Answer unto a Crafy and Sophistical Cavillation, Debate · Confutation of book 2 · Section 7 – Section 8
Caunterbury.
AS in your answere to the iii. chapiter of my booke you hauehave doone nothing but dalied and trifled, euen so do you likewise in the iiii. Chapiter, and yet farre more vnsemely then in the third. For doth it become a christen Bishop, of a matter of religion and a principal article of our fayth to make a matter of bread and chese? And of the holy supper of the Lord to make a resemblance of a dinner of hogges flesh? And yet for perswatiō of your purpose, you make (as it were) a play in a dialogue, betwene a rude man and a learned scholler,The rude man & learned scholler. wherin the matter is so learnedly handeled that the simple rude man sheweth himselfe to hauehave more knowledge, then both you and your learned scholler. And why you should bring in this matter I know not, except it be to shew your ignoraunce, to be as great in logike and philosophy,Absurdityes. as it is in diuinity. For what an ignorance is this, to say that a man can know no difference betwene one substance and an other, and that substances be not iudged by any sences? And that all naturall thinges be of these .ii. partes, of substances and accidents: and that their accidents be part of their substances, and be called their substances, their natures, and matters? Was there euer any such learning vttered before this tyme? May not all men now euidently perceaue, unto what a straight your errour hath driuen you, that you hauehave none other defence, but to flie to such absurdities, as be agaynst the iudgement of the whole world? Would you make men beleue, that they know not the substance of the bread from drincke, nor of chalke from chese? Would you leade the world into this errour, that Christ was neuer indede sene, heard nor felt, when he walked here with his apostles? Did he not proue the truth of his very flesh and bones by sight? saying, A spirite hath not flesh and bones as you see me hauehave?Luc. vit. And although substances be not seene and knowne to our sences, but by their accidents, yet be they indede knowne, and properly knowne, and truely knowne by their accidentes, and more properly seene then their accidents bee. For the accidents be rather the meanes to know the substaunce by, then the thinges that be knowne. Is not wine knowne from beare by the taste, and mustard from suger? Is not one man knowen by his voyce from another? And a shalme from a drumme? And is not a man discerned from a beast, and one from an other by sight? But when you tourne vp all speaches, all reason, and all manner of knowledge, it is lesse to be meruayled that you tourne vp diuinity also, wherin you can lesse skill then in the rest.
And where you say, that the sences can no skill of substances, bicause they m…be deceaued therin, so may they also be in the accidents. For doe not the sunne and moone sometyme looke redde by meanes of the vapors betwene vsus and them? And doth not spectacles make althinges looke of the same colour that they be of? And if you hold vp your finger directly betwene your eyes and a candell, looking full at the candell, your finger shall seeme two, and if you looke full at your finger, the candell shal seeme two. And an age we maketh swete thinges seeme bitter, and yt is swete to one, is bitter to an other. And if a man hauing very hote handes, and an other very colde, if they handle both one thing, the one shall thinke it hote, and the other colde. So that the sences may erre aswell in the accidents as in the substances, and can not erre in the substances, except they erre also in the accidents.
But in speaking of substance, you declare such a substance,Substance. as neuer was, nor neuer shalbe, phantasiyng substance by your imagination, to be a thing in it selfe, separated from all accidents, and so confounding the substances of all thinges, and mixting heauen and earth togither, you make all substances but one substance without any differēce. And where almighty God hath taught by his word,1. Cor. 15. that there be heauenly bodyes, and earthly bodyes, and that eueryevery seede hath his owne proper body, and that all flesh is not one flesh, but the flesh of men, of beastes, of fish, and of foule be diuers, you teach by your wordes, that all flesh is one flesh, and all substances one substance, and so confound you all flesh, with hogges flesh, making an hotche potche, like vntounto him that made a greate variety of dishes all of hogges flesh. For take away the accidentes, and I pray you what difference is betwene the bodely substance of the sunne and the moone, of a man and a beast, of fish and flesh, betwene the body of one beast and an other, one herbe and an other, one tree & an other, betwene a man and a woman? Yea betwene our body and Christes? and generally betwene any one corporall thing and an other? For is not the distinction of all bodely substances knowen by their accidents: without the which a mans body can not be knowen to be a mans body? And as substances can not be substances without accidents, so the nature of accidentes can not be without substāces, whose being & deffinitiō is to be in substāces.
But as you speake of substances and accidentes agaynst scripture, sense, reason, experience and all learning, so doe you also speake manifestly agaynst your selfe. For you say that eueryevery thing that is, must hauehave a substance wherein it is stayde, and that eueryevery naturall visible thing is of two partes, of substance and accidentes, and yet by your Transubstantiation, you leaue no substance at all, to stay the accidentes of the bread and wine.
