The Confutation of the 13 Articles, Article 2
Shaxton. ❧ The ſeconde Article.
THe ſayed bleſſed Sacramente, beynge once conſecrated, is & remayneth ſtyl, the very body and bloud of our ſauioure Chriſt, althoughe it be reſerued, & not preſētly diſtributed.
Crowley.
Thys Article is a braunche of the othe… and is not in credite wyth thē that hauehave the other in ſuſpition. Wherefore, haueynge ſufficientlye ſpoken of the other: it ſhall not nede me to tarye longe vponupon thys. Neuertheles, bicauſe I perceyue you go aboute to hange an other article vponupon thys: I ſhal (by the healpe of God) make hym ſo bare, that your other ſhal take no holde therat. Wher as you ſaye therfore, that thys Sacramente beynge once conſecrated, remayneth ſtyl the verye bodye and bloude of Chriſte: I muſte aſhe you this queſtian. Whether the bodye and bloude of oure ſauioure Chriſte, be corruptible, and maie putrifie or not? I am certayne of it, you wyll ſaye no. Well then muſte I aſke you an other queſtion.
If the Sacramente be longe kepte, paſte the tyme that breade and wyne wyll naturallye be ſwete: wyll it not be mouldy, r…tten, and ſower? I doubte not but you wyll ſaye yea. For your holy father made a lawe that you ſhoulde ſhyfte the pyxe euerye monethmonth puttyng into it newe conſecrated cakes and ſpende the olde, & the wine maye not be kept at al, but preſētly ſpent whē it is conſecrated, bycauſe it will ſone be ſower. Is not all thys true? I am ſure you can not deny it, Wel then wyl I cōclude wyth this queſtiō. If the ſubſtaunce of the ſacramēte (I meane the naturall ſubſtaunce) maye be muſty rotten and ſower, and the bodye and bloud of Chriſte (whyche you ſaye is the onelye ſubſtaunce of the Sacramente) can not by anye meanes putrifie: I praye you tell me howe the bodye and bloud remayneth in the Sacrament beynge reſerued, and what thynge it is, that doeth therin receyue putrifaction. Perchaunce you wyll anſwere me as youre ſcholmaiſters are wonte to anſwere, when men ſaye they fele, ſee, and taſte breade and wyne in the Sacrament. The qualities (ſay they) do remain, but the ſubſtaunce is chaū ged into the bodye and bloude.
But when the Sacramente ſhall be corrupted: I thynke your ſcholemaiſters & you wil ſaye, that the ſubſta…ce remaineth and the qualities be chaunged. That is to ſaye, the bodye and bloude of Chriſte (whych as you ſay is the onelye ſubſtaunce of the Sacramente) remayneth vncorrupted, but the qualities, that is to ſaye, ſwetenes clear…es, whytenes, & al other the qualities of breade and wyne, do corrupte. Would God youre greate maiſter Ariſtotle myghte heare you make thys anſwere. I doubte not he woulde beare no more wyth you then he dyd wyth hys maiſter Plato in the opiniō of the eternitie of the worlde. But you wyll ſaye perchaunce. What ſhoulde we do wyth Ariſtotle in theſe matters? Ariſtotle was a manne that builded altogyther vponupon reaſon, but in thys thynge we muſte ſtycke to fayeth and let reaſon paſſe. But wyth your patience, do not our maiſters of Oxford and Cambrige affirme that al ſtudents that entend to hauehave iudgement in ſcripture, muſt fyrſte read Ariſtotles worckes? HaueHave they not in theſe vniuerſities .vii. yeares at the leaſte, wherein theyr chiefe ſtudye muſte be in Ariſtotle, before they can be admitted to the moſt ſacre…e ſtudye of Gods holye worde? I praye you therfore, diſdayne not your olde maiſter Ariſtotle, but heare what he ſayeth of putrifaction. Putrifaction (ſayth he) is the corruption of the naturall heate in a moyſte bodye, whyche corruption chaungeth by an externe heate. If putrification therfore, be in a moiſt bodye: I praye you tell me what moiſte bodye it is in the ſacramente that receyueth the putrificatiō. As for the qualities whych you ſaye do corrupt, are no bodyes, neither hauehave they anye ſubſtaunce, but are mere accidentes, thynges that do chaunce to be in bodies that they maye be both ſenſible. For neyther the bodyes wythout thē, nor they wythoute the bodyes can be ſenſible.
Seynge therefore, that the putrification muſte nedes be in a bodye, and that the qualities be no bodyes: I pray you let vsus know what bodye receyueth thys putrification in the Sacrament? I am ſure you wyl not ſay, that the bodye and bloude of Chriſte doeth putrifie: then muſte you nedes graunte, that eyther there remayneth the ſubſtaunce of breade and wine in the ſacrament whych receyueth thys putrification, or that the Sacramente beynge ſo reſerued, returneth to the nature of breade and wyne agayne, and ſo receiueth putrifaction, as bread and wine. Whyche thinge graunted, one of your two Articles muſt nedes be hereticall, chuſe you whether. Yet do I coniect an other of your anſweres. You wyl ſay, perchaunce, ſo long as the ſacramente is ſwete and tollerable to be receyued into the ſtomake, it is & remayneth ſtyll the bodye and bloude of Chriſte: but as ſone as it beginneth to putrifie, it ceaſeth to be anye longer Chriſtes bodye and bloude, to the greate peryll of them that ſo kepe it. If you ſay that I do but dreame this anſwere of myne owne heade: I wyll aſke you, who made you ſo bold to burne it whê it doeth ſtynke, if it do not then ceaſe to be the bodye of Chriſt. Wyl you burne Chriſt as an herityke, wyll you be more cruell to hym, then you were to pore Tracie (whoſe bodye you burned after hys death onelye) burn p…ge hys bodye after hys reſurrectiō? Yea, if your Articles be true: you burne hys Godhed alſo. I thynke therfore, you coulde not ſhape a better anſwere for youre ſelfe, then to ſay, that Chriſte boeth God and mā hath made hym ſelfe bread and wine again, bicauſe he coulde not otherwyſe eſcape burnynge. For your holie father hath alreadye geuê the ſentence in hys holye bible of Decrees, that if it fortune this ſubſtan̄ce (which you cal god & mā) to ſtinke: that thē it muſte be burned without merci. Wherefore if you graūt that it remaineth ſtil the body & bloud of Chriſte, notwithſtādinge the putrifactiō: you muſt nedes graūte alſo, that you burne the bodie & bloud Chriſt. But if you ſay it ceaſeth to be the body & blud of Chriſt, whē it beginneth to putrifie: then doeth it not remaine the body of Chriſt whē it is reſerued.
For if it remayne the bodye and bloud of Chriſt whyle it is ſwet: then doth it remaine in the ſame eſtate for euer. Yea, if it be once chaunged from the nature of breade & wine and become the incorruptible bodie & bloud of Chriſt: it can neuer be corruptible agayne but ſhall ſtyll remayne incorruptible.
But experience teacheth vsus, that it remayneth not ſtyll incorruptible. Ergo the ſubſtaunce is not alltered at all. And herupon I conclude, that it can not remaine the naturall bodye and bloude of Chriſte, bycauſe it neuer was the ſame.