And howsoever the body and blood of our Saviour Christ be there present, they may as well be present there with the substance of bread and wine, as with the accidents of the same, as the school authors do confess themselves, and it shall be well proved if the adversaries will deny it. Thus you see the strongest argument of the papists answered unto, and the chief foundation whereupon they build their error of transubstantiation utterly subverted and overthrown.
Winchester
Wherein this author mot seeing how little he hath done, concludeth yet as constantly as though he had thrown all down afore him, intending to shew that the doctrine of tramsub-. stantiation dependeth only of authority, (which is not so,) using the sayings of Duns and Gabriel, as he reporteth them, for his purpose; because they, as he saith, boast themselves what they could do, if the determination of the council were mot: and thus every idle speech may — have estimation with this author against the recewed truth. And from this point of the mat- — ter, the author of this book maketh a passage with a little sport at them he fancieth, or liketh to call so, English papists, by the way to enterprise, to answer all such as he supposeth vea- - sons for transubstantiation and authorities also. ’ First, he findeth himself mirth in devising (as he calleth them) the papists to say that Christ is made anew; which fancy, if it were so, is against the real presence as well as transub- 1 stantiation. In which words because every wise reader may see how this author playeth, I - will say mo more but this: Christ is not made anew, mor made of the substance of bread, as of a, matter; and that to be the catholic doctrine, this author, if he be right named, knoweth well enough, and yet spendeth two leaves in it. if 1 CANTERBURY. When I have proved most evidently, as well by the testimony of the scripture, as by the consent of the old authors of Christ’s church, both Greeks and Latins, from the beginning continually from time to time, that transubstantiation is against God’s most holy word, against the old church of Christ, against all experience of our senses, against all reason, and against the doctrine of all ages, until the bishops of
[[ In bread and wine, 1551, and Orig. ed.] o EE]
Rome devised the contrary; therefore I conclude that the said doctrine of transub- — stantiation may justly be called the Romish or papistical doctrine. And where I — have shewed further, that the chief pillars of the papistical doctrine, as Duns, Gabriel, — Durand, with other do acknowledge, that if it had not been for the determination of - the church of Rome, they would have thought otherwise, (which is a most certain 5 argument that this doctrine of transubstantiation came from Rome, and therefore is - worthily called a papistical doctrine;) all this must be answered with these words,. “as this author reporteth,” and “Duns and Gabriel boast what they could do:” whereas neither Duns nor any of the other either brag or boast, but plainly and frankly. declare what they think. And if I report them otherwise than they say, reprove me therefore, and tell me wherein. But these be but shifts to shake off the matter that you cannot answer unto. Therefore, until you have made me a more full and direct answer, I am more confirmed in my assertion, to call transubstantiation a papistical doctrine than I was before.
But here you put me in remembrance of an ignorant reader, whose scholar I was in Cambridge almost forty years passed, who, when he came to any hard chapter - which he well understood not, he would find some pretty toy to shift it off, and to - skip over unto another chapter, which he could better skill of. The same is a common practice of you throughout your wliole book, that when anything in my book presseth you so sore that you cannot answer it, then finely with some merry jest or unseemly taunt you pass it over, and go to some other thing, that you persuade yourself you can better answer; which sleight you use here in two matters together: the one is where I prove the doctrine of transubstantiation to come from Rome; the other is that of your said doctrine of transubstantiation it followeth, that Christ every day is made anew, and of a new matter. In which two matters you craftily slide away from mine arguments, and answer not to one of them. Wherefore I refer to the judgment of the indifferent reader, whether you ought not to be taken for convinced in these two points, until such time as you have made a full answer to my proofs and arguments. For where you say that Christ is not made of the substance of bread as of a matter,” this is but a slippery evasion. For if Christ be made of bread, either he is made of - the matter of bread, or of the form thereof. ^ But the form,” say you, remaineth, ~ and is not turned into Christ’s body.” Therefore, if Christ be made of bread, you must needs grant that he is made of the matter of bread. 4 Now for the answer to the second reason of the papists my book hath thus. 1 Another reason have they of like strength. If the bread should remain, —say they, then should follow many absurdities, and chiefly, that Christ hath iy taken the nature of bread, as he took the nature of man, and so joined it to ~ his substance. And then, as we have God verily incarnate for our redemption, — 50 should we have him impanate. 1 Thou mayest consider, good reader, that the rest of their reasons be Very — weak and feeble, when these be the chief and strongest. Truth it is indeed, that Christ should have been impanate, if he had joined the bread unto his “Substance in unity of person, that is to say, if he had joined the bread unto him in such sort, that he had made the bread one person with himself. But forasmuch as he is joined to the bread but sacramentally, there followeth no impa- - mation thereof, no more than the Holy Ghost is inaquate, that is to say, made