Answer unto a Crafy and Sophistical Cavillation, Debate · Confutation of book 2 · Section 47 – Section 54
Caunterbury.
HEre may the reader perceiue how much you sweat and labor, so that it pittieth me to see what trauaile you take (babling many things, no thing to the purpose) to aunswere my first absurditye. And yet at the end, you be enforced to affirme all that I charge you withall, that is to say, that accidentes be broken, eaten, drunken, chawed and swallowed without any substaunce at all. And more I need not to say here, then before I hauehave aunswered to your clarkely dialogue betweene the scholler and the rude man, sauing this, that you make all men so wise, that they iudge accidents in their common vnderstanding to be called substaunces, and that no man is able to know the difference of one substaunce from an other.
And here you fall into the same folly,Substāces can not be without accidentes. that Basill speaketh. For if he that goeth about to seperate accidentes from their substaunce, fayle of his purpose, & end in nothing indeed, then you separating the accidentes of bread from their substaunce, and the substaunce of Christes body from the accidentes, by your owne saying alleadged of Basill, you must fayle of your purpose, & in the end bring both the bread and body of Christ to nothing in deed. For the abstraction of accidentes from their proper substaunces and of substances frō their proper accidentes (as you truely say in that poynt) can not be practised in experience, but is a corruptiō or adnihilatiō of both.
And where to excuse this absurdity, that accidentes in the sacramental bread should be broken alone without any substaunce, you bring in an other absurdity, that in common bread the substaunce is not broken at all: this is no taking away of the first absurdity, but of one absurdity to make two, as once I knew a man, that when he had made a lye, and perceiued that he was suspected, by and by, he would make two or three much greater lyes to excuse the first withall. But if you should say, that we break not the substaunce of bread at all, it were no more vnlearnedly said in Philosophy, then it is vntruely sayd in diuinity.
And where you say that you hauehave probable matter for you, and I hauehave none for me, it is cleane contrary. For you hauehave vtterly nothing for you but all the whole world agaynst you, if you say that the substaunce of common bread is not broken at all. And I hauehave for me the very playne wordes of Christ, of the Apostle, & of the Euangelistes.1. Cor. 10. Mat. 26. Mar. 14. Luke. 22. The bread which wee breake (sayth S. Paule.) And Christ took bread and brake it, say the three Euangelistes. But there is no bread (say you) nor no substaunce of bread is broken. And this probable matter hauehave you for your selfe, if men will beleue your selfe alone, better then the Apostle and the Euangelistes.
And what should you talke in vayn of substaunce alone, to dasle the eies of the ignoraunt, when there is no such thing, nor neuer was sithens the world began? and seing your question in that place is of common breade, where the substaunce is neuer alone without accidentes? And if the substaunce of bread might be alone, yet your reason agaynst the breaking of it, is so far from all reason, that it should proue aswell, that the substaunce ioined to the quantity and accidentes cannot be broken, as the substaunce alone. For in eueryevery peece of bread is a whole substaunce, and then by your argument, it cannot be broken.
And where you graunt that accidentes to be without substaunce, is agaynst the common course of naturall thinges, but it is done by a spiritual miracle, this is but a cloud to darken the light. For accidents to be without substaunces, is not onelyonly agaynst the cōmon course of natural things, but also against the very nature of accidentes (which hauehave none other being, but in substaunces as they be defyned, accidentis esse, estinesse) and is also against all philosophy, reason and working of god sithens the world begā. For God neuer created nor made (with miracle nor without miracle) substaunces without accidentes, nor accidents without substaunces, as some vaynely phantasy de materia prima. It is agaynst also the doctrine of the old catholicke authors, for neuer none wrote that accidentes were without substaunces, vntill the Bishop of Rome with his Monkes and Fryers defyned the contrary.
But note well here good reader the end of wit, when it is not stayd by Gods word, but shooteth at rouers or runneth at large, as it were a young colte without a bridle. That nothing is broken but the accidentes, this is denied. Then would I fayne learne of this great wise man, (that so well can disseuer substaunces from accidentes) what substaunce it is that is broken? Not the body of Christ, (sayth he, for that is whole in eueryevery part) nor the bread is not broken (sayth he, for our fayth teacheth vsus contrary) then must it be either Christes diuinity or soule, that is broken, or els is some other substance there which neuer man heard of before.
Note also good reader how well this author agreeth with himselfe, which within a little compasse denieth so many thinges, and affirmeth the same agayne. For first he sayth, that to seperate substaunces from the accidentes, is to bring it to nothing, and yet he seperateth from their accidents as well the substaunces of bread and wine, as of the body of Christ. Before he sayd, yt nothing was broken, but the accidēts, now he denieth it. Before he sayth, the body of Christ is not broken, and shortly after he sayth that which is broken is no bread, but the body of Christ. And here it appereth how falsehood neyther agreeth with truth nor with it selfe.
