Thus endeth the Fourth Book.
[[ Statuimus ut in cunctis ecclesiis chrisma et [? Sacerdos vero frequenter doceat plebem suam,]
[eucharistia sub fideli custodia clavibus adhibitis ut cum in celebratione missarum elevatur hostia]
[conserventur. Decret. Concil. Lateran. 1v. cap. xx. salutaris, se reverenter inclinet, idem faciens cum]
[anno 1215. Labbei Conc. Tom. XXII. p. 1007.] eam defert presbyter ad infirmum. Decretal. Lib.]
[i? Should, 1551, and Orig. ed.] { nr. Tit. xli.] [^ Worshipping, edit. 1580.] —]
Confutation of the Second Book
j pan ΤᾺ [WiNCHESTER. ]
HAVING declared how much against all truth this author would bear in hand, that the real presence, the corporal presence, and substantial presence of Christ’s most precious body and blood in the sacrament is mot the true catholic doctrine, but a device of the papists, which is a term wherewith this author doth wncharitably charge the king’s true subjects, among whom he knoweth a great many to be of that faith he calleth now papish: but setting words apart and to come to the matter, as I have shewed this author to err partly by wilfulness, partly by ignorance in the understanding of the old authors concerning the true real presence of Christ’s body and blood in the sacrament; so I trust to shew this author overseen in the article of transubstantiation. For entry whereunto, first I say this, that albeit the word transubstantiation was first spoken of by public authority in that assembly of learned men of Christendom in a general council, where the bishop of Rome was present, yet the true matter signified by that word was older amd believed before upon the true understanding of Christ’s words, and was in that council confessed, not for the authority of the bishop of Rome, but for the authority of truth, being the article such as toucheth not the authority of the bishop of Rome, but the true doctrine of Christ’s mystery, and therefore in this realm, the authority of Rome ceasing, was also confessed for a truth by all the clergy of this realm in an open council”, specially discussed; and though the hardness of the law that by parliament was established of that and other articles hath been repelled, yet that doctrine was never hitherto by any public council, or any thing set forth by authority, impaired, that I have heard: wherefore methinketh this author should mot improve it by the name of the bishop of Rome, seeing we read how truth was uttered by Balaam and Caiaphas also: and St Paul teacheth the Philippians, that whether it be by contention or envy, so Christ be preached, the person should not impair the opening of truth, if it be truth, which Luther indeed would not allow for truth, impugning the article of transubstantiation, not meaning thereby, as this author doth, to impair the truth of the very presence of Christ’s most precious body in the sacrament of the altar, as is aforesaid, im the discussion of which truth of tramsubstamtiation I for my part should be special defended by two means, wherewith to avoid the envious name of papist. One is, that Zwinglius himself, who was no papist, as is well known, nor good christian man, as some said, neither, saith plainly, writing to Luther in the matter of the sacrament: It must needs be true, that if the body of Christ be really in the sacrament, there is of necessity transubstantiation also.” Wherefore seeing by Luther’s travail, who favoured not the bishop of Rome neither, and also by evidence of the truth, most certain and manifest, it appeareth that according to the true catholic faith Christ is really present in thé sacrament, it is now by Zuinglius judgment a necessary consequence of that truth to say there is transubstantiation also; which shall be one mean of purgation, that I defend not transubstantiation as depending of the bishop of Rome’s determination, which was mot his absolutely, but of a mecessity of the truth, howsoever it liketh Duns or Gabriel8 to write in it, whose sayings this author wseth for his pleasure. Another defence is, that this author himself saith “that it is over great an absurdity to say, that bread insensible,” with many other terms that he addeth, “should be the body of Christ;’ and therefore I think, that the “is,” that is to say, the inward nature and essence of that Christ delivered in his supper to be eaten and drunken, was of his body and blood, and not of the bread and wine, and therefore can well agree with this author, that the bread of wheat is not the body of Christ, nor the body of Christ made ᾿ς Qf it as of a matter; which considerations will enforce him that believeth the truth of the presence of the substance of Christ’s body, as the true catholic faith teacheth, to assent to transubStamtiation, not as determined by the church of Rome, but as a consequent of truth believed in the mystery of the sacrament: which transubstantiation how this author would impugn, I will without quarrel of envious words consider, and, with true opening of his handling the matter, doubt not to make the reader to see that he fighteth against the truth. TI will pass over the unreverent handling of Christ’s words, This is my body,” which words
[s [ The fourth General Council of Lateran, A.D. [7 This was held in 1539, at which Cranmer vehe-]
[1215] ARM ” TUR: mently opposed the passing of the Six Articles. ]]
[00 [Σ Innocentius 1E] [ Duns Scotus or Gabriel Biel.]
I heard this author (if he be the same that is named) once rehearse more seriously in a solemn and open audience, to the conviction and condemnation, as followed, of one that erroneously maintained against the sacrament the same that this author calleth now the catholic faith.
Canterbury
In this book, which answereth to my second book rather with taunting words than with matter, I will answer the chief points of your intent, and not contend with you in scolding, but will give you place therein. were First, I charge none with the name of papists, but that be well worthy thereof. For
I charge not the hearers, but the teachers, not the learners, but the inventors of the untrue doctrine of transubstantiation; not the king’s faithful subjects, but the pope’s darlings, whose faith and belief hangeth of his only mouth. And I call it their doctrine, not only because they teach it, but because they made it, and were the first finders of it.
And as in the third book, concerning the real presence of Christ’s body and blood in the sacrament, you have not shewed my ignorance or wilfulness, but your own; so do you now much more in the matter of transubstantiation: “which word,” say you, albeit the same was first spoken of in the general council, where the bishop of Rome was present, yet the true matter signified by that word was older. Here at the first brunt you confess, that the name of transubstantiation” was given at the council: so that either the matter was not before, (as it was not in deed,) or at the least it was before a nameless child, as you do grant, until the holy father Innocent the third, which begat it, assembled a company of his friends as godfathers to name the child. And by what authority the council defined the matter of transubstantiation,” it may easily appear. For authority of scripture have they none, nor none they do allege. And what the authority of the pope was there, all men may see, being present in the same no less than eight hundred abbots and priors, who were all the pope’s own children, of him created and begotten.
And as for the confession of all the clergy of this realm in an open council, the authority of Rome ceasing,” you speak here a manifest untruth wittingly against your conscience. For you know very well, (and if you will deny it, there be enough yet alive can testify,) that divers of the clergy, being of most godly living, learning, and judgment, never consented to the articles which you speak of. And what marvel was it, that those articles (notwithstanding divers learned men repugning,) passed by the most voices of the parliament? seeing that although the authority of Rome was then newly ceased, yet the darkness and blindness of errors and ignorance that came from Rome still remained, and overshadowed so this realm, that a great number of the parliament had not yet their eyes opened to see the truth. And yet how that matter was enforced by some persons, they know right well that were then present. But after, when it pleased almighty God more clearly to shine unto us by the light of his word, our eyes by his goodness were opened, darkness discussed, and that which was done in ignorance and darkness, was by knowledge and light in publie council reversed and taken away, as well concerning the doctrine as the hardness of the law. For if the doctrine had been true and godly, there is no christian-hearted man, but he would have desired the establishment and continuance thereof. But the doctrine being false, and such as came only from Rome, they be not worthy to be likened to those truths which came from God, and were uttered by Balaam and Caiaphas, but to be numbered among those lies which came from his vicar, who, ^ when he speaketh lies, ex propriis loquitur, “he speaketh properly of himself.”
And the bishop of Rome was not clean gone out of England, as soon as the laws were made against his authority, but remained still by his corrupt doctrine, as I fear me he doth yet in some men’s hearts, who were the chief procurers and setters forthward of the foresaid law. But yet is all together to be imputed to the bishop of Rome, forasmuch as from thence came all the foresaid errors, ignorance, and corruption, into these parties.
Now where you take upon you here to purge yourself of papistry by me and [! The allusion of Winchester is here made to Vide Foxe’s Acts and Monuments, Vol. II. p. the disputation before Henry VIII. A. n. 1538, 425. Ed. Lond. 1631, and Examination before
[held by Lambert, in which Cranmer took a part.— Brookes.]]
m Zuinglius, if you have no better compurgators than us two, you be like to fail in your purgation. For neither of us, I dare say, durst swear for you in this matter, though Zuinglius were alive. Or if your purgation stand to this point, that Christ called not bread made of wheat his body, (although in a formal and proper speech bread. is not in deed his body,) you may be as rank a papist as ever was, for any purgation i you can make by this way. For Christ called bread made of wheat his body, as the 1 words of the evangelists plainly declare, and all old writers teach; and in your book ofthe Devil’s Sophistry,” you have confessed, saying, that Christ made demonstration of bread, when he said, This is my body.” And therefore bring some better purgation than this; or else had you been better not to have offered any purgation in a matter that no man charged you withal, than by offering a purgation, and failing therein, to bring yourself into more suspicion.
And whereas in fortification of your matter of transubstantiation, you make your. argument thus, that forasmuch as the body of Christ is really in the sacrament, - there is of necessity transubstantiation also;” this your argument hath two great faults in it. The first is, that your antecedent is false, and then you cannot conclude thereof a true consequent. The second fault is, that although the antecedent were granted unto you, that the body of Christ is really in the sacrament,” yet the con- - sequent cannot be inferred thereof, “that there is of necessity transubstantiation.” For - Christ can make his body to be present in the sacrament, as well with the substance of the bread as without it, and rather with the substance of bread than with the accidents; forasmuch as neither Christ’s body there occupieth any place, as you say yourself, nor no more doth the substance of bread by itself, but by means of the accidents, as you say also.
Now forasmuch as you say, that “you will pass over the unreverent handling of - Christ’s words, which you heard me once more seriously rehearse in solemn open. audience;” I acknowledge that not many years passed I was yet in darkness concerning - this matter, being brought up in scholastical and Romish doctrine, whereunto I gave - too much credit. And therefore I grant, that you have heard me stand and defend - the untruth, which I then took for the truth; and so did I hear you at the same time. — But praise be to the everliving God, who hath wiped away those Saulish scales from mine eyes! and I pray unto his divine Majesty with all my heart, that he will likewise -do once the same to you. Thy will be fulfilled, O Lord!
