Answer unto a Crafy and Sophistical Cavillation, Debate · Confutation of book 2 · Section 46
Winchester.
In the second volume of the 43. leafe, the author goeth about to note 6. absurdities in the doctrine of Transubstantiation, which I entend also to peruse. The first is this.
First if the Papistes be demaunded. &c.
This is accompted by this author the first absurditie and inconuenience which is by him rhetorically set forth with lippes, and mouth, and chawing, not substanciall termes to the matter, but accidentall. For opening of which matter, I will repeate some part agayne of that I hauehave written before, when I made the scholler answer the rude man in declaration of substance, which is, that albeit that sensible thing which in speach vttered after the capacity of common vnderstanding is called substance, be comprehended of our sences, yet the inward nature of eueryevery thing which is in learning properly called substance, is not so distinctly knowen of vsus, as we be able to shew it to the sences, or by wordes of difference to distinct in diuers kindes of thinges one substance from an other.Basilius hom. 1. exhameron. And herin (as Basill sayth) if we should goe about by separation of all the accidents to discerne the substance by it selfe alone, we should in the experience fayle of our purpose and ende in nothing indeede. There is a naturall consideration of the abstract that can not be practised in experience. And to me if it were asked of commen bread, when we breake it, whether we breake the substance or onelyonly the accidents, First I must learnedly say, If the substance be broken, it is by meane of the accident in quantitie, and then if it liked me to take my pleasure without learning in philosophye, as this author doth in diuinity agaynst the catholique fayth, to say in diuision we breake not the substance of bread at all; the heresie in philosophy were not of such absurditye, as this author mayntayneth in diuinity. For I hauehave some probable matter to say for me, where as he hath none. For my strange answer I would say, that albeit a naturall thing as bread consisting of matter and essenciall forme with quantity, and therby other accidents cleauing and annexed may be well sayd to be in the whole broken, as we see by experience it is? Yet speaking of the substance of it alone, if one should aske whether that be broken, and it should be answered, yea, then should the substance appeare broken and whole all at one tyme, seeing in eueryevery broken peece of bread is a whole substance of bread, and where the p…ece of bread broken is so little a crumme, as can no more in deed be deuided, we say neuertheles the same to be in substance very bread, and for want of conuenient quantity bread indiuisible: and thus I write to shew that such an aunswere to say the accidents be broken, hath no such clere absurdity, as this author would hauehave it séeme. But leauing of the matter of Philosophy to the scholes. I will graunt that accidentes to be without substaunce is agaynst the common course of naturall thinges, and therefore therein is a speciall miracle of God. But when the accidentes be by miracle without substāce as they be in the visible part of the sacrament, then the same accidents to be broken, eaten, and drunken with all additions this author for his pleasure maketh them, is no miracle, or maruaile: and as for absurdity no point at all, for by quantitye which remayneth is all diuision, we ought to confes and good christen men do profes the mistery of the sacrament to be supernaturall, and aboue the order of nature, and therefore it is a trauaile in vayne to frame the consideration of it to agrée with the termes of philosophy. But where this author sayth that nothing can be aunswered to be broken but the accidents: yes verely, for in time of contention, as this is, to him that would aske what is broken, I would in other termes aunswere thus, that thou seest is broken. And then if he would aske further, what that is, I would tell him, the visible matter of the sacrament, vnderunder which is present inuisibly the substaunce of the most precious bodye of Christ. If he will aske yet further, is that body of Christ broken? I wil say, no. For I am learned in fayth, that that glorious body now impassible cannot be deuided, or broken, and therefore it is whole in eueryevery part of that is broken, as the substaunce of bread is in common bread in eueryevery part that is broken.The booke of Commō praier. According whereunto it is in the booke of common prayer sette forth howe in ech part of that is broken of the consecrate bread, is the whole body of our sauior Christ. If this questioner be further curious and say, Is not that, that is broken, bread? I would aunswere as a beleuing man by fayth, truely no. For in fayth I must call it, because it is truely so, the bodye of Christ inuisibly there, and the breaking to be not in it, but in the visible figure. Yea ye will call it so sayth this questioner but yet it is bread: Nay quod I, my fayth is a most certayne truth, & beleueth things as they verely be, for Christs word is of strength, not onelyonly to shew and declare as other mens wordes do, but therewith effectuall to make it so to be, as it is by him called. And this I write because howsoeuer clarks soberly entreat the matter (such as minde well I meane) to consider accidentes and substance which termes the rude vnderstand not, it is not necessary therefore in those termes, to make aunswere to such as be contentiously curious, who labour with questions to dissolue the trueth of the mistery, in declaration whereof if we as men stumble and terme it otherwise then we should, that is no inconuenience in the mistery, but an imperfection in vsus that be not able to expresse it not hauing such giftes of God as other hauehave, nor studying to attayne learning as other hauehave done. And whatsoeuer in scholes with a deuoute minde to aunswere all captious questions hath for the exercitation of mens sences bene moued soberly and by way of argument obiected, that is now picked out by this author, and brought to the common peoples eares, in which it might sound euill they not being able to make aunswere therunto, wereby they might be snarled and intangled with vayne fansies against that trueth, which before without curiosity of questions, they truely and constantly beleued. Finally the doctrine of the sacrament is simple and playne, to hauehave the visible formes of bread & wine for signification, the thing whereof is the very body and bloud of Christ, which being the trueth of the whole, it is no absurdity to confes truely the partes as they be, if occasion require, howsoeuer it soundeth to the Ethnike or carnall mans eares, for whose satisfaction there is no cause why the trueth should be altered into a lye, wherewith to make melody to theyr vnderstandinges. For howsoeuer carnal reason be offended with spirituall truth, it forceth not, but agaynst the whole consent of the auncient doctors, no doctrine can be iustified, with whose testimonye, how the fayth of the church in the sacrament now agréeth, it is manifest, howsoeuer it liketh this author to reporte the contrary.