But as you speak of substances and accidents against scripture, sense, reason, experience, and all learning, so do you also speak manifestly against yourself. For you say, that “every thing that is must have a substance wherein it is stayed, and that every natural visible thing is of two parts, of substance and accidents;” and yet by. your transubstantiation you leave no substance at all, to stay the accidents of the bread and wine. 9)
And, moreover, this is a marvellous teaching of you, to say that the accidents of bread be one part of bread, and be called “the outward kind of bread, the sensible part of bread, the nature and matter of bread, and very bread.” Was there ever any such learning taught before this day, that accidents should be called parts of substances, the nature of substances, and the matter of substances, and the very substances themselves? If ever any man so wrote, tell who it is, or else knowledge the truth, that all these matters be invented by your own imagination, whereof the rude man may right well say, Here is sophistry indeed, and plain juggling. But you convey not your juggling so craftily but that you be taken (as the Greeks term it) ἐπαντοφώρῳ, even. with the manner.
Now, as concerning your expert lapidary, if his senses be deceived, how shall he judge a true stone from a counterfeit? Doth he not diligently look upon it with his sight, to discern truly of it? For tell me, I pray you, how a man without senses ’ shall judge a true diamond? Put out his eyes, and is not a white sapphire, a diamond, and a glass, all one - in his judgment? Marry, if he be a man of clear sight, of true knowledge and expe-. rience in the judgment of stones, and be therewithal a man of good faith and honesty, as you tel the tale, they that be ignorant will be ashamed to control his judg- ment. But if he be blind, or be a man neither of faith nor honesty, but his experi- - ence hath been ever exercised to deceive all that trust him, and to sell them white. sapphires for diamonds, then no man that wise is will take a glass or sapphire at his #1 hands of trust, although he say it be a true diamond. Even so likewise the papists, Ὁ (being so accustomed with these” merchandises of glistering glasses and counterfeit drugs to deceive the world), what wise men will trust them with their feigned transubstan- tiation, being so manifestly against the plain words of scripture, against all reason, sense?, and ancient writers? And although you have taken never so great labour and pains in this place to answer mine arguments, (wherein you do nothing else but shew your ignorance in philosophy and logic,) yet all is in vain, except you could prove tran-
[[’ Their, 1551.] [? Dredges, 1551.] [ Senses, 1551.]]
] AGAINST TRANSUBSTANTIATION. 261 substantiation to be a matter of our faith; which being not proved, all that you have spoken here serveth to no purpose, nor concludeth nothing. For you are not so ignorant in sophistry but you know well enough, that of a false antecedent can no i consequent directly follows. And as concerning these words of Christ, “This is my body,” by your own teaching in these words he called bread his body, which can be no formal and proper Speech, but spoken by a figure, as the order of the text plainly declareth, and all the old authors do testify.
And where you say, that “although the substance of bread and wine be gone, yet the senses have their proper object still remaining,” as they had before, that is to say, the colours, greatness, thickness, weight, savour, and taste; express then, I pray you, plainly, what thing it is that is coloured, great, thin or thick, heavy or light, savoury or tasted. For seeing you confess that these do remain, you must confess also that there remaineth bread: for that greatness, thickness, thinness, coours, and weight, be not in the body of Christ, nor in the air, which cannot be weighed; and in something they must needs be: for by your own saying, ever thing hath a substance to stay it;” therefore they must needs be in the substance of bread and wine. And to say that the accidents of bread be the natures, matters, - and substances thereof, is nothing else but to declare to the world that you make words to signify at your pleasure.
But other shift have you none to defend your transubstantiation, but to devise such monstrous kinds of speeches as were never heard of before. For you say, that the nature, matter, and substance of bread and wine remain not, but be changed into the body and blood of Christ:” the old writers say directly contrary, that the nature, matter, and substance remain. Christ,” saith Theodoret, called bread and wine his body and blood, and yet changed not their natures.” And again he saith: “The bread and wine after the consecration lose ποὺ their proper nature, but keep their former substance, form, and figure, which they had before.” And Origen saith, that “the matter of bread availeth nothing, but as concerning the material part thereof it goeth down into the belly, and is avoided downward?.” And Gelasius saith, that the nature and substance of bread and wine cease not to be.” Now seeing that your - doctrine (who teach that the nature, matter, and substance of bread and wine be -ehanged and remain not) is as clean contrary to these old writers, with many other, - as black is contrary to white, and light to darkness, you have no remedy to defend your error and wilful opinion, but to imagine such portentous and wonderful kinds of speeches to be spoken by these authors, as never were uttered before by no man, — that is to say, that the outward appearance and accidents of any thing should be called the nature, matter, and substance thereof. But such monsters had you rather — bring forth, than you would in one jot relent in your error once by you uttered, and undertaken by you? defended. And yet bring you nothing for the proof of your — saying, but that if the authors words should be understand as they be spoken, this — should follow thereof, that bread and wine should be seen and felt; which as no — man doubteth of, but all men take it for a most certain truth, so you take it for - a great inconvenience and absurdity. So far be you forced in this matter to vary in speech and judgment from the sentence and opinion of all men.