But forasmuch as you “pass over my handling of Christ’s words,” (as you use commonly to pass in post when you have no direct answer to make,) I shall here repeat my words - again; to the intent that the indifferent reader may presently see how I have handled - them, and then judge whether you ought so slenderly to pass them over as you do. 4 My words be these: i The second book?.
Thus have you heard declared four things, wherein chiefly the papistical doc- “trine varieth from the true word of God, and from the old catholic christian faith in this matter of the Lord’s supper. error y: Now, (lest any man should think that I feign any thing of mine own head tiation. without any other ground or authority) you shall hear by God’s grace as well the errors of the papists confuted, as the catholic truth defended, both by God’s most certain word, and also by the most old approved authors and martyrs of Christ’s church.
And first, that bread and wine remain after the words of consecration, and chap. be eaten and drunken in the Lord’s supper, is most manifest by the plain words cal of Christ himself, when he ministered the same supper unto his disciples. For, to as the evangelists write, Christ took bread, and brake it, and gave it to his dis- Matt. ciples, and said: Take, eat, this is my body.” Luke
[[ The title of this book runs thus in the Orig. ed. The second Book is against the error of]
[Transubstantiation.”]]
Here the papists triumph of these words, when Christ said: This is my body:” which they call the words of consecration. For, say they, as soon as these words be fully ended, there is no bread left, nor none other substance, but “only Christ’s body. When Christ said “this,” the bread, say they, remained. And when he said “is,” yet the bread remained. Also, when he added “my,” the bread remained still. And when he said “bo,” yet the bread was there still. But when he had finished the whole sentence, “This is my body,” then, say they, the bread was gone, and there remained no substance but Christ’s body; as though the bread could not remain when it is made a sacrament. But this “negative, that there is no bread, they make of their own brains, by their unwritten verities, which they most highly esteem’.
Oh, good Lord! how would they have bragged, if Christ had said, This is no bread!” But Christ spake not that negative, “This is no bread;” but said affirmingly, “This is my body;” not denying the bread, but affirming that his body was eaten, meaning spiritually, as the bread was eaten corporally.
And that this was the meaning of Christ, appeareth plainly by St Paul, in the tenth chapter to the Corinthians, the first epistle, where he, speaking of the — same matter, saith: “Is not the bread which we break the communion of the body of Christ?” Who understood the mind of Christ better than St Paul, to whom Christ shewed his most secret counsels? And St Paul is not afraid, for our better understanding of Christ’s words, somewhat to alter the same, lest we might stand stiffly in the letters and syllables, and err in mistaking the sense and meaning? For whereas our Saviour Christ brake the bread, and said, “This is my body;” St Paul saith, “that the bread which we break is the communion of Christ’s body.” Christ said, “his body;” and St Paul said, “the communion of his body:” meaning, nevertheless, both one thing, “that they which eat the bread worthily, do eat spiritually Christ’s very body.” And so Christ calleth the bread his body, as the old authors report, because it representeth his body, and signifieth unto them which eat that bread according to Christ’s ordinance, that they do spiritually eat his body, and be spiritually fed and nourished by him, and yet the bread remaineth still there as a sacrament to signify the same. But of these words of consecration shall be spoken hereafter more at large.
Therefore, to return to the purpose: that the bread remaineth, and is eaten in this sacrament, appeareth by the words of Christ, which he spake before the Consecration?, For that Christ “took bread, and brake it, and gave it to his disciples, and said, Take, eat;” all this was done and spoken before the words of consecration. Wherefore they must needs be understood of the very bread, that Christ took bread, brake bread, gave bread to his disciples, commanding them to take bread and eat bread. But the same is more plain and evident of the wine, that it remaineth, and is drunken at the Lord’s supper, as well by the words that go before, as by the words that follow after the consecration. For, before the words of consecration, Christ took the cup of wine, and gave it unto his disciples, and said, “Drink ye all of this” and after the words of conse- cration followeth, They drank all of it.” T Now I ask all the papists, what thing it was that Christ commanded his disciples to drink, when he said, Drink ye all of this?” The blood of Christ was not yet there by their own confession; for these words were spoken
[[! The Orig. ed. omits the words, which they [3 By the words which go before the consecra- Ἃ]
[most highly esteem.” The 1551 ed. for most,” tion, Orig. ed.] S]
[reads must.”’] [ For it was spoken, Orig. ed.] [ 1]
[[? And errin mistaking of Christ’s words, Or. ed. ]: E]
before the consecration: therefore it could be nothing else but wine that he eommanded them to drink. pi Then I ask the papists once again, whether the disciples drank wine or mot? If they say, “yea,” then let them recant their error, that there was no wine remaining after the consecration. If they say, “nay,” then they condemn the apostles of disobedience to Christ’s commandment, which drank not wine as he commanded them. Or rather they reprove Christ as a juggler, which eommanded his apostles to drink wine; and when they came to the drinking thereof, he himself had conveyed it away. Moreover, before Christ delivered the cup of wine to his disciples, he said unto them: Divide this among you.”
Here I would ask the papists another question, what thing it was that Christ commanded his disciples to divide among them? 1 am sure they will not say it was the cup, except they be disposed to make men laugh at them. Nor I think they will not say it was the blood of Christ, as well because the words were spoken before the consecration, as because the blood of Christ is not divided, but spiritually given whole in the sacrament. Then could it - be understand of nothing else but of wine, which they should divide among them, and drink all together.
Also when the communion was ended, Christ said unto his apostles: “Verily, Isay unto you, that I will drink no more henceforth of this fruit of the vine, until that day that I shall drink it new with you in my Father’s kingdom.” By these words it is clear, that it was very wine that the apostles drank at that godly supper. For the blood of Christ is not the fruit of the vine, nor the accidents of wine, nor none other thing is the fruit of the vine, but the very wine only”.
How could Christ have expressed more plainly, that bread and wine re- - main, than by taking the bread in his hands, and breaking it himself, and giving it unto his disciples’, commanding them to eat it; and by taking the eup of wine in his hands, and delivering it unto them, commanding them to divide it among them, and to drink it; and calling it “the fruit of the vine?” These words of Christ be so plain, that if an angel of heaven would - tell us the contrary, he ought not to be believed. And then much less may - we believe the subtle lying papists”. j If Christ would have had us to believe, as a necessary article of our faith, that there remaineth neither bread nor wine, would he have spoken after this sort, using all such terms and circumstances as should make us believe that still — there remaineth bread and wine? E What manner of teacher make they of Christ, that say he meant one thing, - when his words be clean contrary? What christian heart can patiently suffer - this eontumely of Christ? 1 But what crafty teachers be these papists, who devise phantasies of their - own heads directly contrary to Christ’s teaching, and then set the same abroad to christian people, to be most assuredly believed as God’s own most holy — word! St Paul did not so, but followed herein the manner of Christ’s speaking, in calling of “bread” “bread,” and wine” wine,” and never altering Christ’s words herein. “The bread which we break,” saith he, “is it not the communion of Christ’s body?” Β Now I ask again of the papists, whether he spake this of the bread consecrated or not consecrated? They cannot say that he spake it of the bread
[[ But very wine only, Orig. ed.] Orig. ed.]:: [ And giving unto his disciples, 1551, and [7 Subtle lying of the papists, MSIE Orr ed.]]
unconsecrated, for that is not the communion of Christ’s body by their own doctrine. And if St Paul spake it of bread consecrated, then they must needs
256. confess that after consecration such bread remaineth, as is broken bread, which 1cor.x. can be none other than very true material bread. And straightways after, St Paul saith in the same place, that “we be partakers of one bread and one cup.” And in the next chapter, speaking more fully of the same matter, four times he nameth the bread and the cup, never making mention of any transubstantiation, or remaining of accidents without any substance; which things — he would have made some mention of, if it had been a necessary article of our faith, to believe that there remaineth no bread nor wine. Thus it is evident and plain, by the words of scripture, that after consecration remaineth bread and wine, and that the papistical doctrine of transubstantiation is directly contrary to God’s word.
