Answer to Reynolds Book, Chapter 8
CHAP. 8.
Of Bezaes tranſlating a place of ſcripture, Act. 3. and of the Reall preſence.
MAſter Rainolds leaueth M. Iewell, pag. 170. &c.and proceedeth to maintaine a quarell of M. Martine againſt Bezaes trā ſlation of certaine wordes vttered by the Apoſtle Saint Peter, and recorded by S. Luke. Act. 3. v. 21. It were a vanitie to ſpend manie words about ſo ſmall a matter: and therefore ſuffering, this man, that knoweth no meaſure either of ſpeaking, or holding his peace, to talke his pleaſure, I will herein vſe no more wordes, then the thing requireth, that is, as few, as I can poſſiblie.
The wordes are theſe, foreign, in latine, worde for worde, quem oportet quidem coelum recipere: the wordes both in Greeke, and latine are ambiguous, as any man may ſee: in which reſpecte Beza thought better to tranſlate them thus, quem oporter quidem coe locapi, which, in effect and true meaning, is al one with the other, but yet ſome thing plainer. This worthie matter you handle by ſeuerall pointes, as becommeth a man of ſuch diſcretion.
Firſt, you ſay, it is ſaucy and malapert for any man, of purpoſe to reſtraine that, pag. 172.which the holy ghoſt hath left at large. If this be ſo, then hath your vulgare interpreter bene ouer ſaucy and malapert often times. Examples of ſuch ſaucines I might alledge many in his tranſlation, if cauſe required. I graunt a man cannot be too preciſe, and religious in tranſlating the wordes of holy ſcripture: and that it ought to be the eſpeciall care of a godly tranſlator, neither to reſtraine, nor enlarge any thing, as farre forth as he may performe by skill and diligence: for ſo much as the text may afford a doctrine, ſometime in his original and naturall wordes, which by altering in the tranſlation is ſoone marred. But theſe admitt no other ſenſe, then one; & therefore no matter whether a man ſay, that heauen muſt receiue Chriſt, or Chriſt muſt be receiued in heauen; the meaning is all one. For as for the conceite of ſome, which you affirme may perhappes be true, that Chriſt ſhould receiue heauen, it paſſeth al compaſſe of reaſon or diuinitie. Howe, I pray you, doth Chriſt receiue heauen? by his diuine power? but the Apoſtle ſpeaketh of Chriſts aſcenſion, as in the text appeareth, and all interpreters vnderſtande the wordes: how then doth Chriſt receiue heauen in his humanitie, wherein he aſcended, and whereof the Apoſtle ſpeaketh? tell vsus if you can. Againe, why ſaith the Apoſtle vntill the time that all things are reſtored, if he meane that Chriſts diuinitie receiued heauen, which then receiued it no otherwiſe, then it hath euer, and ſhall euer receiue it? for that by taking heauen ſhould be meant the rule and gouerment of heauen which Chriſt at his aſcenſion receiued, this interpretation I know ſeemeth but abſurd to your ſelfe: and therefore you may leaue it for others to defend, whome for this matter Beza hath fully anſwered. Your ſecond & third points, where in you vrge and proſecute M. Martins reprehenſion, I omit, as vn worthie of anſwere. Beza tranſtated the place trulie in ſenſe, as your ſelfe cannot deny: the cauſe that mooued him a litle to alter the wordes, was to auoide doubtfull and ambiguous conſtruction. That Illyricus is not contented with this tranſlation, what maruel, ſeeing he wil hauehave Chriſts body contayned in no place? If you be of his iudgement, you may vſe his authoritie againſt Beza herein. But where hath Caluine reprooued Bezaes tranſlation of theſe wordes? why hauehave neither you, nor Gregorie Martine noted the place, or ſet downe the reprehenſion? you hauehave good cauſe to be aſhamed of ſuch egregious trifling.pag. 175.
Beza hath ſufficientlie cleared his tranſlation from charge of corruption in ſenſe by S. Nazianzens authoritie,Nazianz. de filio Conc. 2. whoe reporteth in Greeke, theſe wordes of S. Peter euen altogether in ſuch ſorte, as Beza hath expreſſed them in his latine tranſlation. So all you hauehave to ſay againſt Beza or me in this matter, is for rendering a verbe deponent by a verbe paſſiue, keeping threrein the ſenſe moſte trulie, and exactly.