The booke of common prayer.And where you alleadge, that in the booke of Common prayer it is set forth, how in ech part of that is brokē of the consecrated bread is the whol body of our sauiour Christ, what coulde you hauehave alleadged more agaynst your selfe? For if the consecrated bread bee broken in partes, how can you aunswere truely by fayth, as a beleuing man (which aunswere you make streight wayes after) that that which is broken, is no breade? And if you would aunswere (as you be wont to doe) that the accidentes of bread bee called bread, yet that collusiō will not serue you in this place. For seing that this place speaketh of consecrated bread, aūswere me to this, whether the substaunce or accidence be consecrated? And if you say the accidentes, then for as much as consecration by your doctrine is conuertion, it must follow that the accidents of bread bee conuerted, and not the substaunce, and so should you call it Transaccidentation, and not Transubstantiation, and if you say, that the substaunce of bread is consecrated, then for asmuch as that which is consecrated is deuided into partes, and in eueryevery part is the whole body of Christ, you must confesse, that the substaunce of bread remaineth with the partes thereof, wherein is receiued the body of Christ.
But yet will you say peraduenture, that although this make agaynst Transubstantiation, yet it proueth the reall presence of Christes body, seeing that it is whole in eueryevery part of the bread. It is whole in deed in eueryevery part of the bread deuided, as it is in the whole bread vndeuided, which is sacramentally, not really, corporally, carnally, and naturally, as you fayne and imagine, & would cōstrayn other to beleue. And fayth denieth not the bread, but teacheth it to remayne as a sacrament. And calling of it Christs body, is not making of it to be really so, no more then the calling of the blessed virgin, Iohns mother, made not her to be naturally so in deed, nor him to be her sonne. For although Christs words effectually spokē, be an effectuall making, yet his wordes sacramentally and figuratiuely spoken, declare not the figure or sacrament to be indeed the thing that is signified.
And if the rude and simple people vnderstand not substaunce from accidentes (as you here affirme) then this thing they may at the least wise vnderstand, how little they be beholden to you Papysts, that would bynd them to beleue, vnderunder perill of damnation, such thinges as they bee not able to vnderstand, making articles of theyr fayth, to snare them rather thē to saue them. But what skilleth that to the Papistes, how many men perish,Distin. 40. Si Papa. which seeke nothing elles but the aduaūcement of their Pope, whom they say no man can finde fault withall. For though he neither care for his own soules health, nor of his christen brother, but draw innumerable people captiue with him into hell, yet (say the Papistes) no man may reprehēd him, nor aske the question why he so doth.
Schoole authors.And where you speake of the sobernesse and deuotion of the schoole authors (whom before you noted for boasters) what sobernesse and deuotion was in them (being all in manner monkes and fryers) they that be exercised in them do know, wherof you be none. For the deuotion that they had, was to their God that created them (which was their Pope) by contention, sophistication, and all subtle meanes they could deuise by their witte or learning, to confirme and establish whatsoeuer oracle came out of theyr Gods mouth. They set vp their Antichrist directly agaynst Christ, and yet vnderunder pretence of Christ, made him his vicar generall, giuing him power in heauen, earth and in hell. And is not then the doctrine of Transubstantiation, and of the reall and sensuall presence of Christ in the sacrament, to be beleued (trow you) seing that it came out of such a gods mouth, & was set abroad by so many of his Aungels?
And is not this a simple and playne doctrine (I pray you) that visible formes and substances be transubstantiated,Simple and playne doctrine. and yet accidents remayn? A playne doctrine (be you assured) which you confesse your selfe, that the simple and playne people vnderstand not, nor your selfe, with the helpe of all the Papistes is not able to defend it, where the true doctrine of the first catholick christian fayth is most playne, cleare and comfortable, without any difficulty, scruple or doubt, that is to say, that our Sauiour Christ, although he be sitting in heauē in equality with his father, is our life, strēgth… food, and sustenaunce, who by his death deliuered vsus from death, and daily nourisheth and increaseth vsus to eternall life. And in tokē hereof he hath prepared bread to be eaten and wine to be drunken of vsus in his holy supper to put vsus in remembrance of his sayd death, and of the celestiall feeding, nourishing, increasing, and of all the benefites, which wee hauehave thereby, which benefites through fayth and the holy ghost are exhibited and geuen vntounto all that worthely receiue the sayd holy supper. This the husbandman at his plough, the weauer at his loume, and the wife at her rocke can remember and geue thankes vntounto God for the same. This is the very doctrine of the Gospel, with the consent wholly of al ye old ecclesiastial doctors howsoeuer the Papistes for their pastime put vysers vponupon the sayd doctors, and disguise them in other coates, making a play and mocking of them. Now followeth the second absurdity.