Winchester
But to the purpose, the simplicity of faith in a christian man’s breast doth mot so precisely — mark and stay at the syllables of Christ’s words, as this author pretendeth; and knowing by — faith the truth of Christ’s words, that as he said he wrought, doth not measure God’s secret — working after the prolation of our syllables, whose work is in one instant, howsoever speech in us require a successive utterance: and the manner of handling this author useth to bring the — mystical words in contempt, were meeter in an ethnick’s mouth to jest out all, than to pass the — lips of such an author, to play with the syllables after this sort. For although he may read in some blind gloss, that in the instant of the last syllable God’s work is to be accompted wrought, — being a good lesson to admonish the minister to pronounce all; yet it is so but a private opinion, and — reverently uttered, mot to put the virtue in the last syllable, nor to scorn the catholic faith: after — which manner, taking example of this author, an ethnick should jest of fiat lux, at fi was nothing, and then at at was yet nothing, at lu was nothing but a little little paring, put an x to it, and it was suddenly lux, and then the light. What christian man would handle either place thus? And therefore, — reader, let this entry of the matter serve for an argument, with what spirit this matter is handled: but to answer that this author noteth with an exclamation, O, good Lord! how would they have bragged if Christ had said, This is no bread I” here I would question with this author, whether — Christ said so or no, and reason thus: Christ’s body is no material bread: Christ said, “This is my body;” ergo, hé said, This is no bread?” And the first part of this reason this author affirmeth in the fifty-ninth leaf3. And the second part is Christ’s words; and therefore to avoid — this conclusion the only way is to say that Christ’s speech was but a figure, which the catholic doctrine saith is false; and therefore, by the catholic doctrine, Christ saying, This is my body,” saith in effect, This is no bread;” whereat this author saith, They would brag if Christ had said so.” In speech is to be considered that every “yea” containeth a nay” in it naturally; so as whosoever saith, This is bread,” saith “it is mo wine:” whosoever saith, This is wine,” saith, “it is no beer.” If a lapidary saith, “This is a diamond,” he saith “it is no glass;” he saith “it is no crystal;” he saith “it is no white sapphire.” So Christ saying, This is my body,” saith “it is no bread.” Which plainness of speech caused Zuinglius to say plainly: If there be present the substance of the body of Christ, there is tramsubstantiation;” that is to say, mot the substance of bread; and therefore who will plainly deny transubstantiation, must deny the true presence of the substance of Christ’s body, as this author doth; wherein I have first convinced him, amd therefore use that victory for his overthrow in transubstantiation. I have shewed - before how Christ’s words were not figurative when he said, This is my body;” and yet I will touch here such testimony as this author bringeth out of one Hilary, for the purpose of tram- τὸ substantiation, in the twenty-fifth leaf of this book5, in these words: There is a figure,” saith Hilary, for bread and wine be outwardly seen; and there is also a truth of that figure, for. the body and blood of Christ be of a truth inwardly believed.” These be Hilary’s words, as this author allegeth them, who was, he saith, within three hundred and fifty years of Christ. Now I call to thy judgment, good reader, could any man devise more pithy words for the proof of. the real presence of Christ’s body and blood, and the condemnation of this author, that would have an only figure? Here in Hilary’s words is a figure compared to truth, and sight outwardly Aa
[[! And then light, 1551.] — [ Out of Hilary, Orig. ed. Winch.] “T [? Is not bread, Orig. ed. Winch.] [5 Vid. p. 272.] ow [5 Vid. p. 105.] g]
to belief inwardly. Now our belief is grounded upon God’s word, which is this: This is my body” in which words Hilary testifieth that is inwardly believed is truth; and the figure is that is seen outwardly. I take Hilary here as this author allegeth him, whereby I ask the reader, is not this author overthrown, that Christ’s speech is not figurative, but true and proper, being 4 inwardly true that we believe? Ye will say unto me, What is this to transubstantiation, to the reproof. whereof it was brought in? because he saith bread and wine is seen.” — First, I say that it overthroweth this author for truth of the presence of Christ’s body, and every overthrow therein overthroweth this author in transubstantiation, not by authority of the church of Rome, but by consequence in truth, as Zuinglius saith, who shall serve me to avoid papistry. If one ask me, What say ye then to Hilary, that bread and wine is seen?” I say they be indeed seen, for they appear so, and therefore be called so; as Isaac said of Jacob, it was his voice, and yet by his sense of feeling denied him Esau, which was not Esau, but was Jacob, as the voice from within did declare him. If ye will ask me, how can there, according to Hilary’s words, be in the outward visible creatures any figure, unless the same be in deed as they appear, bread and wine, I will answer: Even as well as this outward object of the sensible hairyness of Jacob, resembling Esau, was a figure of Christ’s humanity, and of the very humanity in deed.” Thus may Hilary be answered, to avoid his authority from contrarying transubstantiation. But this author shall never avoid that himself hath brought out of Hilary, which I evertlroweth. him in his figurative speech, and consequently in. his denial of transubstantiation also, as shall appear in the further handling of this matter. Where this author in the eighteenth leaf? compareth these St Paul’s words, The bread that we break, is it not the communion of he body of Christ?” to the expounding of Christ’s words, This is my body,” I deny that: (Jor Christ’s words declared the substance of the sacrament when he said, This my body;” and St Paul declareth the worthy use of it according to Christ’s institution; and by the words, The bread that we break,” doth signify the whole use of the supper, wherein is breaking, blessing, thanksgiving, dispensing, receiving, and eating: so as only breaking is mot the comFi munion, and yet by that part in a figure of speech St Paul meaneth all, being the same as eppeareth by the scripture, a term in speech, “to go break bread,” although it be not always so taken, whereby to signify “to go celebrate our Lord’s supper;” and therefore bread in that place may signify the common bread, as it is adhibited to be consecrated; which by the secret power of God turned into the body of Christ, and so distributed and received, is the communion ef the body of Christ, as the cup is likewise of the blood of Christ after the benediction, which benediction was not spoken of in the bread, but yet must be understanded. As for calling of x Christ’s bread his body, is to make it his body, who as St Paul saith calleth that is not, as it were, and so maketh it to be.
The arguments this author useth in the nineteenth and twentieth leaf, of the order of Christ’s E speeches as the evangelists rehearse them, be captious devices of this author, in case he knoweth p what St Augustine writeth; or else ignorance, if he hath not read St Augustine de Doctrina Ohristiana?, where he giveth a rule of recapitulation, as he calleth it, when that is told after, that was done afore; and therefore we may mot argue so firmly upon the order of the telling M 1 in the speech. St Augustine bringeth an example that by order of telling Adam was in — paradise or any tree was brought forth for feeding,” with divers other, wherewith I will not encumber the reader. The evangelist rehearseth what Christ said and did simply and truly, which story we must so place in understanding, as we trifle not with the mystery, at staying and stopping of letters and syllables. And therefore though the word “take, eat,” go before — he words, This is my body,” we may not argue that they took it and eat it afore Christ had told them what he gave them; and all these often rehearsals of bread, with he took bread,” and “brake bread,” and “blessed bread,” and if ye will add “held bread,” all this induce no $ consequence that he therefore gave bread. For he gave that he had consecrate, and gave that — he made of bread. If Christ, when he was tempted to make stones bread, had taken the stones ᾿ς «nd blessed them and delivered them, saying, This is bread,” had he then delivered stones, or rather that he made of stones bread? Such manner of reasoning useth Peter Martyr, as this. author doth, whose Jolly I may well say he saw not to eschew it, but (as appeareth) rather to RR follow it. (And yet, not content to use this fond reasoning, this author calleth papists to witness M that they might laugh at it, because the evangelist telleth the story so as Christ said, drink,” and then told after what it was, this author fancieth that the apostles should be so hasty to. drink ere Christ had told them what he gave; which and they had, I think he would have stayed [A the cup with his hand, or bid them tarry, whiles he had told them more. I will no further m mI Are seen, Orig. ed. Winch.] [? Augustin, De Doctrina Christiana. Lib. 111. [^ Vid. pp. 242, 243.] [7 Vid. p. 242.] cap. 36. Parsiv. Ed. Basil. ap. Amberbach.]
travail with this veasoning, which it is pity to hear in such a matter of gravity, of such con- — sequence as it is both in body and soul. We may not trifle with Christ’s words after this sort. When St Paul saith, We be partakers of one bread;” he speaketh not of material bread, but of — Christ’s body, our heavenly bread, which to all is one, and cannot be consumed, but able to feed α the world: and if this author giveth credit to Theodoretus, whom he calleth an holy man, then shall lie never find the sacrament called bread after the sanctification, but the bread of life; the like whereof should be in an epistle of Chrysostom? as Peter Martyr allegeth, not yet printed, by — whose authority? if they have any, as in their place this author maketh much of them, all these arguments be all trifles, for all the naming of bread by Christ, and St Paul, and all other, must be understanded before the sanctification and not after. And if thou, reader, lookest after — upon Theodoretus and that epistle, thow shalt find true that I say, whereby all this questioning with the papists is only a dallying for this author’s pleasure, against his own authors, and all learning.
Canterbury
Where you say, that “the simplicity of faith in a christian man’s breast doth not so precisely mark and stay at the syllables of Christ’s words, as I pretend,” here may the world see what simplicity is in the papists. For I do nothing else but rehearse what the papists say, that until these words be fully ended, Aoc est corpus meum,. there is bread, and after those words be fully ended, there is no more bread, but only. Christ himself” And the same simplicity do you declare by and by to be in yourself, when you say, that God’s work is in one instant, howsoever speech require in usa successive utterance.” Then if God change the bread into Christ’s body in one instant, tell me, I pray you, in which instant? For seeing that our pronunciation is by succession of time, I think you will not say, that the work of God is done before the last syllable be pronounced, (for then Christ’s body should be there before the words of consecration were fully finished,) nor I think you will not deny, but whensoever the words of consecration be fully pronounced, then is Christ’s body there. Wherefore by your own judgment you vary not in this matter from the other papists, but must needs say, that God’s secret work herein is measured after the prolation of our syllables, and so it is none other person that teacheth to play with syllables in this high mystery, but the papists only. And yourself do teach in this same place, that it is a good lesson to say, that in the instant of the last syllable God’s work is to be accounted wrought. And I find it not in blind glosses, but in the chief authors of the papists, that the con-. ^ version is not wrought before the whole sentence is finished, Aoc est corpus meum. And it is no direct answer, but a mere cavillation and illusion, to bring in here the creation of the world, when God said, fiat lux, to be a like matter unto transubstantiation. For God’s speech requireth no succession of time, as the speech of the priest doth. Therefore this is but a playing, to shew your subtle wit and crafty rhetoric, whereby your spirit may be judged, whether you go about clearly to set forth. the truth, or by dark colours and unlike examples to hide and cover it.
And where you question with me, going about by a subtle sophistical argument, to. prove that Christ said, “This is no bread,” I shall make another argument of the same form, which shall shew how strong your argument is. St John is not the son ’ οἵ the virgin Mary. Christ said to her, “This is thy son;” ergo, he said, This is not John.” The first part I am sure you will affirm in effect. The second part is Christ’s - words; and as the second part in my argument is a figurative speech, so is it in yours, = so that in every point the arguments be like. And therefore as mine argument is = naught, so is yours also, and all that you bring in to follow thereof. And if I list to dally, as you do, in such a matter, I could conclude directly against you, that in — & the sacrament is not Christ’s body, thus: Christ’s body is not material bread:” - St Paul said, “it is bread:” ergo, he said it is not Christ’s body. The first part you 1 affirm, the second part St Paul affirmeth. And therefore to avoid this conclusion, the only way is, to say that Christs speech was a figurative speech, when he said, “This is my body.” For else by the catholic. doctrine St Paul, saying that it is bread, saith in effect it is not the body of Christ. Thus may you see what availeth your sophistication, when I am constrained sophisticari cum sophista, ut ars deludatur arte.
