Reply Against Gilbert Brown, Section 13
Maiſter Gilbert Browne.
4 Our doctrine is, that our Sauiour gaue his true fleſh and very body & blood vnderunder the formes of bread and wine, to be eaten of his diſciples at his laſt Supper, and that to be receiued by their very mouth: and this I ſay by the written word, is the doctrine of Chriſt & his Apoſtles. Chriſt ſayes, And the bread whilk I will giuegive you, Ioh. 6.51 Matth. 26, 7, 28is my fleſhe for the life of the world: and at the latter Supper, Take ye and eate ye, This is my bodie And Drinke ye all of this For this is my blood of the new Teſtament, whilk ſhalbe ſhed for many vntounto remiſsion of ſinnes: Marc. 14, 22, 24And in Saint Mark, This is my bodie, and this is my blood of the new Teſtament, Luk, 22, 19.20whilk ſhalbe ſhed for manie And Saint Luke ſayes, This is my bodie whilk is giuen for you: and this is the chalice of the new Teſtament in my blood whilk ſhalbe ſhed for you. This ſame is the doctrine of the Apoſtles. For Saint Paule ſayes, This is my bodie whilk ſhalbe delyuered for you: 1, Cor. 11.24, 25 27, 2…and this Chalice is the new Teſtament in my blood: and whoſoeuer ſhal eate this bread and drinke the Chalice of our Lord vnworthely, he ſhalbe guilty of the bodie and blood of our Lord: and after, For he that eates and drinkes vnworthelie eates and drinkes iudgement to himſelf, not decerning the body of our Lord: and in the chapter before, The Chalice of benediction whilk we do bliſſe is it not the communication of the blood of Chriſt? 1. Corinth. 10, 10and the bread whilk we break is it not the participation of the body of our Lorde
Maiſter Iohn Welſche his Reply.
I come nowe to the fourth point of your doctrine, your Tranſubſtantiation and reall preſence. The firſt ye quote, is the 6. of Iohn, And the bread whilk I will giuegive, is my fleſhe, &c. This makes nothing for your reall preſence. For firſt, our Sauiour ſpeakes not heere of that Sacramentall eating and drinking, of his fleſh & blood, in this ſermon, whilk was not inſtituted a yeere after that: for he ſpeakes heere of that eating and drinking of his fleſh and blood, without the whilk there is no life. So our Sauiour teſtifies in the 53. verſe, Except ye eate (ſayes he) the fleſhe of the ſonne of man, and drinke his blood, ye hauehave no life in you. But your ſelues graunts that men may be ſaued without that ſacramental eating: therefore it is not of that whilk he ſpeakes heir. Secondly, he ſpeakes of that eating and drinking of his fleſh and blood, whilk whoſoeuer ſo doth, hath eternall life to themſelues: ſo our Sauiour Chriſt promiſes in the 54. verſe. But your owne doctrine is, that the reprobate eates and drinkes Chriſts body & blood in the ſacrament, and yet hes no life in them: therfore he ſpeaks not heere of that ſacramental eating. Thirdlie, if he ſpeake heere of the ſacramentall eating as you ſay, then your Kirk not onlie hes erred foullie, but alſo hes bene and is the cauſe of the condemnation of your people theſe manie yeares, becauſe you giuegive them not his blood to drink And our Sauiour ſayes not onlie, Except ye eate the fleſh of the ſonne of man, but alſo, except ye drink his blood, ye hauehave no life in you. And this reaſon was ſo effectuall, that it hes moued ſundrie of your own Doctors to expone this place, not of the ſacramentall eating and drinking of the bodie & blood of Chriſt, As Ianſenius & Tapperus with ſundrie others.but of the ſpirituall eating and drinking of him by faith. For they did ſe that it behoued them either to forſake this place, as not