Secondly, these Transubstantiatours do say (contrary to all learning) that the accidentes of bread and wine doe hang alone in the ayre without any substance, wherin they may be stayed. And what can be sayd more foolishly?.
Winchester.
The Mayster of the sentences shewing diuers mens sayings in discussion (as they can) of this mistery, telleth what some say, that had rather say somewhat, then nothing, which this author rehearseth as a determination of the church, that indéede maketh no doctrine of that poynt so, but acknowledgeth the mistery to exéede our capacity. And as for the accidentes to be stayd, that is to say, to remayne without their naturall substaūce is without difficulty beleued of men that hauehave fayth, considering the almighty power of Christ, whose diuine body is there present. And shall that be accounted for an inconuenience in the mistery, that any one man saith, whose saying is not as a full determination approued? If that man should encounter with this author if he were aliue, so to do, I think he would say it were more tolerable in him of a zeale to agrée with the true doctrine, to vtter his conceit fondly, then of a malice to dissent from the true doctrine this author so fondly to improue his saying. But if he should appose this author in learning, and aske him how he will vnderstand (Fiat lux) in creation of the world, where the light staied that was then create? But I will proceed to peruse the other differences.
Caunterbury.
THe doctrine that euen now was so simple and playne is now agayne waxed so full of ambiguities and doubtes, that learned men in discussing therof, as they can, be fayne to say rather some thing than nothing, and yet were they better to say nothing at all, then to say that is not true, or nothing to purpose. And if the master of the sentences saying in this poynt, vary from the cōmon doctrine of the other Papists, why is not this his errour reiected among other, wherin he is not commonly helde? And why do your selfe after approue the same saying of the Master, as a thing beleeued without difficultie, that the accidents be stayed without their naturall substāce? And then I would know of you wherin they be stayed? seeing they be not stayed in the ayre, as in their substance, nor in the bread and wine, nor in the body of Christ? For eyther you must appoynt some other stay for them or els graunt (as I say) that they hange alone in the ayre, without any substance wherin they may be stayed. And eyther I vnderstand you not in this place (you speake so diffusely) or els that thing which the Master spake, and your self hauehave here affirmed, you cal it a tollerable conceit fondly vttered. And where as to answere the matter of the staying of the accidents, you aske wherin the light was stayed as the creation of the world: this is a very easy opposall, and soone answered vntounto. For first God created heauen and earth and after made light, which was stayed in them as it is now, although not deuided from the darkenes in such sort as it was after. Now followeth the third absurdity.
Thirdly, that the substance of Christes body is there really, corporally, and naturally present, without any accidents of the same. And so the Papistes make accidents to be without substances, and substances to be without accidents.
Winchester.
How Christes body is in circumstance present, no man can define, but that it is truly present, and therfore really present, corporally also, and naturally,Really corporally, naturally. with relation to the truth of the body present, and not to the maner of presence which is spirituall, exceeding our capacitye, and therefore therein without drawing away accidentes or adding, wee beleeue simplye the trueth howesoeuer it liketh this author without the booke to terme it at his pleasure, and to speake of substaunce without accidentes and accidents without substance, which perplexity in wordes can not iest out the truth of the catholike beleefe. And this is on the authors part nothing but iesting with a wrong surmise and supposall, as though men had inuented and imagined that which by force and truth of the scripture all good men hauehave and must beleeue, that is to say, the true presence of the substance of the body and bloud of Christ in the Sacrament, according to the wordes of Christ: This is my body, which exclude the substance of bread, declaring the substance of the body of Christ to be acknowledged and professed in the Sacrament by the true fayth of a christen man. Compare with this what this author writeth in hys ninth difference in the 47. leafe of his boke, and so consider the truth of this report, and how this author agreeth with himselfe.
Caunterbury.
I Suspect not the iudgement of the indifferent reader so much, but that he can perceaue how vndirectly you answere to this third absurdity, and be loth as it seemeth to answere any thing at all.
But it is no little confirmation of the catholike fayth, to see you Papists vary so much among your selues, and you alone to diuise so many thinges contrary to all the rest, and yet you be vncertayne your selfe what you may say. They say also with one accord (sauing onelyonly Smith & you) that in the sacrament be not the qualities and quantities of Christes body. (For he is not there visible and sensible with his voyce to be heard, his colours to be seene, his softnes to be felt, his quantities to be extended, and to be locall in place, with his other accidents) so that they take away his accidents from the sacrament. Smith sayth that he is there (not naturally, as you say, but against nature) with all his qualities and accidents.Smyth. You dare neither adde them, nor drawe them away, being vncertayue whether they be there or no, and being also vncertayne whether in the sacrament he hauehave distinction of members or no. But telling the truth is but iesting and rayling to you, which for lacke of answer be glad to shift of the truth as a matter of iesting.