[[’ Ad Cesarium Monachum. Vid. p. 274.] [^ Authorities, 1551.] 1!]
And of like effect is your argument of “yea” and “nay,” when you say, “every yea. eontaineth a nay in it naturally.” Therefore Christ, saying it is his body, saith it is no bread. If this form of argument were infallible, then I may turn the same to you again, and overthrow you with your own weapon thus. St Paul said, “it is bread,” ergo, it is not Christ’s body: if the affirmation of the one be a negation of the other. And by such sophistication you may turn up all the truth quite and 3 clean, and say that Christ was neither God nor man, because he said he was a vine and bread. And every yea,” say you, containeth a nay in it naturally.”
And where you boast, that you have “convinced me in the matter of the real presence of Christ’s body,” I trust the indifferent reader will say, that you triumph before the victory, saying that you have won the field, when in deed you have lost it, and when Goliath’s head is smitten off with his own sword. But the old English proverb is here true, that it is good beating of a proud man: for when he is all-to beaten back and bone, yet will he boast of his victory, and brag what a valiant man he is.” 3 And it is another vain brag also that you make, when you say, that you have shewed before, that Christ’s words were not figurative, when he said, This is my body.” For you have neither proved that you say, nor have answered to my proofs — to the contrary, as I refer to the judgment of all indifferent readers, but you have - confessed that Christ called bread his body, and made demonstration upon the bread, when. he said, “This is my body.” How can then this speech be true, but by a figure, that bread is Christ’s body? seeing that in proper speech, as you say, “every yea containeth a nay, and the affirmation of one thing is the denial of another.”
And where you allege, as it were against me, the words of Hilary, “that there is both a figure and a truth of that figure;” for answer hereunto the truth is, that your matter here is gathered of an untruth, that I would have only a figure, whereas I say plainly, as Hilary saith, “that in the true ministration of the sacrament is both & figure and a truth: the figure outwardly, and the truth inwardly.” For bread and - wine be sensible signs and sacraments, to teach us outwardly, what feedeth us in- -. wardly. Outwardly we see and feel bread and wine with our outward senses, but inwardly by faith we see and feed upon Christ’s true body and blood. But this is a spiritual feeding by faith, which requireth no corporal presence. And here I ask you — two questions. One is this, whether Hilary say that the body of Christ is under — the forms of bread and wine, and that corporally? If he say not so, as the reader shall soon judge, looking upon his words, then stand I upright without any fall or foil: for Hilary saith not as you do. The other question is, whether Hilary do not: say that there is a figure: let the reader judge also, and see whether you be not quite overthrown with your own crook, in saying that Christ’s speech is not figura- - tive. And yet the third question I may add also, why St Hilary should say, that — bread and wine be figures, if there be no bread nor wine there at all, but be taken clean away by transubstantiation? And whereas for answer hereto you take the — example of Jacob, who for his hairiness resembled Esau, and was, as you say, a figure of Christ’s very humanity; you do like an unskilful mariner, that to avoid a little tempest, runneth himself upon a rock. For where you make Jacob, who re- 1 ἡ sembled Esau, and was not he in deed, to be a figure of Christ’s humanity, you make i 80 Christ by outward appearance resembled a man, and yet he was no man in deed. by this example, that as Jacob by his hairiness resembled Esau, and was not he in deed, And where you deny that these words of St Paul, “Is not the bread which we 3 break the communion of the body of Christ?” declare the meaning of Christ’s words, — “This is my body,” because Christ’s words, say you, “declare the substance, and — Bt Paul’s words declare the use:” I deny that Christ’s body is the substance of the visible sacrament. For the substance of the sacrament is bread and wine, and the thing thereby signified is Christ’s body and blood.
And this is notable which you say, “that these words, the bread which we break,’ do signify the whole use of the supper, not only breaking, but also blessing, thanksgiving, - dispensing, receiving and eating, and that bread in this place signifieth common bread,. taken to be consecrated.” In which saying it is a world to sce the phantasies of men’s. devices, how uncertain they be in matters pertaining to God. How agreeth this your as with your doctrine of transubstantiation? For if St Paul, when he said, “the
bread which we break, is it not the communion of Christ’s body?” meant by bread,” “common bread,” and by “breaking,” meant also the “blessing, thanksgiving, receiving, — and eating,” then is common bread “broken, blessed, received, and eaten.” And then where becometh your transubstantiation, if common bread be eaten in the sacrament? And when is the bread turned into the body of Christ, if it remain common bread until it be eaten? Yet now you seem to begin something to savour of the truth, that the bread remaineth still in his proper nature, enduring the whole use of the supper.
And as touching this place of St Paul, that God calleth things that be not, as they —— were,” if it pertain unto the sacrament, where Christ called “bread his body,” what could you have alleged more against yourself? For if in this place Christ call that which is not, as it were,” then Christ called bread as it were his body, and yet it is not his body in deed. all But in this your answer to the arguments brought in by me out of the very words
the of the evangelists, is such a shameless arrogancy and boldness shewed, as abhorreth out of all christian ears for to hear; which is, that “three evangelists, telling the manner of Christ’s holy supper, not one of them all do tell the tale in right order, but subvert the order of Christs doings and sayings, and that in such a necessary matter of our religion, that the defimtion of the whole truth standeth in the order.” “The evangelists,” say you, “rehearse what Christ said and did, simply and truly.” But is this a simple and true rehearsal of Christ’s words and deeds, to tell them out of order, otherwise than Christ did and said them? And St Paul also, if it be as you say, speaking of that same matter, committeth the like error. And yet never no ancient author, expounding the evangelists or St Paul, could spy out this fault, and in their commentaries give us warning thereof. And I am not so ignorant, but I have many times read St Augustine, De doctrina Christiana, where he saith: “That sometimes in scripture a thing is told after, that was done before’.” But St Augustine saith not that it is so in this matter: nor I am not so presumptuous to say that all the three evangelists, with St Paul also, disordered the truth of the story in a matter wherein de the truth cannot be known but by the order. St Augustine, De consensu JEvange-listarum, saith, that “that which Luke rehearseth of the chalice, before the giving of the bread, was spoken by Christ after the distribution of the bread, as the other two evangelists report the same” And if these words, Hoc est corpus meum, had been put out of the right place in all the three evangelists, and also in St Paul, would ποὺ St Augustine have given warning thereof, as well as of the other? And would all other authors expounding that place have passed over the matter in silence, and have spoken not one word thereof; specially being a matter of such weight, that the catholic faith and our salvation, as you say, hangeth thereof? Do not all the proofs you-have, hang of these words, Hoc est corpus meum? “This is my body?” And shall you say now, that they be put out of their place? And then you must needs confess, that you have nothing to defend yourself, but only one sentence, and that put out of order, and from his right place, as you say yourself; where in deed the evangelists and apostles, being true rehearsers of the story in this matter, did put those words. in the right place. But you, having none other shift to defend your error, do remove - the words, both out of the right place and the right sense. And can any man that: loveth the truth, give his ears to hear you, that turn upside down both the order and sense of Christ’s words, contrary to the true narration of the evangelists, contrary. to the interpretation of all the old authors, and the approved faith of Christ’s church, even from the beginning, only to maintain your wilful assertions and papistical opinions? — So long as the scripture was in the interpretation of learned divines, it had the right sense; but when it came to the handling of ignorant lawyers and sophistical papists, such godly men as were well exercised in holy scripture, and old catholic writers, might declare and. defend the truth at their perils: but the papistical sophisters and lawyers would ever define and determine all matters as pleased them. p
[[’ Vid. p. 245.] pavit ut solet: illud vero quod ordine suo posuit, - [> Hzc et Marcus Lucasque commemorant. non commemoravera superius.—August. De Con-]
[Quod enim Lucas de calice bis commemoravit, sensu Evangelistarum, Lib. 111. cap. i. Tom. IV.]
[prius antequam panem daret, deinde posteaquam p.202. Ed. Paris. 1635.] E. 4]
[panem dedit; illud quod superius dixit praoccu-: ἢ]
AGAINST TRANSUBSTANTIATION. 249 j - But all truths agree to the truth, and falsehood agreeth not with itself: so it is e.. a plain declaration of untruth, that the papists vary so among themselves, For some say that Christ consecrated by his own secret power without sign or words: some say that his benediction was his consecration: some say that he did consecrate with these words, Hoc est corpus meum; and yet those vary among themselves: for some say that he spake these words twice, once immediately after benediction, at what time they say he consecrated, and again after when he commanded them to eat it, appointing then to his apostles the form of consecration. And lately came new papists with their five eggs, and say that the consecration is made only with these five words, Hoc est enim corpus meum. And last of all come you and Smith with yet your newer devices, saying that Christ spake those words before he gave the bread and immediately after the breaking, manifestly contrary to the order of the text, as all the evangelists report, and contrary to all old authors of the catholic church, which all with one consent say, that Christ gave bread to his apostles, and contrary to the book of common prayer by you allowed, which rehearseth the words of the evangelists thus: That Christ took bread, and when he had blessed and given thanks, he brake it and gave it to his disciples;” where all the relation is made to the bread. Is this your faithful handling of God’s word, for your pleasure to turn the words as you list? Is it not a thing much to be lamented, that such as should be the true setters forth of Christ’s gospel, do trifle with Christ’s words after this sort, to alter the order of the gospel after their own phantasy? Can there be any trifling with Christ’s words, if this be not? And shall any christian man give credit to such corrupters of holy scripture? Have you put upon you harlots’ faces, that you be past all shame, thus to abuse God’s word to your own vanity?
And be you not ashamed likewise so manifestly to bely me, that I “fancy that the apostles should be so hasty to drink, or Christ had told them what he gave?” whereas by my words appeareth clean contrary, that they drank not before all Christ’s words were spoken.