making for them, and graunt that it ſpeakes not of the ſacrament: or elſe to confeſſe that their Kirk hes erred, and through this error, hes bene the cauſe of the damnation of manie, in miniſtring the ſacrament but vnderunder one kinde. And becauſe you ſay, if our expoſitions were remoued from the Scripture, they would ſerue for you: whome therefore will you credite in exponing of this place? If our Sauiour, heare then howe he expones this eating and drinking of his fleſh and blood in the 35. verſe. I am the bread of life, hee that commeth vntounto me ſhall not hunger, and he that beleeues in me ſhal neuer thirſt. So when we beleeue in Chriſt, we eate him: and when we come vntounto him, (whilk is only by faith) we drinke him. So (a)Tractat, 25 in Iohan. cap. 6 Tract. 26. & de doct. chriſtians lib. 3. cap. 16Auguſtine alſo expones this place. Beleeue, ſayes he, and thou hes eaten. (b)Lib. 1, Paedago. cap, 6.Clemens Alexandrinus and (c)In Pſal. 147Hieronimus & (d)Supra pſal. 90 verſ, 3Bernard al expones the fleſh & blood of Chriſt figuratiuelie. And if ye will credite none of theſe, then I hope, ye wil not diſcredite your own chief Doctors, who affirmes, that this place is not meaned of the Sacrament, but of the ſpirituall eating and drinking of Chriſt by faith. As (e)Bellarm. lib, 1, de Euchariſt, cap 5.Biel, Cuſanus, Caietanus, Heſſelius, and Ianſemus. And if ye wil reply that manie others of the Fathers hes exponed this place of the ſacrament, then Ianſenius and Tapperus two Papiſts will anſwere you: That they did it only by way of application vntounto the readers and hearers, to ſtirre them vp to the often receiuing of the Sacrament. So this place can ſerue nothing for your Tranſubſtantiation, for it ſpeaks not of the ſacrament, but of his ſuffering vponupon the Croſe for the away taking of our ſinnes, and the purchaſing to vsus of eternall life.
The next place ye quote, is the words of the inſtitution, as Matthew, Marke, Luke, and the Apoſt. rehearſes them. Your argument is this: Chriſt calles the bread his fleſhe, (and ſo Paule) and the wine his blood: therefore the bread is changed in his bodie, and the wine in his blood, the outwarde formes of bread and wine onlie remaining. This is the chiefe and principall ground of your reall preſence and Tranſubſtantiation. Whereunto I anſwere: Firſt, there is not a ſillable heere that telles vsus that the ſubſtance of the bread and wine is tranſ-changed in the bodie and blood of Chriſt, vnleſſe ye will expone this word, is my bodie, for, it is changed in my bodie, Eſt & Fieri, ſunt contrariawhilk is a monſtrous expoſition: for both it is contrarie to the natiue ſignification of the worde est; that ſignifies to be alreadie: (for to be alreadie, and to be in a change are contrarie) as alſo it hes not the like forme of ſpeache in the whole Scripture to vvarrand it: from the firſt of Geneſis, to the laſt of the Reuelation. (Bring one inſtance if yee can.) And Auguſtine ſayes, Auguſt. in Geneſ quaeſt 117. in Pſal 105. ſupr. Num. quaeſt 95.the ſolution of a queſtion ſhould be warranted by ſome example of the like ſpeache in the Scripture, the whilk you are not able to do: therfore your expoſition is without warrand. Next I ſay: By what arte of reaſoning can you gather this doctrine out of theſe places of Scripture? Chriſt ſayes of the breade, This is my bodie, and of the wyne, This is my bloode. Therefore the outwarde formes of the breade and wyne onlie remaines, but the ſubſtance of them is gone. Neuer ſik a inkling in all theſe texts of this doctrine of yours. Thirdlie, this