And it is not my terming without the booke and at my pleasure, to speake of substances without accidents, and accidents without substances, (For I speake none otherwise therein, then as it hath pleased the Papistes before to terme the same in all their bookes of that matter) but I termed this matter so vppon the papisticall bookes, as they at their pleasure deuised or dreamed without all manner of bookes written before their tyme. And the force of scripture constrayneth no man to the beleefe of Transubstantiation, although the body of Christ were really, corporally, and carnally present, who by his omnipotent power can be present as well with the substances, as with the accidents of bread and wine, as fully is declared before.
And where you alleadge the disagreing of me with my selfe, if you would hauehave taken the payne to reade some of ye schole authors, you should hauehave learned, that there is no disagrement in my sayings at all. For they say, that the body of Christ that is in the sacrament hath his proper formes and quantities (as I sayd in the 47. leafe) But yet those accidents (say they) be in heauen, and not in the sacrament, as I say in this place, not varying one mite from myne other saying. But ignorance in you, thinketh a difference where none is at all.
Now followeth the fourth absurdity.
Fourthly, they say, that the place where the accidents of bread and wine be, hath no substance there to fill that place, and so must they needes graunt vacuum, which nature vtterly abhorreth.
Winchester.
This author goeth about to finde so many absurdities, that he speaketh he wotteth not what, and where he seeth and feeleth quantity, accompteth the place voyd for want of substance, as though in consideration of common naturall thinges seuerally as they be in nature, it were the substance that filled the place and not rather quantity, although in the naturall order of thinges there is no quantity without substance, and is in this Sacrament onelyonly by miracle. There wanted a substance in consideration of this absurdity, and was such a vacuum, as nature playnly endureth.
Caunterbury.
A Lithe authors that write what vacuum is, account a place that is not filled with a substaunce which hath quantity in it, to be void and emty. So that my saying is not grounded vponupon ignoraunce; but vponupon the mind of all that write in that matter. Where as your saying, that quantity alone filleth place, without substaunce, hath no ground at all, but the Papistes bare imagination. And if quantity in the sacrament be without substaunce by miracle, it is maruaile that no auncient writer in no place of their bookes made any mention of such a miracle. But your selfe graunt inough for my purpose in this place, that it is an absurdity in nature, and wrought onelyonly by miracle that quantity occupieth a place alone without substaunce. Which absurdity followeth not of the true and right fayth, but onelyonly of your errour of transubstantiation. Now to the fift absurdity.
Fiftly, they are not ashamed to say, that substaunce is made of accidentes, when the bread mouleth or is turned into wormes, or when the wine sowreth.
Winchester.
True beleuing men are not ashamed to confes the trueth of theyr fayth, whatsoeuer arguments might be brought of experience in nature to the contrary. For Christes workes we know to be true by a most certayne fayth, what mouldeth in bread, or sowreth in wine, we be not so assured, or wheron worms ingēder, it is not so fully agréed on amōg men. The learned lawyer Vlpian writeth (as I hauehave before alleadged) that wine and vineger hauehave in manner one substaunce, so as when wine sowreth and is vineger, in manner the same substaunce remayneth, in whom it is thought no absurdity to say by that meanes that the accidents onelyonly sower. And if we agrée with the Phylosophers that there is Materia prima, which in all thinges is one and altereth not, but as a newe forme commeth, taketh a new name, fansying that as one waue in the water thrusteth away an other, so doth one forme an other. It should séeme by this conclusion all alteration to be in accidents, and the corruption of accidentes to be the generation of new accidentes, the same Materia prima, being as it were substantia, that altereth not. And this I write that may be sayd as it were to make a title to this authors certainety, which is not so sure as he maketh it. Amonges men hauehave bene maruailous fansies in consideration of naturall thinges, and it is to me a very great absurdity of that secret, and therfore to our certaine fayth. But to come nerer to the purpose, it is wrong borne in hand, that we affirme wormes to be engendred of accidentes, but when the wormes be ingendred, we graunt the wormes to be, and will rather say, whereof they be we cannot tell, then to say that substaunce is made of accidents, and that doctrine is not annexed to the faith of transubstantiation, and such as intreat those chaunces and accidentes doe not induce that conclusion, but do reasonably auoyd it. And yet by the way in moulding and sowring it should me séemeth be properly sayd that the accidentes mould, and the accidents sower, because we call mould bread, bread: sower wine, wine, and in wine as I sayd before, made vineger, the former substaunce hath bene in learning accounted in maner to remayne, so as this author ouershooteth himself, when he matcheth generatiō of worms with moulding and sowring, which differ so farre in the speculation. But euen as this authors wit is ouerturned in consideration of the true fayth, so doth it appeare peruerted, in consideration of naturall thinges.