And where you say, “that Christ gave that he had consecrated, and that he made of bread;” here you grant that Christ’s body, which he gave to his disciples at his last supper, was made of bread. And then it must follow, that either Christ had two bodies, the one made of the flesh of the virgin Mary, the other of bread, or else that the self-same body was made of two divers matters, and at divers and sundry times. Now what doctrine this is, let them judge that be learned. And it is worthy a note, how inconstant they be that will take upon them to defend an untruth; and how good memories they had need to have, if they should not be taken with a lie. For here you say that Christ’s body in the sacrament is made of bread; and in the eleventh comparison you said, that “this saying is so fond, as were not tolerable to ἢ be by ἃ scoffer devised in a play, to supply when his fellow had forgotten his part.”
And where you say that St Paul speaketh not of material bread, but of Christ’s i body, when he saith, that we be partakers of one bread,” the words of the text be — plain against you. For he speaketh of the bread that is broken, whereof every man Ἶ taketh part, which is not Christ’s body; except you will say that we eat Christ’s body divided in pieces, as the gross Capernaites imagined. And St Augustine with other old authors do write, that “St Paul spake of such bread as is made of a great - multitude of grains of corn gathered together, and united into one material loaf, as — £he multitude of the spiritual members of Christ be joined together into one mystical body of Christ.”
And as concerning Theodoret and Chrysostom, they say as plainly as can be spoken,! that the bread remaineth after consecration, although we call it by a more excellent name of dignity, that is to say, by the name of Christs body. But what estimation of wisdom or learning soever you have of yourself, surely there appeareth neither in you in this place, where upon the alteration of the name of bread you would gather the alteration of the substance, or transubstantiation. Be not kings and emperors very men, although they be ever called by the names of their royal and imperial dignities? Or are they therefore gods, because the prophet calleth them so? And who ever called. you a man, sithens you were a bishop? and yet that dignity took not from you the
nature of a man. And the pope is a man, although he be called Julius, or Pater sanctissimus, or Hypocrita, impiissimus. So is bread still bread, although it represent the — body of Christ, and be called in that respect, as a figure, the very body of Christ.
And where you say, that the naming of bread by Christ and St Paul and all other must be understood before the sanctification and not after,” St Pauls own words reprove this your saying most manifestly. For he calleth it bread when it is the communion of Christ’s body, and when it is eaten, saying: “The bread which we break, is it not the communion of Christs body?” and, “As often as you eat this bread and drink this cup:” and, Whosoever eateth the bread and drinketh the cup of the Lord unworthily:”’ and, “Let a man try himself, and so eat of that bread — and drink of the cup:” and, “He that eateth and drinketh unworthily,” &c. Now these sayings cannot be understanded before the sanctification, except you will grant that the bread was Christ’s body, and that it was eaten, before it was sanctified. Wherefore, let every reader that knoweth any thing, judge whether you seek any truth — in this matter, or whether you study to search out vain cavillations, and yet the same — being clean contrary to the manifest words of holy scripture, and to all approved writers. Wherefore, gentle reader, weigh St Pauls words, whether he call it bread — after the sanctification, or only before; and as thou findest St Paul make with this man’s saying, that trifleth away the truth, so thou mayest believe him in all other things. Hitherto is discussed how the doctrine of transubstantiation is against God’s word: — now followeth in my book how the same is against nature, whereof I write thus:
Let us now consider also, how the same is against natural reason and natu-
ral operation, which although they prevail not against God’s word, yet when, they be joined with God’s word, they be of great moment to confirm any truth. Natural reason abhorreth vacuum, that is to say, that there should be any empty place, wherein no substance should be. But if there remain no bread nor wine, the place were they were before, and where their accidents be, is filled with no substance, but remaineth vacuum, clean contrary to the order of nature.. We see also that the wine, though it be consecrated, yet will it turn to vinegar, and the bread will mould; which then be nothing else but sour wine and mouldy bread, which could not wax sour nor mouldy, if there were no bread nor wine there at all. 1 And if the sacraments were now brent, as in the old church they burned all that remained uneaten, let the papists tell what is brent. They must needs = say, that it is either bread or the body of Christ. But bread, say they, is none there; then must they needs burn the body of Christ, and be called Christ- ^ burners, (as heretofore they have burned many of his members,) except they ^ will say, that accidents burn alone without any substance, contrary to all the course of nature. ἢ The sacramental bread and wine also will nourish, which nourishment naturally cometh of the substance of the meats and drinks, and not of the accidents.
The wine also will poison, as divers bishops of Rome have had experiences, both in poisoning of other, and being poisoned themselves; which poisoning they cannot ascribe to the most wholesome blood of our Saviour Christ, but only to the poisoned wine.
And most of all, it is against the nature of accidents to be in nothing. For the definition of accidents is to be in some substance, so that if they be, they - must needs be in something; and if they be in nothing, then they be not. And a thousand things more of like foolishness do the papists affirm by their transub- = stantiation, contrary to all nature and reason: as that two bodies be in one place, and one body in many places at one time; and that substances be gendered of accidents only, and accidents converted into substances; and a body to be ina —
Temi AN UE uci, i ΕΣ ΗΕ AGAINST TRANSUBSTANTIATION. 251 phe and occupy no room; and generation to be without corruption, and corruption without generation; and that substances be made of nothing, and turned into nothing’, with many such like things, against all order and principles of nature and reason. 1 In the third chapter written in the twenty-first leaf’, it troubleth this author that the doctrine of transubstantiation is, in his judgment, against natural reason and natural operation: in the entry of which matter he gramteth wisely that they should not prevail against God’s word, and yet, he saith, when they be joined with God’s words, they be of great moment to confirm any truth; wherein if he meaneth to confirm God’s word by reason, or God’s mysteries by natural operation, mine understanding cannot reach that doctrine, and is more strange to me, than this author maketh transubstantiation to be to him. As for the reason of vacuum declareth a vacuum, that nature abhorreth not. And if we speak after the rules of nature, quantity filleth the place vather tham substance. And shortly to answer this author, it is mot said in the doctrine of transubstantiation, that there remaineth nothing; for in the visible form of bread remaineth the proper object of every sense truly: that is seem with the bodily eye is truly seen, that is felt is truly felt, that is savoured is truly savoured; and those things 3 corrupt, putrify, nourish, and consume after the truth of the former nature, God so ordering it that create all, using singularly that creature of bread, not to unite it unto him as he did man’s nature, to be in bread impanate and breaded, as he was in flesh incarnate. And as for reason in place of service as being inferior to faith, will agree with the faith of transubstantiation well enough. For if our faith of the true presence of Christ’s very body be true, as it is most true, grounded upon these words of Christ, “This is my body;” then reason yielding to? that truth, will not strive with transubstantiation, but plainly affirm that by his judgment9, if it be the body of Christ, it is not bread. For in the rule of common reason, the grant of one —. substance is the denial of another; and therefore reason hath these conclusions throughly, whatsoever is bread is no wine, whatsoever is wine is no milk, and so forth. 1 And therefore being once believed this to be the body of Christ, reason saith by and by, it is not bread by the rule aforesaid, whereby appeareth how reason doth not strive with transubstantiation, being once conquered with Jaith of the true presence of Christ’s body, which is most evident, and no whit darkened by any thing this author hath brought. As for natural operation, is not in Ῥ all men’s judgments as this author taketh it, who seemeth to repute it for an inconvenience, to say i that the accidents of wine do sour and wax vinegar. But Ulpian, a man of notable learning, is — — mot afraid to write in the law, In venditionibus, de contrahenda emptione, in the Pandects, that DA of wine and vinegar there is (prope eadem. οὐσία) in manner one substance: wherein he sheweth 1 himself far against this author’s skill, which I put for an example to shew that natural operations have had in natural men’s judgments divers considerations, one sometime repugnant to another, and yet the authors of both opinions called philosophers all. Among which some thought, for example, they spake wisely, that esteemed all things to alter as swiftly as the water runneth in the stream, and thought therefore no man could utter a word, being the same man in the end of the word that he was when he began to speak, and used a similitude: Like as a man standing in one place cannot touch the same one water twice in a running stream, no more can a man be touched the same man twice, but he altereth as swiftly as doth the stream. These aere laughed to scorn, yet they thought themselves wise in natural speculation. Aristotle, that is much esteemed and worthily, fancied a first matter in all things to be one; in which consideration he seemeth to be as extreme in a stay, as the other fond philosophers were in — moving. By which two extremities I condemn mot natural speculation, wherewith, I think, God pleased for man to marvel in contemplation of his inferior works, and to tame his rash — wit in the inexplicable variety of it; but to use it so, as to make it an open adversary to ᾿ς weligion, it is meseemeth without all purpose. The doctrine of transubstantiation doth not teach mo earthly thing to remain in the sacrament, but contrariwise, that the visible form.— ef bread and wine is there as the visible figure? of the sacrament, and to be the same in ᾿ς greatness, in thickness, in weight, in savour, in taste, in propriety also to corrupt, putrify, and nourish as it did before; and yet the substance of those visible creatures to be converted XX. M [’ Orig ed. omits the words, “and that sub- [ Upon the words, Orig. ed. Winch.] i D Word, 1551. [7 Sign. Ibid.] stances be madeof nothing and turned into nothing.”’] [^ Yielding in. Ibid.] [Vid p 250] [5 By her judgment. Ibid.]
into the substance, as Emissen saith, of the body of Christ. And here will reason do service to faith, to say if there be a conversion indeed, as faith teacheth, and none of the accidents be converted, then the substance is converted: for in every thing, all is substance amd —— accidents; but the accidents be not changed, and yet a change there is; it must needs be then that substance is changed. Which deduction reason will make, and so agree with transubstantiation in convenient due service. And thus I have gotten reason’s good will, whatsoever this author saith, and from the ground of faith have by reason deduced such a conclusion to prove transubstantiation, as unless he destroy the true faith of the presence of Christs —— very body, which he cannot, must needs be allowed. And as for natural operation of putrifying, engendering worms, burning, and such experiences, which being the substance of bread — absent, this author thinketh cannot be so, when he hath thought thoroughly, he can of his thought conclude it only to be a marvel, and it be so as against the common rules of philoso- — phy, wherein as meseemeth it were a mearer way, as we be admonished to leave searching of “how” of the work of God in the mystery of Christ’s presence, being that the celestial — part of the sacrament, so not to search “how” in the experience of the operation of nature, of the visible earthly part of the sacrament. When God sent manna in [the] desert, the people — saw many marvels in it, besides the common operation of nature, and yet they never troubled themselves with “hows.” And as one very well writeth, it is consonant, that as there is ὦ great miracle in the work of God to make there present the substance of the body of Christ, — so likewise to knowledge the miracle in the absence of the substance of bread, amd both the — heavenly and earthly part of the sacrament to be miraculous, and so many miracles to be joined together in one, agreeth with the excellency of the sacrament. As for the objections this — author maketh in this matter, be such as he findeth in those scholastical writers that discuss as they may, or labour thereabout wherewith to satisfy idle imaginations, and to make learned men prompt and ready to say somewhat to these trifles, whose arguments this author taketh — Jor his principal foundation. For plain resolution and avoiding whereof, if I would now, Jor my part, bring forth their solutions and answers, there were a part of school theology, so brought into English, to no great praise of either of our learnings, but our vain labour, to set abroad other men’s travails, to trouble rude wits with matter not necessary, and by such wnreverent disputing and alteration to hinder the truth. Finally, all that this author rehearseth of absurdity, repugneth in his estimation only to the conclusion of philosophy, which should nothing move the humble simplicity of faith in a christian man, who marvelleth at God’s works and reputeth them true, although he cannot comprehend the ways and means of them.