Your friuolus inuectiue againſt our tranſlations and tranſlatours, I paſſe ouer.pag. 176. M. Martine hath written of this matter ſo much already, as your wholl Colledge of Rhemes could vtter: vntounto whoſe vnlearned and weake diſcourſe, which he calleth (a diſcouerie) a learned Doctor hath made anſwere long agoe.Martins diſcouerie. The anſwere you hauehave amongſt you, confute it if you can. Otherwiſe in this behalfe thinke your ſelues fullie ſatisfied.
Here are we entred into a large treatiſe of Reall preſence, pag. 178. &c.for which M. Rainolds ſeemeth to be verie zealous and carefull, leſt it ſhould receiue ſome diſcountenaunce by the former words of S. Peter, as needes it muſt, tranſlate them how you liſt, ſo you tranſlate them trulie. For Saint Peter, ſpeaking of Chriſts humanitie, ſaith, that heauen muſt receiue him, vntill the time that all things are reſtored. Hereof it followeth,Act. 3.21. that Chriſt as touching his humanity is not receiued or contained in the ſacrament, or els in any other place, then heauen. This is a plaine, a certaine,Chriſt aſcending in his humanity into heauen hath left no place for Reall preſence in the ſacrament. an inuincible trueth: ſo not we hauehave taken from you Chriſts Reall preſence, but Chriſt, in carying vp his bodie out of this world into heauen, hath himſelfe actuallie ouerthrowne your fantaſticall imaginations of his bodelie and carnall preſence on the earth.
Before you come to anſwere this argument, according to your olde wont you ſpeake and ſpend much idle talke, wherein nothing asketh anſwere, but that by conference of other places you would weaken the force of the word, foreign which Sainct Luke vſeth in reporting S. Peters wordes. For you ſaie that this prooueth Chriſts bodie to be contained in heauen no more, then Saint Luke, writing that Samaria receiued the word of God,foreign. Act. 8.14. affirmeth the word of God was contained in Samaria. An obiection doubtles that came from a deepe vnderſtanding: to make the word of God, which was to be preached ouer the wholl world, of like nature with a bodie, which muſt be contained in one place. If you can ſee anie thing, you may ſoone ſee that the word, receiue, is otherwiſe taken here, as alſo in the two other places, which you alledge of receiuing children and Apoſtles in Chriſts name. Saint Peter ſpeaketh of locall receiuing or containing: the other places vnderſtand a receiuing of reliefe, or entertainement. Your reproches, as they well become your perſon, ſo being vſuall, require no anſwere, but are to be contemned.
Being come to the matter in hand,pag. 183. you ſhewe your ſelfe more hotte and haſtie in words, then diſcrete or pithie in your arguments. For that I ſaid it is a contradiction, to maintaine that one and the ſame bodie ſhould together both be viſible & inuiſible, circumſcriptible and incircumſcriptible, as you do moſte fondlie imagine and teach of Chriſts body, you charge me with infidelitie for denying gods omnipotency, which euerie Chriſtian profeſſeth in the firſt article of the Creede. Of Atheiſme and infidelitie take heede your ſelfe, M. R you hauehave alreadie made a dangerous ſtep.The papiſts to prooue their Reall preſence are faine to flee to Gods omnipotencie, and thus to argue: god is able to make his body Reallie preſent in the ſacrament, therefore ſo he doth. God forbid I ſhould be guiltie of that ſin, wherof you do without all conſcience or reaſon accuſe me. God is omnipotent, and euer was, and euer wilbe. But his omnipotency prooueth not your Reall preſence. For hauehave you learned to conclude, that ſeing God is omnipotent, and hath power to doe all things, therefore he doth al things, yea offereth violence to his owne body for maintenance of your abſurd & hereticall aſſertions? muſt Gods omnipotency attend vponupon your fanſies? Cannot god be omnipotent, vnles your real preſence be graunted? No ſuch matter, thankes be to God: & ſo your accuſation of infidelitie is vaine and childiſh. Albeit I ſuppoſe you are not ignorant altogether of your owne ſcholaſtical doctrine concerning Gods omnipotency. Your ſchoolemen teach that God cannot do any thing wherein a contradiction is implied: Thom. 1. p. 25. q. 3. art.& that all other things he can doe, and therefore is omnipotent. The popiſh ſchoolemen confute the popiſh fantaſie of Reall preſence.But herein a manifeſt contradiction is implied, that Chriſts body ſhould be viſible and inuiſible togeather, that it is compaſſed and circumſcribed in one certaine place, and that alſo it is contained in an infinite number of ſacraments, without any circumſcription of place. And thus your owne ſchoolemen teaching, and that trulie, that god cannot doe any thing, wherein is included a contradiction, becauſe he cannot lie, hauehave in deede grounde to powder your conceit of Real preſence, which without moſte cleare contradiction can neuer be maintained. For if Chriſts body be viſible, how is it then inuiſible? If Chriſts body hauehave all properties of a natural body, whereof this is one, & that moſte neceſſary & inſeperable, to be contained and circumſcribed in one certaine place: how can it then be true that his body is in infinite places without any circumſcription at all? Neuer deny for ſhame, but if there be in the world anie contradiction, this is one. And yet here Maſter Rainolds taketh in hand to prooue contrary to the doctrine of their owne ſchooles,M.R. goeth about to prooue that God can make two contradictorie propoſitions true. that God worketh as flat contradictories, as this: then which none can be deuiſed more flat. But theſe examples, Maſter Rainolds, which you bring, are nothing like this, whereof I ſpeake.