And moreouer this is a meruaylous teaching of you, to say that the accidents of bread be one parte of breade, and be called the outward kinde of bread,Accidents. the sensible parte of bread, the nature and matter of bread, and very bread. Was there euer any such learning taught before this day, that accidentes should be called partes of substances, the nature of substances; and the matter of substances, and the very substāces themselues? If euer any man so wrotte, tell who it is, or els knowledge the truth, that all these matters be inuented by your owne imagination wherof the rude man may right well say: Here is sophistry in deede and playne iuggling. But you conuey not your iuggling so craftely, but that you be taken, (as the Grekes terme it) foreign, euen with ye māner.
A Lapidarie.Now as concerning your expert lapidarie, if his sences be deceaued, how shall he iudge a true stone from a counterfaite? Doth he not diligently looke vponupon it with his sight, to discerne truely of it? For tell me I pray you, how a man without sences shall iudge a true diamond?
Put out his eyes, and is not a white saphire, a diamond, and a glas all one in his iudgemēt? Mary if he be a man of cleare sight, of true knowledge and experience in the iudgement of stones, and be therewithall a man of good fayth and honesty (as you tell the tale) they that be ignorant will be ashamed to controll his iudgement. But if he be blinde, or be a man neither of fayth nor honesty, but his experience hath ben euer exercised to deceaue all that trust him, and to sell them white saphirs for diamondes, then no man that wise is, will take a glas or saphire at his handes of trust, although he say it be a true diamond. Euen so likewise the Papistes (being so accustomed with these marchandises of glistering glasses and counterfayte drugges, to deceaue the world) what wise men will trust them with their fayned Transubstantiation, being so manifestly agaynst the playne wordes of scripture, agaynst all reason, sence, and auncient writers? And although you hauehave taken neuer so great labor and paynes in this place to answere myne argumentes (wherin you do nothing els but shew your ignorance in philosophy and logike) yet all is in vayne, except you could proue Transubstantiation to be a matter of our fayth, which being not proued, all that you hauehave spoken here, serueth to no purpose, nor concludeth nothing. For you are not so ignorant in sophistry, but you know well though, that of a false Antecedent, can no Consequent directly follow.
And as concerning these wordes of Christ (This is my body) by your owne teaching in these wordes, he called bread his body, which can be no formall and proper speach, but spoken by a figure, as the order of the text playnly declareth, and all the old authors do testify.
And where you say, that although the substance of bread and wine be gone, yet the sences hauehave their proper obiect still remayning (as they had before) that is to say, the colours, greatnes, thicknes, weight, sauour, and tast, expresse thē I pray you playnly what thing it is that is coloured, great, thinne or thicke, heauy or light, sauoury or tasted? For seing you confesse that these do remayn, you must confesse also, yt there remayneth bread. For that greatnes, thicknes, thinnes, colours, and weight be not in ye body of Christ, nor in the ayre (which can not be wayed) and in some thing they must nedes be (for by your owne saying, eueryevery thing hath a substance to stay it) therfore they must nedes be in the substance of bread and wine. And to say that the accidents of bread, be the natures, matters, and substances therof, is nothing els, but to declare to the world, that you make wordes to signify at your pleasure.
But other shift hauehave you none to defend your Transubstantiation, but to deuise such monstrous kindes of speaches, as neuer was heard of before. For you say, that the nature, matter and substance of bread and wine remayne not, but be changed into the body and bloud of Christ: the olde writers say directly contrary, that the nature, matter and substance remayne. Christ (sayth Theodoret) called bread and wine his body and bloud,Theodoretus. and yet changed not their natures. And agayne he sayth, The bread and wine after the consecration lose not their proper nature, but keepe their former substance, forme and figure which they had before. And Origene sayth that the matter of bread auayleth nothing,Origene. but as concerning the materiall part therof, it goeth downe into the bealy, and is auoyded downward. And Gelasius sayth,Gelasius. that the nature and substance of bread and wine cease not to be. Now seeing that your doctrine (who teach that ye nature matter and substance of bread and wine be changed and remayne not) is as cleane contrary to these olde writers, with many other, as black is contrary to white, and light to darknes, You hauehave no remedy to defend your errour and wilfull opinion, but to imagine such portentuous and wonderfull kindes of speaches to be spoken by these authors, as neuer were vttered before by no man, that is to say, that the outward aparance and accidences of any thing, should be called the nature, matter and substance therof. But such monsters had you rather bring forth, then you would in one iote relent in your errour once by you vttered, and vndertaken by you defended. And yet bring you nothing for the profe of your saying, but that if the authors wordes should be vnderstand as they be spoken, this should follow thereof, that bread and wine should be seene and felt, which as no man doubteth of, but all men take it for a most certayne truth, so you take it for a greate inconuenience and absurdity. So farre be you forced in this matter to vary in speach and iudgement from the sentence and opinion of all men.