Canterbury
Here in the beginning of this chapter, it is a strange thing to me that you should think strangeness in my saying, that natural reason and operation joined to God’s word should be of great moment to confirm any truth: not that they add any authority to God’s word, but that they help our infirmity; as the sacraments do to Gods promises, which promises in themselves be most certain and true. For did not the - eating and drinking of Christ, his labouring and sweating, his agony and pangs of death, confirm the true faith of his incarnation? And did not his eating with the apostles confirm and stablish their faith of his resurrection? Did not the sight of. Christ and feeling of his wounds induce Thomas to believe that Christ was risen, - When neither the report of the devout woman, nor yet of the apostles which did see ’ him, could cause him to believe Christ’s resurrection? And when they took our Saviour Christ for a spirit, did not he cause them by their sight and feeling of his flesh and bones to believe that he was very man, and no spirit, as they phantasied? Which - sensible proofs were so far from derogation of faith, that they were a sure establish- - ment thereof. Wherefore if your understanding cannot reach this doctrine, it is indeed 1 very slender in godly things.
And as for my reason of vacuum, you have not yet answered thereto, for nature. suffereth not any place to be without some substance, which by means of his quantity - filleth the place. And quantity without substance to fill any place, is so far from the - rules of nature, that by order of nature quantity without substance hath neither filling nor being. And although I do not say, that by the doctrine of transubstan-. tiation there remaineth nothing, (so that all that you speak to answer that matter is
1o no purpose, but res vacua,) yet by the doctrine of transubstantiation joined unto mature, there should remain utterly nothing indeed: for substance remaineth none by s your doctrine of transubstantiation, and without substance can be no accidents by the rules of nature. Therefore comparing your doctrine and nature together, either you 1 must recant your doctrine of transubstantiation, or confess that nothing remaineth, or a the least grant that your teaching repugneth to the order of nature; which sufficeth 1 for me in this place, where my purpose is only to shew how the doctrine of transub- stantiation is against nature and reason.
Now where you so often speak of the visible form of bread remaining, by this word “form” you sweetly deceive yourself, thinking that it doth much advance your faith of transubstantiation, understanding by that word the accidences, similitudes, and likeness without substance remaining, misunderstanding both holy scripture and the ancient doctors. St Paul, speaking of Christ’s incarnation, saith, that he being in form of God, did humble himself, taking upon him the form of man.” By which words St Paul meant not that Christ was like unto God, and not God in deed, nor yet that he was like unto man, and not very man in deed, but that he was and is very God and very man, having two substances, one of his Godhead, and the other of his manhood, united together in one person. And the ancient doctors writing of this sacrament, when they speak of the forms of bread and wine, do use this vocable “form,” as St Paul useth it, to signify very bread and very wine, or the substances of bread and wine, and not the similitude or likeness of bread and wine without the substances, as you fantasy and imagine.
And you, after this sort wrasting holy scriptures and doctors for maintenance of your error of transubstantiation, do lead yourself craftily into another heinous error, (if this your proposition be true, that the grant of one substance is a denial of any other, which is, to deny Christ either to be very God or man. For by your sentence, if he in substance be God, then can he not have the substance of man: for he grant of one substance is a denial of any other, as ye say.
And like as ye do err in misunderstanding of the scripture and doctors, so do you err in reason and judgment of things; your own eyes, nose, mouth, and fingers, bearing witness against you of your wilful error and folly. For what man is living, which hath his right wits, that can believe as you teach, that the proper object of every sense remaineth, that is to say, colour, taste, savour, &c., and yet the former substance of bread and wine is gone? And here, to further your belief of transubstantiation, you do exaggerate your accustomed absurdity of impanation of Christ’s body; as if every man that believeth not your error of transubstantiation must of necessity fall into the error of impanation, or as if I defended the said impanation. But whether I defended any such fond opinion or no, or whether I have herein sufficiently answered the papists, I refer to the judgment of all wise and learned men, 7 that be any thing indifferent, which have read my book.
And as concerning natural reason, where you say it will agree with the doctrine - ef transubstantiation well enough, if the faith of the true presence of Christ’s very L body be true: for answer hereto I say, that if your phantastical belief of the real ~ presence of Christs natural body in the sacrament were as true as the gospel, (as. mone opinion can be more erroneous and fond,) yet would both faith and reason judge 4 that there were still bread: faith, because holy scripture manifestly saith so; reason, - because it is so, not only to all our senses, but also in all the effects and operations — of bread. And reason cannot discern but that Christ’s body may be as well present - with the substance of bread, as with the accidents, and that rather also, forasmuch; as you confess yourself, that after the rules of nature quantity filleth the place rather — than substance. And so may reason judge the body of Christ to be the body of: Christ, and yet the bread to be the bread still, and wine to be wine and no bread,. mor none other confusion of natures to be there against reason. δ And as touching natural operation, in the handling thereof you shew your igno-. rance in natural philosophy, which teacheth that in mutation from one quality to. another is required one substance to receive both the qualities. For white of itself. vannot be made black, nor cold hot; but one substance may be now hot, now cold;
now black, now white: as cold water may be made hot, although cold in itself cannot be hot. Therefore you cannot blame me, to think in this a great inconvenience and absurdity in nature, that sweetness of itself should change into sourness, when the substance of wine is gone, and no substance remaining to receive this muta- - tion, this matter being so clean contrary to the precepts and rules of natural philo- — sophy.
And I marvel that you cannot see how much Ulpian, whom you allege, maketh — against yourself, and with my saying, that both in wine and vinegar remaineth substance, which is changed from sweet to sour; so that the sweet of itself is not made sour, but that substance which before was sweet is after sour. And therefore what great skill you have in citing of Ulpian, to prove that the accidents of wine without substance do sour and wax vinegar, let the wise reader judge.
But Ulpian seemeth to me to have another sense than all men can perceive: but — I will not discuss the mind of Ulpian, because I am no lawyer, lest you should cast the proverb in my teeth, Ne sutor ultra crepidam.
But to what purpose you should bring in the diversity of judgments in natural operations, and the extreme fondness of philosophers, some in moving, some in staying, I cannot devise, except it be the permission of God, that as some of the philosophers by their fond opinions in nature made themselves laughing-stocks to all men, of reason so should ye papists do. And yet so much more is the papistical opinion of transubstantiation to be laughed to scorn of all men, as it passeth the fondness of all the philosophers, and that so far, that the fondest of the philosophers would have laughed at it, and have clapped it out of their schools with one consent, as an opinion more meet for frantic and mad men than for men of natural reason. And as fond opinions as some philosophers had, yet was there none that so far erred in reason to say, that accidences might stand without any substance; but all with one uniform consent agreed, that accidences had none other being or remaining but in their substances. And yet if the faith of our religion taught us the contrary, then reason must yield to faith. But your doctrine of transubstantiation is as directly contrary to the plain words of scripture as it is against the order of natural reason.
And where you say that the doctrine of transubstantiation doth not teach, that no earthly thing remaineth, but that “the visible form of bread and wine remaineth the same in greatness, in thickness, in weight, in savour, in taste, in property also to corrupt, putrify, and nourish, as it did before,” tell plainly, I pray you, what thing it is which you call the visible form of bread and wine, whether it be an accidence or a substance; and if it be an accidence, shew whether it be a quantity or quality, or what other accidence it is, that all men may understand what thing it is which, as you say, is the same greatness, thickness, weight, savour, and other properties.
And where you allege Emissen for the conversion of the substance of bread and wine, this conversion, as Emissen saith, and as I have declared before, is like to our conversion in baptism, where outwardly is no alteration of substance, (for no sacramental alteration maketh alteration of the substance, but the marvellous and secret alteration is inwardly in our souls. And as the water in baptism is not changed, but sacramentally, (that is to say, made a sacrament of spiritual regeneration, which before was none,) so in the Lord’s supper neither the substance nor accidences of bread. and wine be changed, but sacramentally; but the alteration is inwardly in the souls - of them that spiritually be refreshed and nourished with Christs flesh and blood. And this our faith teacheth us, and natural reason doth good service to faith herein - against your imagined transubstantiation. So that you have not gotten reasons, good- - will, nor consent to your vain doctrine of transubstantiation, although you had proved. your real presence; which hitherto you have not done, but have taken great pain - to shoot away all your bolts in vain, missing quite and clean both the prick and the - whole butt. And yet in the end you take a good ready way for your own advantage, like unto a man that had shot all his shafts clean wide from the butt, and yet would bear. all men in hand that he had hit the prick. And when other should go about to measure how far his shafts were wide from the butt, he would take up the matter
v himself, and command them to leave measuring, and believe his own saying, that T his arrows stuck all fast in the mark, and that this was the nearest way to finish the contention: even so do you in this matter, willing all men to leave searching of ἤ “how” in the mystery of Christ’s presence in the sacrament, saying that to be the mearest way. And it were a much nearer way for you indeed, if all men wouldleave searching of “how,” and without ground or reason believe as well your transubstantiation as your corporal presence of Christ’s body, only because you do say it is so. But St Peter requireth every christian man to be ready to render a reason of his faith to every one that asketh; and St Paul requireth in a christian bishop, that he should be “able to exhort by wholesome doctrine, and to convince the gainsayers,” and not to require other men to give faith unto him without asking of “how,” or “why,” only because he saith so himself. The old catholic authors tell, wherefore Christ called bread his body, and how christian people fed of his body. And the blessed virgin Mary asked how she should conceive a child, never having company with man. And you tell yourself how Christ is in heaven, how in us, and how in the sacrament, declaring all to be but after a spiritual manner. And what manner of men be you, that we may not ask you “how,” to render a reason of your transubstantiation, being a matter by you only devised, clearly without God’s word.