For concerning the holie virgins birth, therein is no contradiction. There was a miracle indeed, that a virgine ſhould beare a ſonne contrarie to the courſe of nature. For to be a virgine, & yet to hauehave a childe, are not contradictorie, if ſhe hauehave conceiued and brought forth by miracle, as did the bleſſed virgine:M.R. obiections nothing to the purpoſe. but to be a virgine, & not a virgine at once, this is the contradiction. So for Chriſts bodie to be viſible & inuiſible, locall and not locall at once, is in euerie reſpect the like contradiction: and therefore impoſſible to be true.
Your other example of Chriſts entring in, the dores being ſhut, what ſhewe of contradiction hath it? Can you prooue he entred through the dores? and if he did, then was there an alteration of qualities, & that by miracle, either in Chriſts bodie, or in the dores, but no contradictiō in nature: vnles you know not what is a contradiction. Your third and laſt example of the fire in Nabucadnezars ouen, which conſumed the Miniſters, but hurt not thoſe that were in the middeſt of it, appeereth to be of no waight, by that hath alreadie bene anſwered. You imagine belike that in euerie miracle a contradiction is implied: which is abſurde. If you can prooue that this fire was both hot and colde, then you ſaie ſomething to the purpoſe: but that it burnt vp ſome, and hurt not others, is no cōtradiction, becauſe by miracle the force thereof was repreſſed. Thus are you truly and fullie anſwered to your ſimple ſophiſmes: and your Real preſence is diſprooued by the eternall lawe of God in nature, wherevnto he hath euen bound himſelfe, neuer to doe anie thing, wherein there is a contradiction to be found, as your owne Diuines hauehave wel and truelie taught. Then may you ſee that my argument was not taken out of Ariſtotle and Euclide, as you ſaie, but is grounded vponupon the eternall decree, and moſte vnchangeable trueth of God: to which your Real preſence muſt giuegive place, being nothing els, but an irreligious and cōtradictorius deuiſe of your owne braine.Pag. 185.
By this is anſwered that which followeth, wherin are alledged certaine miracles, vainly & altogether from the purpoſe. The queſtion is not, whether is more repugnant to nature, to be borne of a virgine, or a bodie to be incircumſcript (although herein you ſpeake without reaſon or authoritie) but whether it be either agreeable to nature or Gods wil, that one & the ſelfe ſame bodie be at once circumſcript and incircumſcript, as you defend Chriſts bodie to be.
Firſt you ſaie the bodie of our ſauiour Chriſt was incircumſcript in his natiuitie, M. R. affirmeth heretical vntruthes of Chriſts body.reſurrection, & aſcenſion. Although this be moſte falſe and hereticall, deſtroying the trueth of Chriſts humanitie, yet if it were graunted, it argueth nothing, vnleſſe you will ſaie, that when it was incircumſcript, it was alſo circumſcript, as now you affirme of the ſame bodie: for you confeſſe his body is circumſcript, and yet you ſay the ſelfe ſame bodie is incircumſcript: and herein is an euident contradiction, which when you labour to defend, what do you els, but with intollerable boldenes maintaine moſte monſtrous abſurdities?