interpretation and doctrine whilk reſults vponupon it, is fals, and that for theſe reaſons. Firſt, becauſe it is plainely gaine-ſaide by the Scripture. Secondly, becauſe it deſtroyes ſundrie articles of our faith, and many blaſphemous abſurdities doth follow vponupon it. 3. It deſtroyes the nature of the Sacrament. And laſt of all, is vtterly repugnant to the words of ye inſtitution. My argument then is this. That interpretation & doctrine whilk is gaine-ſaide, by the plaine teſtimonie of the Scripture, whilk deſtroyes the articles of our faith, and the fundamentall poyntes of our ſaluation, whilk hes many abſurdities following vponupon it, whilk ouerthrovves the nature of the Sacrament, and laſt of all, vvhilk is contrarie to the whole inſtitution, muſt be falſe, blaſphemous and erroneous. This cannot be denyed but your interpretation of theſe wordes this is my bodye &c. and your tranſubſtantiation whilk ye gather vponupon it, is ſik. Therefore it muſt be erroneous &c. My aſſumption I proue thus. Firſt your interpretation is gainſaide by the plaine teſtimony of the Scripture. Your interpretation is that there remaines no true bread nor wine in the ſacramēt, but the ſubſtance of it is changed. But Matthew, Mark, Luke. and the Apoſtles all foure teſtifies that Chriſt tooke bread, brake it, & gaue it to his Diſciples, & leaſt ye ſhuld ſay yt it was true bread & wine before the conſecration, 1. Cor. 10.16,but not after, ye ſcripture ſaies planely that it is bread whilk we brake, & bread whilk is eaten, and the frute of the Vine whilk is drunken in the ſacrament. The Apoſtles ſaies, the bread whilk we brake &c. And as oft as ye eate this bread &c. Whoſoeuer ſhall eate this bread &c. And let a man examine him ſelfe, and ſo let him eate of this bread &c. And our Sauiour ſayes, that after he had giuen the cup and they had drunken of it, from hence forth ſhall I not drink of the frutes of the wine with you &c. Therefore true bread and wine remaines in the ſacrament, contrarie expreſly to your interpretation. 2. That your interpretation deſtroyes the articles of our faith, I proue it thus. If this be true that the bread and wine be really changed in the bodie and blood of Chriſt in the ſacrament, as ye expound the words: firſt it will followe that either Chriſt aſcended not into heauen, becauſe he remayneth in the earth in the ſacrament: and ſo one of the articles of our beleefe is falſified. Or els, if ye ſay he aſcended once, but yet diſcends continually to be preſent in the ſacrament, then another article of our beleefe is falſified whilk ſaith, that he ſitteth at the right hand of God his father. Act. 3.2… foreign that is, whome the heauens muſt receiue till the reſtoring of all thingsAnd as Peter ſayes, abides in heauen whome the heauens muſt containe while the time of the reſtoring of all things come. Secondly it will followe that Chriſts bodie is made of the bread: for if the ſubſtance of the bread be changed in the bodie of Chriſt, then it muſt follow that the bread is becomme the bodie of Chriſt, and Chriſt his bodie is made of that bread, as the wine was made of the water at the mariage of Cana in Galilie. And ſo Bellarmine and Pope Iohn, Ioh. … Bellarm lib. 3 de Euchariſtia fol. 399. Iohn 22. Libro orat. inſcript. antidotar. animae& the maiſter of a)Lombard. lib. 4 diſtinct 11. cap. Bſentences grants that Chriſt is made of bread, and the ſubſtance of bread and wine is made Chriſts fleſh and bodie, and ſo here another article of our faith falſified, whilk ſaies, that Chriſt his body was made of the ſeede