But at length, when you have sweat well-favouredly in answering to mine arguments of natural reason and natural operation, you be fain to confess a great part to be true, and to turn altogether into miracles, and that into such kind of miracles, as the old catholic writers never knowledged nor touched in none of their works. For. besides the chief miracle, which you say is in the conversion of the substance of bread into the substance of Chirst’s body, and of the wine into his blood, there be other miracles, when the forms of wine turn into vinegar, and when bread mouldeth, or a man doth vomit it, or the mouse eateth it, or the fire burneth it, or worms breed in it, and in all like chances, God still worketh miracles, yea, even in poisoning with the consecrated wine. And the multitude of such miracles, as you do judge, pertaineth to the excellency of the sacrament; whereas among the school-authors this is a common received proposition, non esse ponenda miracula sine necessitate.
And where you say, that I make my principal foundation upon the arguments of the scholastical writers, although mine arguments deduced out of the scholastical authors be unto you insoluble, and therefore you pass them over unanswered, yet I make no foundation at all upon them, but my very foundation is only upon God’s word, which foundation is so sure, that it will never fail. And mine arguments in this place I bring in only to this end, to shew how far your imagined transubstantiation is, not only from God’s word, but also from the order and precepts of nature, and how many La and portentous absurdities you fall into by means of the same. — Which it seemeth you do confess by holding your peace, without making answer thereto.
But now let us consider what is next in my book. ἢ The papistical doctrine is also against all our outward senses, called our five wits. For our eyes say, they see there bread and wine: our noses smell bread and wine: our mouths taste, and our hands feel bread and wine. And Although the articles of our faith be above all our outward senses, so that we believe things which we can neither see, feel, hear, smell, nor taste; yet they - be not contrary to our senses, at the least so contrary, that in such things which we from time to time do see, smell, feel, hear, and taste, we shall not trust our senses, but believe clean contrary. Christ never made no such article ef our faith. Our faith teacheth us to believe things that we see not, but it doth not bid us, that we shall not believe that we see daily with our eyes, and hear with our ears, and grope with our hands. For although our senses cannot reach so far as our faith doth, yet so far as the compass of our senses doth usually reach, our faith is not contrary to the same, but rather our senses do confirm our faith. Or else what availed it to. St Thomas, for the con-
firmation of Christ’s resurrection, that he did put his hand into Christs side, — and felt his wounds, if he might not trust his senses, nor give no eredit thereto? in And what a wide door is here opened to Valentinianus, Marcion, and other — d heretics, which said, “that Christ was not crucified, but that Simon Cyrensus was crucified for him, although to the sight of the people it seemed that Christ — Was crucified?” or to such heretics as said, that Christ was no man, although to men’s sights he appeared in the form of man, and seemed to be hungry, dry, weary, to weep, sleep, eat, drink, yea, and to die like as other men do. For if we once admit this doctrine, that no credit is to be given — to our senses, we open a large field, and give a great occasion unto an innumerable rabblement of most heinous heresies.
And if there be no trust to be given to our senses in this matter of the sacrament, why then do the papists so stoutly affirm, that the accidents remain after the consecration, which cannot be judged but by the senses? For the scripture speaketh no word of the accidents of bread and wine, but of the bread and wine themselves. And it is against the nature and definition — of accidents, to be alone without any substance. Wherefore, if we may not trust our senses in this matter of the sacrament, then if the substance of the bread and wine be gone, why may we not then say, that the accidents be gone — also? And if we must needs believe our senses as concerning the accidents. of bread and wine, why may we not do the like of the substance, and that rather than of the accidents: forasmuch as after the consecration, the scripture 1 saith in no place that there is no substance of bread nor of wine, but calleth — them still by such names as signify the substances, and not the accidents?
And finally, if our senses be daily deceived in this matter, then is the sensi- — ble sacrament nothing else but an illusion of our senses. And so we make much for their purpose that said, that Christ was a crafty juggler, that made things appear to men’s sights, that in deed were no such things, but forms only, figures, and appearances of them.”
But to conclude in few words this process of our senses, let all the papists Ὺ lay their heads together, and they shall never be able to shew one article of. our faith so directly contrary to our senses, that all our senses by daily experience shall affirm a thing to be, and yet our faith shall teach us the contrary thereunto. ^ WINCHESTER. As in answering to the third chapter, I have shewed how reason received into fuit’s ser- WE vice doth mot strive with transubstantiation, but agreeth well with it; so I trust to shew how man’s senses, which this author calleth “the five wits,” be mo such direct adversaries to transubstantiation, as a matter whereof they cam mo skill. And therefore to a question this —. yuthor asketh in the end of the second column in the twenty-second leaf, which is this. “If we believe our senses im the accidents, why may we mot do the like of the substance?” I 1 answer thus, that the senses can mo skill of substance, as learned men speak of substance, nor — — this author neither, if a man should judge him by this question. For and a sensual man, one that followeth his rude senses, would say, “Come hither, master scholar, I hear much talking in this world of substance and accidence,” and if he were of a merry nature would say, his little boy had learned his accidence, but himself woteth not perfectly what substance meaneth, — as clerks term it, and bringing forth a piece of bread, another of cheese, and a pot of ale, would desire the scholar to learn him the substance of them, and shew it with his finger, απ shew him also what difference between the substance of bread, cheese, and the ale?; I think the scholar, with the advice of all at Cambridge and Ozford also, could not do it; and the
[[^ Vid. supra] [ And ale, Orig. ed. Winch.] E]
Πρ νοις, ΤΠ mors th scholar should travail with such a rude man so sensual in the matter, I think he a be the further off, unless the sensual man would set apart his rude wits and learn ef the scholar some reasonable understanding, which is, that the substance is the inward nature, wherein those that be accidents do naturally stay the quantity immediately, and the rest by mean of quantity, in which the vest may be said to stay; which words were new divinity to this man, who, touching the bread, would ask the scholar roundly, Callest thou not this -substance, this good thick3 piece that I handle?” The scholar would answer, “Sir, as I shall answer you, you will say I play the sophister; for I must speak learning to you, that you can no skill of. And be mot angry though I tell you so; for and ye were learned, ye would not Y ask me this question; for substance, as it is properly understanded to be of this or that thing, ds properly neither seen by itself nor felt, and yet by reason comprehended truly to be in that we feel or see: nevertheless in common speech, and in the speech of such as for the purpose speak after the common capacity, the word “substance” is used to signify that is seen or felt, and so ye may say, ye see the substance or feel the substance of bread, and yet ye do in deed see but the colour, and by it the largeness, and feel the heat or coldness, moisture or dryness, weight or lightness, hardness or softness, thickness and thinness. If ye will learn what substance is, ye must leave your outward senses, and consider in your understanding how in every thing that is there is a stay, which we call a substance, being the principal part 4 of every thing, which failing, we say that special thing not to be: as where the substance of — bread is mot, there that special thing bread is mot, because bread is, as every other natural i visible thing is, of two parts, substance and accidents. Now if the one part, that is to say - substance, be mot there, which can be but by miracle, then is no bread properly there, because; the one and chief part is mot there: and yet I say mot nothing is there, for the other part 1 remaining hath a being as God’s visible creature, and may be called the visible part of bread, and therefore the outward kind and form of bread, and the appearance of bread and « true sensible part of bread, and therefore be called also by the name of bread; not that it I is so properly, but after the common speech and capacity of men, and may be called the nature d of bread, signifying the property, and the matter of bread, signifying the grossness.” The rude man, I think, would hereat say, Here is sophistry in deed, for here is substance, and no substance; i matter of bread, and no bread; appearance of bread, and no bread; called bread, and no bread; this is plain juggling where it happeneth.” Wherein this rude man, for want of true understanding of the words, and perfect consideration of the matter, speaketh thus fondly; who, if — e should thereupon require the scholar to shew him some difference of the very substance between bread, cheese, and ale, what could the learned scholar answer here, but even frankly declare his ignorance, 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.” Whereunto I trow the rude man would say to the ἣ scholar: “Then art thow with all thy learning as very a jfool as I, to speak of a difference, i and. cannot tell what it is.” — Now, if the scholar should utter even the extremity of his learning in proper terms, and say, “1 know bread is no cheese, and cheese is no ale, and of their ac- — cidental parts I can indeed shew differences, but of the very substance none;” the rude man, if his nature were not over dull, would laugh roundly, to. hear a scholar utter for a point — ef learning that bread is mo cheese, and cheese is mo ale, which whoso knoweth not is a very fool; and merely to knit up the matter would keep the accidents of his bread, cheese, and & ale for himself, and give the substance to the scholar, if he can divide it, as a reward for — his cunning to his better nurture. And this I write after this gross sort, to shew that this matter of substance is not commonly understanded as senses exercised in learning perceive it, and. how man’s outward senses cannot, as this author would have it, be Judges of the inward ἡ of substance, which reason persuadeth to be, using the service of the senses for induction - ef the knowledge [of it]5, in which judgment upon their report happeneth many times much deceit. Titus Livius speaketh of a great number of divers dishes of meat made in a solemn supper, Whereat the guests wondered to see such a variety at that time of the year; and when they — demanded. of it, answer was made, the substance was but one, all hog’s flesh, so as the alteration in the accidents deceived their judgments. That stone, which among many, thought to have some skill, hath been taken for a precious diamond, hath after by cunning lapidaries been judged to be but a white sapphire, and contrariwise: so easily may our judgment upon the report of our senses fall im error; mot that the senses be properly deceived, but rather the ma that is grossly sensual, and judgeth fondly by them. For the very substance is mot y the proper object of any of the five wits, but of their report considered in reason denied, Ε Γ Good round thick. Orig. ed. Winch.] [ Of the bread. Ibid.] [ 1551, and Orig. ed. Winch.] ~~ [erasmer.]