And as touching the belefe of S. Thomas,Thomas. although he beleued certaynly that Christ was a man, yet he beleued not that Christ was risen, and appeared to the Apostles, but thought rather that the Apostles were deceaued by some vision or spirit, which appeared to them in likenes of Christ, which he thought was not he indede. And so thought the Apostles themselues vntill Christ sayd: Videte manus meas & pedes, quia ego ipse sum: Palpate & videte, quia spiritus carnem & ossa non habent, sicut me videtis habere.Luc. vit. See my handes and my feete, for I am euen he: Grope and see, for a spirite hath no flesh and bones, as you see that I hauehave. And so thought also S. Thomas,Ioh. 20. vntill such tyme as he put his handes into Christes side and felt his woundes, and by his sense of feeling perceaued that it was Christes very body, and no spirite nor phantasy, as before he beleued. And so in S. Thomas the truth of feeling depended not vponupon the true belefe of Christes resurrection, but the feeling of his senses brought him from misbelefe, vntounto the right and true fayth of that matter. And as for S. Gregory,Gregorius homel. 16. he speaketh no such thinges as you report, that the glorified body of Christ was of the owne nature neither visible nor palpable, but he sayth cleane contrary, that Christ shewed his glorified body to S. Thomas palpable, to declare that it was of the same nature, that it was of before his resurrection, whereby it is playne after S. Gregories minde, that if it were not palpable, it were not of the same nature. And S. Gregory sayth further in the same homely. Egit miro modo superna clementia, vt discipulus ille dubitans, dum in magistro suo vulnera palparet carnis, in nobis vulnera sanaret infidelitatis. Plus enim nobis Thomae infidelitas ad fidem, quam fides credentium discipulcrum profuit: quia dum ille ad fidem palpando reducitur, nostra mens omni dubitatione postposita in fide solidatur. The supernall clemency wrought meruaylously, that the disciple which doubted by groping the woundes of flesh in his master, should heale in vsus the woundes of infidelity. For the lacke of fayth in Thomas profited more to our fayth then did the fayth of the disciples that beleued. For when he is brought to fayth by groping, our minde is stablished in fayth without all doubting. And why should S. Gregory write thus, if our sences auayled nothing vntounto our fayth, nor could nothing iudge of substances? And do not all the olde catholike authors proue the true humanity of Christ, by his visible conuersation with vsus here in earth: that he was heard preach, seene eating, and drincking, labouring and sweatting? Do they not also proue his resurrection by seing, hearing and groping of him? which if it were no proofe, those arguments were made in vayne agaynst such Heretikes that denied his true incarnation. And shall you now take away the strength of their arguments to the maintenance of those olde condemned heresies, by your subtill sophistications? The touching and feeling of Christes handes, feete and wounds was a proofe of his resurrection, not as you say, to them that beleued, but as S Gregory sayth, to them that doubted.
And if all thinges that Christ did and spake to our outward senses, proue not that he was a naturall man (as you say with Martion, Menander, Ualentinus, Apolinaris, withother like sort) thē I would know how you should confute the sayd heresies? Marty will you say peraduenture, by the scripture which sayth playnly, Verbum caro factumest. But if they would say agayne, that he was called a man and flesh, bicause he tooke vponupon him the forme of a man and flesh, and would say that S. Paule so declareth it,Phil. 2. saying: Forinam serui accipiens, and would then say further, that forme is the accidence of a thing, and yet hath the name of substance, but is not the substance indeede, what would you then say vntounto them? if you deny that the formes and accidences be called substances, then go you from your owne saying. And if you graunt it, then will they auoyde all the scriptures that you can bring to proue Christ a man, by this cauilation, that the apparances, formes and accidences of a man, may be called a man, aswell as you say that the formes and accidences of bread, be called bread. And so prepare you certayne propositions and groundes for heretikes to build their errours vponupon, which after when you would; you shall neuer be able to ouerthrowe.
And where you say, yt Thomas touched truely Christes body glorified, how could yt be, whē touching (as you say) is not of y• substance but of the accidents only? and also Christes body glorified (as you say) is neyther visible nor palpable? And where as indeede you make Christs actes illusiōs, and yet in wordes you pretend the contrary, call you not this illusiō of our sēses,Plautus in Amphitrione. whē a thing apeareth to our sēces, which is not ye same thing indeede? When Iupiter & Mercury (as the comedy telleth) apeared to Alcumena in ye similitude of Amphitrio & Sosia, was not Alcumena deceaued therby? And Poticaries yt sell Ieniper buries for pepper, being no pepper indeede, deceaue they not the biers by illusion of their sences? Why then is not in the ministration of the holy communion an illusion of our senses, if our senses take for bread and wine that which is not so indeede.