of the woman, and not of any other matter, and like to vsus in all thinges except ſinne. Thirdly, it wil followe that Chriſt had two bodies together, one vnderunder the forme of a man, and an other vnderunder the forme of breade: one ſpeaking and another dumbe: one giuing to his Diſciples to eate, and another the ſelfe ſame thing whilk was giuen to be eaten: yea, it ſhall follow, if your expoſition be true, in ſaying that Chriſts body and blood is vnderunder the formes of bread and wine in the ſacrament, not only that there are two Chriſts, one in heauen at the right hand of his father viſible, glorious and in one place: and another Chriſt in the earth inuiſible, circumſcriued by no place: but alſo that there are as manie Chriſts as there are ſacraments in the earth, yea, as manie Chriſts as there are bitts of bread in euerie ſacrament, and ſo the foundation of our ſaluation is ouerturned. Fourthly it will follow that the body and blood of Chriſt are ſeparate, as the bread and wine in the ſacrament whilk is turned in them is ſeparated. Fifthly it will follow that his body is ſeparate from his ſoule, and ſo a dead bodie, becauſe the bread and wine are not changed in his ſoule, but only in his bodie. Sextly it will followe that the breade in the firſt ſupper being changed in the bodie of Chriſt, that the ſubſtance of the bread hes ſuffered for vsus, died for vsus, and riſen againe for vsus: and hes a part of our redemption, whilk is blaſphemous to think. Seuenthly, it will follow that Chriſt eated his owne bodie and dranke his owne bloode whilk is abſurde: Hom. 83. in Mat. De conſecr diſt 2 canon. Nec Moſes.for Chryſoſtome and your canon Lawe teſtifies that he eate the ſame thing whilk he gaue to his Diſciples. And alſo he ſaies him ſelfe, from hence forth will I not drinke with you any more of the frute of this vine &c. So he drank of that whilk they drank of. And laſt of al it will followe that the Maſſe Preiſt is the creator of his creator: and ſo their Breuiaries and Lombardus, and Bellarmine grants. In their Breuiaries the Prieſt ſaies. Qui creauit me ſine me, creatur media…te me: that is, He that created me without me is created by my moyen. a)Diſtinct. 11, lib, 4. cap. 5Lombardus ſaies, the Prieſts are ſaid to make the bodie and blood of Chriſt, becauſe by their miniſtrie the ſubſtance of the bread is made his fleſhe. And **…b. 3. de Euchariſt. cap. 24. Sacerdotes confi… unt corpus Chriſti ex paneBellarmine ſaies, that the Preiſts makes Chriſt his bodie of bread. Now if their be no blaſphemous abſurdities, I know not what is blaſphemie. Now chuſe yee whether ye will ſubſcriue to all theſe abſurdities, whilk you with all the wit of the Romane Clergie is not able to eſchew if ye graunt this interpretation of yours to be true: or will you forſake this interpretation of yours, as falſe, erroneous, and contrarie both to the plaine Scriptures of God, and the articles of our faith, and the grounds of our ſaluation. As to the third. Your interpretatiō deſtroies the nature of al ſacraments, & makes the ſupper of the Lord no ſacrament, for euerie ſacrament conſiſtes of an outward and viſible ſigne, & of a ſpiritual thing ſignified by that ſigne: the whilk ſigne hes a reſemblance with the thing ſignified. The ſigne is euer earthly, and the thing ſignified is heauenly, as ſhall appeare by all the reſt of the ſacraments, both of the olde and ſigne Teſtamēt. In a)Gen. 2.9. Apoc 2.7Paradiſe ther was a verie tree for the ſigne and Chriſt the thing ſignified by it. In b)Geneſ, 17 9, 10, Rom. 4, 11. Deut, 30.6, Col. 2.11circumciſion there was a cutting of the skin, and the cutting off of ſinne. In the c)Exod. 12.1, Cor 5.7.8. Ioh. 19.36.Paſſeouer there was a Lamb & Chriſt. And in the d)Heb. 4, 1.3, 4, 5. &c.Sabaoth ther was a day of reſt, & eternal reſt. In the e)Heb. 9 24Sāctuarie there was an holy place, & heauen. In the f)1, Cor 10, 4wildernes there was an Rock yeelding water, and Chriſt yeelding his blood. In the g)Iohn ….32,apparition there was a doue, and the holy Ghoſt. In the h)1 Cor, 10.3manna ther was bread, & Chriſt. In i)Tit. 3.5. 