it, besides the common operation of nature, and yet they neuer troubled them selues with (howes). And as one very well writeth, it is consonant that as there is a great miracle in the worke of God to make there present the substance of the body of Christ, to likewise to knowledge the miracle in the absence of the substance of bread, and both the heauenly and earthly part of the sacramēt to be miraculous, and so many miracles to be ioyned together in one, agreeth with the excelency of the Sacrament. As for the obiections this Author maketh in this matter, be such as he findeth in those scholasticall writers, that discusse as they may or labour thereaboute wherwith to satisfie idle imaginations, and to make learned men prompt and ready to say sumwhat to these trifles, whose arguments this author taketh for his principall foundation. For playne resolution and auoyding wherof, if I would now for my parte bring forth their solutions and answers, there were a part of schole Theologie, so brought into English, to no great prayse of eyther of out learninges, but our vayne labour, to set abrode other mens trauayles to trouble rude wittes with matter not necessary, and by such vnreuerent disputing and alteration to hinder the truth. Finally all that this Author reherseth of absurdity, repugneth in his estimation onelyonly is the conclusion of philosophie, which should nothing moue the humble simplicite of sayth in a christen man, who meruayleth at Gods workes and reputeth them true, although he can not comprehend the wayes and meanes of them.