Finally where as I required earnestly, all the Papistes to lay their heades togither, and to shew one article of our fayth so directly contrary to our senses, that all our senses by dayly experience, shall affirme a thing to be, and yet our fayth shall teach vsus the contrary therunto, where I say I required this so earnestly of you, and with such circumstances, and you hauehave yet shewed none, I may boldly conclude, that you can shew none. For sure I am, if you could (being so earnestly prouoked therunto) you would not hauehave fayled to shew it in this place. As for the article of our resurrection, and of the feeding of angels serue nothing for this purpose. For my saying is of the dayly experience of our senses, and when they affirme a thing to be, but the resurrection of our flesh, and the feeding of angels, be neither in dayly experience of our senses, nor our senses affirme them not so to be. Now after the matter of our senses followeth in my booke the authorities of ancient writers in this wise.
Now for as much as it is declared, how this Papisticall opinion of Transubstantiation is agaynst the word of God,Chap. 5. The Papisticall doctrine is contrary to the fayth of the olde authors of christes church. agaynst nature, agaynst reason, and agaynst all our senses, we shall shew furthermore, that it is agaynst the fayth and doctrine of the olde authors of Christes church, beginning at those authors, which were nearest vntounto Christes time, and therfore might best know the truth herein.
First Iustinus, a great learned man,Iustinus martyr, and an holy martyr, the oldest author that this day is knowne to write any treaty vponupon the sacraments, and wrote not much after one hundred yeares after Christes Ascention.
He writeth in his second Apology, that the bread, water, and wine, in this Sacrament, are not to be taken as other common meates and drinckes be, but they be meates ordeined purposely to geue thankes to God and therfore be called Eucharistia, and be called also the body and bloud of Christ. And that it is lawfull for none to eate or drincke of them, but that professe Christ, and liue according to the same. And yet the same meate and drincke (sayth he) is changed into our flesh and bloud and nourisheth our bodies.
By which saying it is euident, that Iustinus thought, that the bread and wine remayned still, for els it could not hauehave bene turned into our flesh and bloud to nourish our bodies.
Winchester.
I will spend no mo wordes herein,Iustinus. but hauing auoyded this authors reasoning against Transubstantiation. Now let vsus examine his authorities. First he beginneth with Iustine the Martyr, Whose wordes be not truly by this author here reported, which be these truely translate out of ye Greke. When the priest hath ended his thankes geuing and prayers, and all the people hath sayd Amen, they whom we call Deacons, geue to eueryevery one then present, a parte of the bread and of the wine and water consecrated, and cary part to those that be absent: and this is that foode, which is among vsus called (Eucharistia) wherof it is lawfull for no man to be partaker, except he be perswaded those thinges to be true that be taught vsus, and be baptized in the water of regeneration in remission of sinnes, and ordreth his life after the manner which Christ hath taught. For we do not take these for common bread or drincke, but like as Iesus Christ our sauiour incarnate by the word of God, had flesh and bloud for our saluation, euen so we be taught the foode, (wherwith our flesh and bloud be nourished by alteration) when it is consecrate by the prayer of his word, to be the flesh and bloud of the same Iesus incarnate. For the Apostles in those their workes, which be called gospels, teach that Iesus did so commaund them, and after he had taken the bread, and ended his thankes geuing, sayd: Do this in my remembrance, This is my body. And likewise taking the cup after he had geuen thankes, sayd: This is my bloud, and did giuegive them to his Apostles onelyonly.An issue. And here I make an issue with this author, that he wittingly corrupteth Iustine in the allegation of him, who writeth not in such forme of wordes as this author alleageth out of his second Apology, nor hath any such speach. The bread, water, and wine in this sacrament, are meates ordeined purposely to giuegive thankes to God, and therfore be called Eucharistia, nor hath not these wordes, They be called the body and bloud of Christ: but hath in playne wordes, that we be taught, this foode consecrate by gods word, to be the flesh and bloud of Christ, as Christ in his incarnation tooke flesh and bloud: nor hath not this forme of wordes placed to hauehave that vnderstanding, how the same meate and drincke is changed into our flesh and bloud. For the wordes in Iustine speaking of alteration of the foode, hauehave an vnderstanding of the foode, as it is before the consecration, shewing how Christ vsed those creatures in this mistery, which by alteration nourish our flesh and bloud.
For the body of Christ, which is the very celestiall substance of the host consecrate, is not changed, but without all alteration spiritually nourisheth the bodies and soules of them that worthely receaue the same to immortality, wherby appeareth this authors conclusion, (that bread and wine remayne still, which is tourned into our flesh and bloud) is not deduced vponupon Iustines wordes truely vnderstanded, but is a glose inuented by this author and a peruerting of Iustines wordes, and their true meaning. Wherupon I may say, and conclude euen as this author erreth in his reasoning of mother wit agaynst Transubstantiation, euen so erreth he in the first allegation of his authorities by playne misreporting: let it be further named or thought one as the thing deserueth.