1. Pet. 3.21Baptiſme there was very water whilk waſheth vsus, and Chriſts blood waſhing our ſinns. Therefore in the ſacrament of the ſupper muſt be bread and wine feding this naturall life, and reſembling our communion one with another, 1. Cor. 10, 16, 17.and Chriſts fleſh and blood feeding our ſpirituall life: otherwayes this ſacrament is againſt the nature of all other ſacraments, whilk is abſurd to thinke and ſhould be no ſacrament at all as Auguſtine ſayes, Epiſt. 2…if the ſacraments had not a reſemblance with the things whereof they are ſacraments: they ſhuld not be ſacraments at all. But your interpretation and doctrine deſtroies both the ſignes, & the reſemblance whilk they ſhould hauehave with the things ſignified in the ſupper, for ther is no outwarde ſigne there whilk is an earthly ſubſtance, but only accedents of collor, & quantitie, if your doctrine be true, & ther is nothing there to reſemble eyther our ſpiritual nuriture by the fleſh and blood of Chriſt, or yet our ſpirituall fellowſhip one with another: vnles you will ſay that accedents feeds, and nouriſhes, the whilk if you will ſay: then to ſay no more to it, but this: if you & your common clergie who is ſo bolde and ſtrong in maintaining this monſtrous Tranſubſtantiation of yours againſt the truth of God, were fed with no better ſubſtance, nor accidents: then, I ſay, you would hauehave fainted long ſince in the defence of it. Seing therefore your interpretation makes the Supper to be no Sacrament, & makes it vn-lyke all other Sacraments, therefore it muſt be fals and erroneous. As to the fourth, that it is againſt the whole inſtitution, and vſe thereof, I proue it thus. Firſt, I will aske you what was it whilk Chriſt tooke in his hand? if you ſay his fleſh, then the text will ſay the contrarie, And Ieſus tooke bread, in all the three Euangeliſts, and the Apoſtle Paule. So it was bread whilk he tooke, after he did take it, he bliſſed it: what did he bliſſe? but the bread whilk he had taken: ſo it is yet bread: after he bliſſed it, he brake it: what did he break? If you ſay it was his fleſh or bodie, then the Scripture will ſay the contrarie: there was not a bone of him broken. And the Apoſtle ſayes, Exod. 1… Iohn 19. 1. Cor. 10It is bread whilk we breake. So it is bread whilk is broken. Then yet it is bread. After he brake it, he gaue it: What gaue he but the thing whilk he brake? 1, Cor. 10.17 & 11, 26, 27, 28and what brake he but bread? ſo it is bread whilk he gaue. After he had giuen it they receiued it, and did eate it. But what did they eate? But that whilk he gaue: and therefore the Apoſtle ſaies foure times, It is bread whilk is eaten, and vvhereof vve are partakers, and that after the conſecration: for it is broken, giuen and receiued, and eaten, after the conſecration. And when they did eate it, he ſaide, This is my bodie, what did he call his bodie but that whilk they did eate, and that was bread. So when then, Maiſter Gilbert, ſhould this change be? ſeing it is bread al the time while he tooke it, bleſſed