uen M CT REM EE 958 THE SECOND BOOK. — “n «nd sometime guessed at, whereof ensueth great error and quid pro quo among the poticaries and learned also in things strange, whereof they have but accidental marks. Wherefore upon consideration of the premises it may easily appear how the question of this author, why the senses be mot believed in knowledge of substance as in knowledge of accidents, may be reasonably answered. And then if the judgment of reasom in the estimation of God’s natural works and denying this or that substance, when by accidents it should seem otherwise,
279. reason doth stay sensuality, and when men of experience, knowledge, and credit, have determined such a certain stone to be a very true diamond, other ignorant will be ashamed to say the contrary; and if a man fearing himself deceived to have bought one kind of drugs for another, amd yet mistrusting wisely his own judgment, having caused it to be viewed by men of knowledge, good faith, and honesty, if they affirm it to be the very thing, this man will then condemn his own imagination, and wpon credit call it so, and take it so to be: wherefore if in these things, I say, reason doth in a man stay sensuality, and if knowledge with honesty ruleth the judgment of rude understanding, and finally, if credit among men be so much regarded, how much more convenient is it that faith in God’s word (wherein can be no deceit as there is in men) should alter and change man’s judgment in reason, and bring it into the obedience of faith! Of that is bread after the judgment of our reason, after the report of our senses, Christ determineth unto us the substance of that to be his body, saying, This is my body: why shall not now a true christian man answer ever according to his faith, to say and profess the same to be the substance of Christ’s body upon credit of Christ’s words, as well as the carnal man will upon report of his senses conclude in reason there to be the substance of bread? whereby is not taken away the credit of our senses, as this author supposeth, which have their objects still true as they had before: for the colour, greatness, savour, and taste, all remain truly with the experiences of them as before: upon whose report reason nevertheless, mow reduced to the obsequy of faith, forbeareth reverently to conclude against the truth of faith, but according to faith, confesseth the substance to be the very substance of Christ’s body, and the accidents to remain in their very true nature, because faith teacheth not the contrary, and that it agreeth with the rule of faith so to be, and therefore remaineth a very true greatness, thickness, and weight, which may be called in common speech substance,” signifying the outward nature. And in that sense Theodoret, reasoning with an heretic, seemeth to call it, because, having spoken of substance remaining, he declareth what he meaneth by it, adding, it may be seen and felt as before;” which is mot the nature of substance properly, but by like common speech that remaineth may be called matter” as Origen called it; wherein also remain the true savour and taste, with true propriety to corrupt, or putrify, and also nourish; God so ordering the use of the creature of bread amd likewise wine in this mystery, as the inward nature of them, which indeed is the substance, but only comprehended in reason and understanding, is converted into the most precious substance of Christ’s body and blood, which is indeed a substance there present by God’s omnipotency, only to be comprehended by faith, so far as ^ may be wnderstanded of man’s weakness and imbecility. And where this author putteth a danger, if senses be not trusted, there is a gap open to the Valentinians and Marcionists, and therefore bringeth in the feeling of St Thomas: hereunto I say, that the truth of that feeling - dependeth upon a true belief, according to the scriptures, that Christ was very man; for else the Hom. xxvi. body glorified of Christ, as St Gregory noteth?, was not of the own glorified nature, then either visible or palpable; but therein Christ condescended to man’s infirmity, and as he was truth itself, left that a true testimony to such as humbly were disposed by grace to receive it, not to convince heretics, who can devise wayward answers to the external acts of Christ, as now-a-days they delude the miraculous entering of Christ to his disciples, the doors being shut. Our faith of the true manhood in Christ is truly believed by true preaching thereof, and by the scriptures; not by the outward senses of men, which altogether, we must confess, could be no certain, inevitable proof thereof. And therefore Christ appearing to his disciples going into Emmaus opened the scriptures to them for the proof of his death, that he suffered as very man; and yet he used also in some part to preach to their senses, with sensible exhibition of himself unto them. And so all Christ’s doings, which were most true, do bear testimony to the truth; but in their degree of. testimony, and the feeling of St Thomas, being (as St Gregory saith) miraculous, serveth for proof of amother thing, that God’s work in miracle doth not impair the truth of the thing wrought; and so St Thomas touched then Christ as truly by miracle, after his resurrection, in his body glorified, as if he had touched his body before glorification. Finally, in Christ’s acts or his ordinances be no illusions: all is truth and perfect truth, and our senses in the isible
[[’ Rude of understanding. Orig. ed. Winch.] [^ Homil. Pase. xxvi.] y]
(0 forms of bread and. wine be not illuded, but have their proper objects in those accidents; and ] “reason in carnal understanding, brought and. subdued in obsequy to faith, doth in the estimation of the host consecrate yield to faith, according whereunto we confess truly the same to be the u body of Christ. Where this author would. all the papists to lay all their heads together, &c., I know no such papists: but this I say without farther counsel, which this author with all his counsel shall not «void, we believe most certainly the resurrection of our flesh, and be persuaded by catholic teaching that the same flesh by participation of Christ’s godly flesh in the sacrament shall be made incorruptible; and yet after? the judgment of our senses and conclusions gathered of them, considering the manner of the continual [wasting of the said bodies, appear the utter] consumption, whereof some philosophers have at length after their reason declared their mind, whom christian men contemn with all the experience of senses, which they allege being vehement in that matter. We read in scripture of the feeding of angels, when Lot received them.
Canterbury
— Asin your answer to the third chapter of my book you have done nothing but dallied and trifled, even so do you likewise in the fourth chapter, and yet far more unseemly - than in the third. For doth it become a christian bishop of a matter of religion and a principal article of our faith to make a matter of bread and cheese; and of the holy supper of the Lord to make a resemblance of a dinner of hog’s flesh? And yet for persuasion of your purpose you make, as it were, a play in a dialogue between a rude man and a learned scholar, wherein the matter is so learnedly handled that the simple rude man sheweth himself to have more knowledge than both you and your learned scholar. And why you should bring in this matter, I know not, except it be to shew your ignorance to be as great in logic and philosophy as it is in divinity. For what an ignorance is this, to say that a man can know no difference between one substance and another, and that substances be not judged by any senses; and that all natural things be of these two parts, of substances and accidents; and that their accidents be - part of their substances, and be called their substances, their natures, and matters! Was there ever any such learning uttered before this time? May not all men now evidently perceive into what a strait your error hath driven you, that you have none other defence but to fly to such absurdities as be against the judgment of the whole world? Would you make men believe that they know not the substance of the bread from drink, nor of chalk from cheese? Would you lead the world into this error, that Christ was never in deed seen, heard, nor felt, when he walked here with his apostles? Did he not prove the truth of his very flesh and bones by sight, saying, “A spirit hath mot flesh and bones, as you see me have?” And although substances be not seen and known to our senses but by their accidents, yet be they indeed known, and properly known, and truly known by their accidents, and more properly seen than their accidents t be. For the accidents be rather the means to know the substance by, than the things — that be known. Is not wine known from beer by the taste? and mustard from sugar? ἱ is not a man discerned” from a beast, and one from another by sight? But when you — Is not one man known by his voice from another? and a shalm from a drum? And turn up all speeches, all reason, and all manner of knowledge, it is less to be marvelled that you turn up divinity also, wherein you can less skill than in the rest. i And where you say, that “the senses can no skill of substances, because they — may be deceived therein,” so may, they also be in the accidents. For do not the sun - and moon sometime look red by means of the vapours between us and them? And - doth not spectacles make all things look of the same colour that they be of? And if you hold up your finger directly between your eyes and a candle, looking full at the candle, your finger shall seem two; and if you look full at your finger, the candle shall seem two. And an ague maketh sweet things seem bitter, and that is sweet to one is bitter to another. And if a man having very hot hands, and another very cold, [? And yet not after. Orig. ed. Winch.] [5 The accidences, ed. 1551.]
[ The Orig. ed. Winch. omits the words within [ A shalm: i. e. a kind of musical pipe.]
[— brackets: they are found, however, in ed. 1551.] [7 Differed, ed. 1551.] [ One man, Ib.]]
if they handle both one thing, the one shall think it hot, and the other cold So that the senses may err as well in the accidents as in the substances, and cannot err in the — substances, except they err also in the accidents.
But in speaking of “substance,” you declare such a substance as never was nor never shall be, phantasying substance by your imagination to be a thing in itself, separated from all accidents; and so confounding the substances of all things, and mixting heaven and earth together, you make all substances but one substance, without any difference. And where Almighty God hath taught by his word that there be heavenly bodies and earthly bodies, and that every seed hath his own proper body, and that all flesh is not one flesh, but the flesh of men, of beasts, of fish, and of fowl, be divers; you teach by your words that all flesh is one flesh, and all substances one substance, and so confound you all flesh with hog’s flesh, making an hotch-potch, like unto him that made a great variety of dishes all of hog’s flesh. For take away the accidents, and I pray you what difference is between the bodily substance of tbe sun and the moon, of a man and a beast, of fish and flesh, between the body of one beast and another, one herb and another, one tree and another, between a man and a woman? yea, between our body and Christ’s? and generally between any one corporal thing and another? For is not the distinction of all bodily substances known by their accidents? without the which a man’s body cannot be known to be a man’s body. And as substances cannot be substances without accidents, so the nature of accidents cannot be without substances, whose being and definition is to be in substances.
← 13. Book IV. Of the Eating and Drinking · Contents · 15. Book II. Against Transubstantiation →