Answer unto a Crafy and Sophistical Cavillation, Debate · Confutation of book 2 · Section 6
Winchester.
As in answering to the third chapiter, I hauehave shewed how reason receaued into faythes seruice, doth not striue with Transubstantiation, but agreeth well with it: so I trust to shew howe mannes sences whych this author calleth the fyue wyttes be no such direct aduersaries to Transubstantiation, as a matter wherof they can no skill.Contrarium habetur in libro vocato. The deuiles sophistry fol. 6.10.11. 12.15.21. And therfore to a question this Author asketh in the end of the second columne in the 22. leafe which is this. If we beleue our sences in the accidents, why may we not do the like of the substance? I answere thus, that the sences can no skill of substance as lerned men speake of substance, nor this author neither, if a man should iudge him by this question. For and a sensuall man one that followeth his rude senses would say, Come hither master schollar, I here much talking in this world of substance and accidence, and if he were of a mery nature, would say his litle boy had learned his accidence, but him selfe woreth not perfectly what substance meaneth, as clerkes terme it, and bringing forth a piece of bread, an other of chese, and a pot of ale, would desire the scoller to learne him the substance of them, and shew it with his finger, and shew him also what differēce betwene the substance of bread, chese, and the ale, I thincke the schollar with the aduice of all at cambridge and Oxford also, could not doe it, and the more the schollar should trauayle with such a rude man so sensuall in the matter, I thinke he should be the further of, oneles the sensuall man would set a part his rude wittes and learne of the schollar some reasonable vnderstanding, which is that the substance is the inward nature, wherin those that be accidents do naturally stay the quantity immediately, and the rest by meane of quantity, in which the rest may be sayd to stay, which wordes were new diuinity to this man, who touching the bread would aske the scholler roundly, Callest thou not this substance, this good thicke piece that I handle? The scholler would answere, Syr as I shall answere you. You will say I play the sophister, for I must speake lerning to you, that you can no skill of. And be not angry though I tell you so, for and ye were learned, ye would not aske me this question, for substance as it is properly vnderstanded to be of this or that thing, is properly neither sene by it selfe nor felt, and yet by reason comprehended truely to be in that we fele or see, neuertheles in cōmon speach and in the speach of such as for the purpose speake after the common capacitie, the word substance is vsed to signifie that is seene or felt, and so ye may say ye see the substance or fele the substance of bread, and yet ye do in dede see but the colour, and by it the largenes, and fele the heate or coldnes, moysture or drines, weight or lightnes, hardnes or softnes, thiknes, & thinnes. If ye wil learne what substāce is ye must leaue your outward sēces, & consider in your vnderstanding how in eueryevery thing that is, there is a stay, which we cal a substance, being the principall part of eueryevery thing, which fayling, we say that speciall thing not to be. As where the substance of bread is not, there ye special thing bread is not, bicause bread is as eueryevery other naturall visible thing is of two partes substance and accidentes: now if the one parte, that is to say substance be not there, which can be but by miracle, then is no bread properly there, bicause the one and chief part is not there, and yet I say not nothing is there, for the other part remayning hath a being as Gods visible creature, and may be called the visible part of bread: and therfore the outward kind and forme of bread and the apparāce of bread and a true sensible part of bread, and therfore be called also by the name of bread, not that it is so properly, but after the common speach and capacity of men, and may be called the nature of bread, signifying the property and the matter of bread signifiing the grossenes. The rude man I thinke would hereat say, Here is sophistry in dede, for here is substance, and no substance, matter of bread and no bread, apparance of bread and no bread, called bread and no bread, this is playne iugling where it hapneth. Wherin this rude man for want of true vnderstanding of the wordes and perfect consideration of the matter speaketh thus fondly, who if he should therupon require the scholler to shew him some difference of the very substance betwene bread, cheese, and ale, what could the lerned scholler answere here, but euen frankly declare his ignoraunce, and say I know none, which is as much to say, as I know there is a difference, but I wot not what it is. Wherunto I trow the rude man would say to the scholler. Then art thou with all thy lerning as very a foole as I, to speake of a difference and can not tell what it is. Now if the scholler should vtter euen the extremity of his learning in proper termes, and say, I know bread is no cheese, and chese is no ale, and of their accidentall partes I can indede shew differences, but of the very substance none. The rude man if his nature were not ouer dull, would laugh roundly to heare a scholler vtter for a poynt of learning that bread is no cheese, and cheese is no ale, which who so knoweth not, is a very foole, and merely to knit vp the matter would kepe the accidents of his bread chese and all for him selfe, and geue the substance to the scholler if he can deuide it, as a reward for his cunning to his better nurture. And this I write after this grosse sort, to shew that this matter of substance is not commonly vnderstanded as sences exercised in learning perceaue it, and how mans outward sences can not as this author would hauehave it, be iudges of the inward nature of substance, which reason perswadeth to be, vsing the seruice of the sences for induction of the knowledge, in which iudgement vponupon their report hapneth many tymes much deceite.Coena Calcidensi, hospitis. Liu…us in 5. de bello Macedonico. Titus Liuius speaketh of a greate number of diuers dishes of meate made in a solemne supper, wherat the gestes woundred to see such a variety at that tyme of the yeare, and when they demaunded of it, answere was made the substance was but one, all hogges flesh, so as the alteration in the accidentes deceaued their iudgements. That stone, which among many thought to hauehave some skill, hath been taken for a precious diamond, hath after by cunning lapidaries been iudged to be but a white saphire, and contrariwise: So easily may our iudgement vponupon the report of our sences fall in errour, not that the sences be properly deceaued, but rather the man that is grossely sensuall, and