it, and gaue it, and they did eate. For, I trow, ye will not ſay it is changed after it is broken, and giuen, and in eating. Secondlie, I will aske you, what are the wordes whereby this monſtrous change is made, as ye ſuppoſe, of the ſubſtance of the bread, in Chriſts bodie? If this change be made by anie word ſpoken in the inſtitution of this Sacrament: then, I ſay it muſt either be by this word: And he bliſſed it: or by theſe words, This is my bodie, &c. But not by the firſt: for after he bliſſed it, he called it bread. And the Apoſtle ſayes it is bread whilk wee brake, therefore it remaines bread after the bliſſing. Not by the other words: for if they be not ſpoken to the breade and wine, they cannot change their nature: But Marke ſayes plainly they were ſpoken to the Diſciples, And he ſaide vntounto them, This is my blood: Marc. 14 24 In h…s rational…therefore they changed not their nature. And Durand a Papiſt ſaies, that this change is made by the bleſsing, therefore not by theſe words whilk were pronounced after the bleſsing. And theſe words cannot worke a change: Geneſ. Ioh. 12for they are not words importing an operation as theſe are, Let light be: let the earth bring forth fruit, come out Lazarus, and ſik-like: but onlie ſignifying the things themſelues, as theſe are, Thou art my welbeloued Sonne. So if theſe wordes ſhoulde hauehave wrought anie change, they woulde not hauehave bene This is my body &c. but Let this be my bodie: therefore there is no ſik change at all heir as ye imagine. Thirdlie, it ſhould followe that the Cup ſhould alſo be changed in his blood, and in the new Teſtament, becauſe Chriſt calles the Cup his blood and newe Teſtament, as he calles the bread his bodie. But this you will not ſay: wherefore then are you ſo abſurd as to ſay the other. Fourthlie, I will aske you whether do ye receaue in the Sacrament that body whilk is mortall, or that body whilk is glorified: for one of them you muſt receaue: either Chriſts bodie as it was mortal, or his body as it is now glorified. If ye ſay a mortall bodie, then I ſay Chriſt hes not a mortall bodie to giuegive you now in the Sacrament, for it is glorified: therefore ye cannot receiue it: if ye ſay an immortall and glorified bodie, then I ſay, ye muſt ſeeke another warrand nor this text of Matthew, Mark, and Luke. For at that time his bodie was not glorified. For the Sacrament was inſtituted before his death, and he was not glorified vntill after his reſurrection: and if ye receiue that ſame body whilk the Apoſtles then receiued: then, ye receiue not a glorified body. What a body is this then whilk ye receiue, neither mortall nor glorified? Fifthlie, the text ſayes, they who receiues vnworthelie, receiues their owne damnation: But if Chriſtes fleſh and blood were there preſent, as ye ſay: then al who receiued it ſhould receiue their ſaluation, becauſe our Sauiour ſayes, Ioh. 6.54He that eates my fleſhe and drinke, my blood hath lyfe euerlaſting. Now I conclude, ſeing your interpretation of theſe places of Scripture, and your doctrine of Tranſubſtantiation whilk ye gather thereupon, firſt is plainlie gain-ſaide by the expreſſe teſtimonies of the Scripture, next ouerthrowes all the maine foundations of our ſaluation, and articles of our faith: thirdlie deſtroyes the nature of a Sacrament and maketh it no Sacrament at all, and like no other Sacrament either of the olde or new Teſtament, and laſt of all is contrarie to the whole inſtitution thereof, as, I hope, I hauehave ſufficientlie prooued: therefore of neceſsitie it muſt be falſe & erroneous.
