Rejoinder to Bristows Reply, Part 2 · Book 4 · Chapter 11
CAP. XI.
Why the Sacrament is called breade Sander.after consecration
If Master Sander had first prooued, that the Sacrament Fulk.is not bread after consecration, wee might easily hauehave yelded to the reason that might be brought why it is called, that which in nature it is not. As wee can yeld many reasons, why the Sacrament is called the body of Christ, although it be not the body of Christ in the nature of it: yet it is meete, that first wee prooue that it is not his body after that manner, that the Papistes defend, and then shewe reasons why it is called by the name of that which it doth signifie. But let vsus heare Sanders reasons.
First the Hebrue tongue, which the Euangelists & Apostles writing Greek, doth follow, vseth ye name bread for all maner of food. Secondly, a thing is called by the name of yt which it was, and not which it is, as Aarons rod is said to hauehave deuoured the roddes of the coniurers, yet was it turned from a rodde to a serpent. Exod. 7.
Thirdly, a thing is called not onelyonly as it is, but as it seemeth outwardly to be: so the Angell which the woman sawe at the sepulchre, is called a yong man. Marke 16. And in all these three respectes, the Sacrament is called bread, when it is not naturall bread. For it is a kind of foode, it was bread, and seemeth to be breade. But I will prooue, that in none of these respectes, it is called bread, but because it is naturall bread in deede, without conuersion of the substance.
First, whatsoeuer is saide in Saint Iohn. Cap 6. is not particular to the Sacrament: for bread is there taken figuratiuely for spirituall foode, which wee hauehave without the Sacrament.
Secondly, when S. Paul calleth the Sacrament bread, after consecration, there is no reason why the name of bread should not be taken for materiall bread, changed in vse, not in substance as the name of breade taken before consecration 1. Cor. 11. and where the Apostle saith the breade which wee breake, he sheweth plainlie, that he speaketh of material breade, for the bodie of Christe, nor spiritual foode, nor general foode are not broken. Secondly, in the conuersion of Aarons rodde, there was a sensible change, there is none such in the Sacrament. Thirdly, as the Angel had some appearance of a man in externall shape of bodie, so he had other manifest tokens in him that declared him to be an Angell, and no man: but the Sacramentall bread hath in it all tokens of material bread, and no sensible token of the bodie of Christ, therefore the comparison is nothing like. The water turned into wine, was iudged by the taste to be wine & not water. There can be no such iudgement in the Sacramentall bread: for as materiall bread it tasteth, and partaketh all accidents: yea, it nourisheth, and corrupteth, which neither bare accidents, nor ye bodie of Christ doeth or can doe.
The authorities that Sander citeth, to proue, that the Sacramentall bread, is called the bodie and flesh of Christ, do not denie that it is material bread: yea, many of the old writers, expressely affirme, that it is so. Yet let vsus consider his authorities. Ignatius, Ep. 2. ad Rom. saith. Panem Dei volo, quod est caro Christi: I desire the bread of God, quod, which thing is the flesh of Christ. Verily, Ignatius saith no more here, then Zwinglius saide, which was no friend to transubstantiation. Secondly, Iustinus saith, Hic cibus, &c. this meate is called with vsus the Eucharist, or thanksgiuing: & after he saith: We take not these things as common bread & drink, but wee hauehave learned that the meate which is consecrated by the words of praier, taken of him, to be the flesh & bloud of Christ. He that denieth the Sacrament to be cōmon bread, doth not denie it to be naturall bread. And Iustinus interlaceth that which Sander omitteth, foreign. That meat, of which our bloud & flesh, by transmutation are nourished, we hauehave learned to be the flesh & bloud of yt Iesus, that was incarnate. That which nourisheth our flesh & bloud, is material bread, although it be not cō mon bread. Thirdly, Hilarie saith: Nos verè &c. we truly take the word flesh, in our Lordes meate. The same Hilarie saith afterward: verè sub mysterio, truely, vnderunder 2 mysterie, we receiue the flesh of his