iudgeth fondly by them. For the very substance is not the proper obiect of any of the fiue wittes, but of their report considered in reason denied, and sometyme gessed at, wherof ensueth greate errour and (quid pro quo) among the poticaries and learned also in thinges strange, whereof they hauehave but accidentall markes. Wherefore vponupon consideration of the premises it may easily appeare how the question of this author, why the sences be not beleued in knowledge of substance, as in knowledge of accidents, may be resonably answered. And then if the iudgement of reason in the estimation of Gods naturall workes and denying this or that substance, when by accidents it should seeme otherwise, reason doth stay sensuallity, and when men of experience, knowledge, and credite, hauehave determined such a certayne stone to be a very true diamond, other ignorant will be ashamed to say the contrary. And if a man fearing himselfe deceaued to hauehave bought one kinde of drugges for an other, and yet mistrusting wisely his owne iudgement, hauing caused it to be vewed by men of knowledge, good fayth and honesty, if they affirme it to be the very thing, this man will then condemne his owne imagination, and vponupon credite call it so, and take it so to be: wherfore if in these thinges I say, reason doth in a man stay sensuality, and if knowledge with honesty ruleth the iudgement of rude vnderstanding, and finally, if credite among men be so much regarded, how much more conuenient is it, that fayth in Godds word (wherin can be no deceite as there is in men) should alter and change mans iudgement in reason, and bring it into the obedience of fayth. Of that is bread after the iudgement of our reason, after the report of our sences, Christ determineth vntounto vsus the substance of that to be his body, saying: This is my body, why shall not now a true christen man answere euer according to his fayth, to say and professe the same to be the substance of Christes body vponupon credite of Christes wordes, as well as the carnall man will vponupon report of his sences conclude in reason there to be the substance of bread? wherby is not taken away the credite of our sences as this author supposeth, which hauehave their obiects still true as they had before. For the collour, greatnes, sauour, and tast, all remayne truely with the experiences of them as before. Upon whose report reason neuertheles now reduced to the obsequie of fayth, forbeareth reuerently to conclude agaynst the truth of fayth, but according to fayth confesseth the substance to be the very substance of Christes body, and the accidents to remayne in their very true nature, bicause fayth teacheth not the contrary, and that it agreeth with the rule of fayth so to be, and therfore remayneth a very true greatnes, thicknes and wayght, which may be called in common speach, substance, signifying the outward nature. And in that sense Theodoret reasoning with an heretique semeth to call it, bicause hauing spoken of substance remayning, he declareth what he meaneth by it, adding it may be seene and felt as before, which is not the nature of substance properly, but by like common speach that remayneth may be called matter, as Origen called it, wherein also remayne the true sauour and tast with true propriety to corrupt, or putrifie, and also nourish, God so ordering the vse of the creature of bread and likewise wine in this mistery, as the inward nature of them which indeede is the substance, but onelyonly comprehended in reason and vnderstanding, is conuerted into the most precious substance of Christes body and bloud, which is indeede a substance there present, by gods omnipotency onelyonly to be comprehended by fayth, so farre as may be vnderstanded of mannes weakenes and imbecilitie. And where this author putteth a danger if sences be not trusted, there is a gappe open to the Ualentinians and Marcionistes, and therfore bringeth in the feeling of S. Thomas: hereunto I say that the truth of that feeling dependeth vponupon a true beliefe, according to the scriptures, that Christ was very man: for els the body glorified of Christ (as S. Gregory noteth) was not of the owne glorified nature,Homel. 26. then eyther visible or palpable: but therin Christ condescended to mannes infirmity, and as he was truth it selfe, left that a true testimony to such as humbly were disposed by grace to receaue it, not to conuince heretiques, who can deuise wayward answers to the externall actes of Christ, as now a dayes they delude the miraculous entring of Christ to his disciples, the dores being shutte. Our fayth of the true manbode in Christ is truely beleued, by true preaching thereof and by the scriptures, not by the outward sences of men which altogither we must confesse, could be no certayne ineuitable profe thereof. And therfore Christ appearing to his disciples going into …us opened the scriptures to them, for the profe of his death that he suffred as very man, and yet he vsed also in some part to preach to their sences, with sensible exhibition of him selfe vntounto them. And so all Christes doinges which were most true, doe beare testimony to the truth, but in their degree of testimony, and the feeling of S. Thomas, being (as S. Gregory sayth) miraculous, serueth for profe of an other thing, that gods worke in miracle, doth not empayre the truth of the thing wrought, and so S. Thomas touched then Christ, as truely by miracle, after his resurrection in his body glorified, as if he had touched his body before glorification. Finally, in Christes actes or his ordinances, be no illusions, all is truth and perfect truth, and our sences in the visible fourmes of bread and wine be not illuded, but hauehave their proper obiectes in those accidents and reason in carnall vnderstanding brought and subdued in obsequie to fayth, doth in the estimation of the host consecrate yelde to fayth, according wherunto we confesse truely the same to be the body of Christ.
Where this Author would all the Papistes to lay all their headers togither &c I know no such Papistes, but this I say without farther counsayle, which this author with all his counsayle shall not auoyde, we beleue most certaynly the resurrection of our flesh, and be perswaded by Catholique teaching, that the same flesh by participation of Christes godly flesh in the Sacrament, shalbe made incorruptible, and yet after the iudgemēt of our sences, and conclusions gathered of them, considering the manner of the continuall wasting of the sayd bodies appeare, the vtter consumption whereof some philosophers hauehave at length after their reason declared their mynde, whome Christen men contemne withall the experience of sences, which they alleadge being vehement in that matter, we reade in Scripture of the feeding of Angels, when Loth receaued them.