As for the 10. of the Corinth. 16. The Cup of bliſsing whilk wee bliſſe, is it not the communication, and the bread whilk we breake, is it not &c. I anſwere: this Sacrament of bread and wine, becauſe it not onlie repreſents and ſeales vp to vsus our communion both with Chriſt: but alſo by it, as by a moſt effectual inſtrument the holy Ghoſt increaſes & nouriſhes this communion, both with him, and amongſt our ſelues: therefore it is called the communication of his bodie and blood. But this moſt clearlie proues, that there is no ſik change heir as ye ſuppoſe: for the Apoſt. ſayes plainlie, the bread whilk we break, and this breaking you ſay is after the conſecration: therfore after the conſecration true bread remains in the Sacrament and ſo there is no Tranſubſtantiation in the ſame. But becauſe you ſay the ſubſtance of the bread & wine is not there I pray you tell me whither are they gone? whether are they turned to nothing, or are they changed in Chriſts bodie. If you ſay they are turned to nothing: firſte, I ſay this were a ſtrange kinde of reaſoning: This is my bodie, therefore the ſubſtance of the bread is turned to nothing: next the Apoſtle ſhould not ſpeake truelie, to call it bread whilk is broken, and bread whilk is eaten, &c. if it were turned to nothing. Thirdly then this ſhould not be called Tranſubſtantiation, or changing of one ſubſtance into another: but an annihilation of one ſubſtance, that is, a turning of it to nothing, and a bringing in of another ſubſtance in the roome of it. And fourthly Thomas of Aquine, Lib. 4. diſt. …your great defender of this doctrine is againſt this. But if you ſay, they are turned in Chriſts bodie, whilk the word Tranſubſtantiation imports: then, I ſay, as oft as the Sacrament hes bene miniſtrated, as oft hes there bene ſome quantitie of ſubſtance ciked to his bodie: and it ſhall ſtill grow in greatnes and quantitie, as long as it ſhall be miniſtred: but this is monſtrous to thinke. And to end this, if you ſay there is no ſubſtance of bread and wine left in the Sacrament, then let me aske you whoſe are the whiteneſſe, and readneſſe, and roundneſſe that we ſee: What meanes this taiſt in our mouthes of bread and wine, if there be no ſubſtance of them there. May we not ſay to you as Chriſt ſaide to Thomas, who doubted of his reſurrection, Put thy finger heir, beholde my handes, put thy hand in my ſide, and be not incredulous but beleeue. So, may not we ſay to you, who doubteth whether the ſubſtance of bread & wine be heir remayning yet, touch them, taiſt them, looke on them, and feele them, and be not incredulous, but beleeue. For beholde, there would not be ſik a coullour, ſik a taiſt and ſmell, and there were not ſubſtance of bread and wine heir. And I pray you tel me what is this that rottes then & growes in Mauks in the bread, and ſowers in the wine, if they be long kept? If their ſubſtance remaineth not, will you ſay Chriſts fleſh and blood rots and conſumes & ſowers, what is this but to mak him mortall, yea to crucifie him againe. And if you will not ſay that, then either muſt you confeſſe that their ſubſtance remaines and is not changed, or els Chriſts fleſh and blood is tranſubſtantiated in theſe ſubſtances whilk rots & ſowres, or els that the accidents is changed againe in their ſubſtances: & ſo ye ſhall not hauehave one, but maa changes in your Sacrament. Yea, if their ſubſtance be gone, and nothing but their accidents remaining, then how could Pope Victor the 3. and the Emperour Henrie the 7. hauehave bene poyſoned with them, Faſciculus temp. Platina, Blond.accidents and Chriſts body could neither poiſon them nor be capable of poiſoun: therefore they felt by experience that there was no Tranſubſtantiation in the Sacramēt. So we ſee the textes ye brought with you, is againſt you as ye ſword that Goliah brought to ſlay Dauid, cutted off his owne head. But yet you wil ſay, If the bread be not his bodie, why then did he call it his bodie: this is the chiefe thing you hauehave for your doctrine, and anſwere this, and the plea is wonne. VntoUnto this then I anſwere, 1, Cor, 11, 24 Luc. 21 foreign whilk is giuen in the preſent time,that in that ſame ſenſe he ſaid This is my bodie, in the whilk he ſaid afterward whilk is broken for you But there can be no ſenſe of theſe words, but this; the bread was broken, and ſignified that his bodye ſhoulde be broken with the ſorrowes of death: for his bodie was not broken before he ſuffered: and the Apoſtle ſayes, it is bread whilk is broken: ſo then as the breaking of the bread ſignified the breaking of his body: ſo the bread ſignified his bodie: & as his body was not broken indeede when the bread was broken: ſo the bread could not be his bodie in very deede when he ſo called it. For the reſemblance & likenes therefore betwene the breade and his bodie the breade it is called his bodie: &c. and this phraſe is verie frequent in the ſcripture to giuegive the name of the things ſignified to the ſigne, as ſhall be ſeene afterward.