bodie. Fourthly, Cyprian, lib. 2. Ep. 3. saith, Christ offered bread & wine, that is to say, his owne bodie & bloud. Here Sander cutteth off ye beginning of Cyprians words, which manifestly proue material bread & wine: Obtulit hoc idem quod Melchizedech obtulerat, id est, panem & vinu, suum scilicet corpus & sanguinē: He offered the selfe same thing that Melchizedek had offered, that is to say, bread & wine, namely his bodie & bloud. Speake Sander, & tel vsus, was it not material bread & wine which Melchizedek brought forth? the selfsame thing, saith Cyprian, offered Christ, which yet was his bodie & bloud, after a certeine maner. After what maner you may learne, In these wordes, you hauehave not onelyonly the spirituall manner, after which the breade and wine are called his body and bloud, but also the same breade and wine, to be made of cornes & grapes, which I trow cā be none other but material bread and wine. Fifthly, Irenaeus saith it is not now common bread, but the Eucharisty. lib. 4. C. 34. The same Irenaeus in the same place saith: that Eucharistia ex duabus rebus constant, terrena & coelesti, the Sacrament consisteth of two things, an earthly thing, and an heauenly. Likewise he saith, yt of the bread & wine, being made the Eucharisty, auge…ur & consistit carnis nostrae substantia, the substāce of our flesh is increased and consisteth. lib. 5. that is not of accidents, nor of the reall body of Christ. Sixtly, Ambrose de Sacr. lib. 5. calleth our daiely bread, supersubstantiall breade, and yet I weene, it be still naturall food of the body. But he saith more. Non iste panis est qui vadit in corpus: sed illa panis vitae aeternae qui animae nostrae substantiam fulcit: It is not the bread which goeth into the body, but that bread of euer lasting life, which holdeth vp the substance of our soule. I like this saying of Ambrose, or whosoeuer writ that booke, very well. The Sacrament is not that bread which goeth into the body, ergo the Sacrament is not the naturall body of Christ, which the Papistes affirme to be a kind of bread, that goeth into ye body. Seuenthly, Gregory of Nyssa saieth, in vita Mosis, panis est, &c. It is bread prouided for vsus, without seede, without plowing, without any other worke of man. But he saith immediatly before, that it is receiued with a pure and cleane mind, and is an heauenly meate, therefore a spirituall food, spiritually to be receiued, and not bodily Eightly, S. Augustine Tra. 26. in Io…n saith. when would flesh vnderstand this thing, th… he called bread flesh? In deed the spirituall manner of nourishing, is not possible to be vnderstood of the flesh, but ye fleshly transubstantiation may be vnderstood of eueryevery fleshly man. Ninethly, Isychius in Leuit. li. 6. C. 22. nameth the bread which S. Paule saith, is eaten vnworthily, nutritorem substantiae nostrae intelligibilis, the nourisher of our spirituall substance. He meaneth, if it bee worthily receiued, otherwise it is damnation to him that eateth vnworthily. Lastly, Sedulius in Op. Pasc. saieth of the bread which Christ gaue to Iudas. Panem cui tradidit ipse, Qui panis tradendus erat. To whome he himselfe gaue bread, which bread was to be betrayed. A great miracle, if a Poet speake specially. But nowe directy against transubstantiation, speake many doctors. Origen saith in Mat. Cap. 15. The sanctified meat, by that which it hath materiall, goeth into the belly, and is cast foorth into the draught. Likewise, the matter of the bread profiteth not, &c. Theodoret Di…l. 1. saith, Simbola, &c. The symboles or tokens which are seene, he honoured with the name of his bodie and bloud, not changing the nature, but adding grace to the nature. Likewise Dialog. 2. he saith, Manent in p…iori substantia, the bread and wine after sanctification, abide in their former substance.
Gelasius, a bishop of Rome, cont. Eutich. writeth of the bread and wine in the Sacrament: Et tamen esse non definit substantia & natura panis & vini. The substance and nature of the bread and wine ceasseth not to remaine.
These sayings with diuerse other, are direct against transubstantiation, and therefore lewdly doth Sander abuse the readers with a number of places of the old writers, to proue it, of which, not one of them hath a reasonable colour, when it is examined.