Likewiſe S. Peters bodie you ſaie was incircumſcript, by Paulinus authoritie, who ſaieth S. Peter came out of the priſon being ſhut. And meant Paulinus, that Saint Peter came through the walls or dores of the priſon? ſo ſaith not the ſcripture. If the yron gate opened of it owne accord vntounto him, why alſo might not the dores of the priſon open, and giuegive place vntounto him?
Secondlie you ſaie, Chriſts bodie was inuiſible, when he paſſed through the midſt of them, that would hauehave caſt him downe headlong from the hill. This is more then you learned in the text.Luc. 4.30. The ſcripture ſaith that he paſſed through the middeſt of thē: But not, that he paſſed inuiſiblie. Chriſt was able to eſcape their hands as wel being viſible as inuiſible. Alſo Elizeus was inuiſible, you ſaie, and I ſaie, it is vntrue.2. King. 6.18. For though the Syrians ſawe him not, yet remained he ſtill viſible: but the Lord caſt a miſt before their eies, and ſtroke them with blindnes, that they could not ſee him: and ſo the ſcripture plainly affirmeth. The ſame may be ſaid of Felix, whome his enimies could not ſee being amongſt them. It was the Lord that ſhut their eies, & blinded them with giddines, who hath (as by this your reaſoning may ſeeme) taken frō you alſo all your light of vnderſtanding.
Thirdlie you ſaie, the firſt heauen, according to the opinion of Philoſophers, being a perfect naturall body, is notwithſtanding in no place. Be it euen ſo: then I ſaie, it is not in a place. Saie you the ſame of Chriſtes bodie, and then ſhall you prooue your ſelfe to be a perfect heretike: and ſo muſt you ſaie, or els you ſaie nothing to the queſtion,
Can you denie, M. Rainolds, but that Chriſtes bodie is altogether of the ſame ſubſtance with our bodies, and hath the properties of a true and naturall bodie? ſpeake plainlie, and tell vsus your minde, leſt you giuegive vsus cauſe to doubt of your ſoundnes in this article, as you hauehave here giuen verie great. For if you confeſſe this to be true doctrine, as you muſt, vnleſſe you be indeed one of thoſe heretikes that held the contrarie, why bid you me looke how I free my ſelfe from the filthie and wicked hereſies of the Ebionites and Neſtorians. Marke I beſeech you (good reader) how this prating patrone of Reall preſence,M.R. ſaieth it is hereticall to affirme, that Chriſts body is conſubſtantiall to ours. would hauehave it ſeme to ſauour of wicked hereſy, to affirme that Chriſts bodie is a true bodie, conſubſtantiall to ours: and all this, becauſe the ſame wicked hereſie of reall preſence can neuer be defended, vnleſſe this be denied. Yea Master Rainolds ſaith, thoſe heretikes not onelie maie, but muſt thereof infer, that Chriſt was begotten betwene our Ladie, and Ioſeph. Wherein as he hath auouched a plaine hereſie, which he cannot cleare him ſelfe from, vnleſſe he will openlie recant his owne wordes: ſo is it moſt falſe, that he ſaith it muſt be inferred hereof, that Chriſt was begotten as other men. No ſuch neceſſitie, Maſter Rainolds. That he was miraculouſlie borne of a virgine, is no reaſon but that his bodie may be of the ſame ſubſtance with ours, a true and naturall bodie, indued with the ſame qualities and properties, that ours are, ſaue ſinne, from his conception, and glory from his aſcenſion: whereof in ſaying it muſt follow, that Chriſt was not borne of a virgine, you hauehave vttered in plaine tearmes an hereticall aſſertion: defend it, or retract, whether you will. For if this follow thereof indeed, which is hereticall, then that muſt of conſequence be hereticall, which yet is a moſt true and Catholike doctrine.
A third anſwere you make out of Chryſoſtome, pag. 188.who ſurelie anſwereth nothing at all for you? He exhorteth that we beleeue Chriſtes words, This is my bodie, to be true,Chryſoſtome obiected by M.R. maketh againſt hi…. although we ſee not his bodie with our eyes. And whoe confeſſeth not this? we graunt that the bread is Chriſtes bodie, as Chriſt ſaid, whoe euer ſaid the truth. But the meaning is, that the bread is a ſacrament of Chriſtes bodie,Chryſoſt. Hom. 83. in Mat. as S. Chryſoſtome in the ſame homilie twiſe or thriſe in plain ſpeach affirmeth: not that the bread is chaunged into Chriſtes naturall bodie, which Chryſoſtome neuer once dreamed of. And that you may perceiue he meant no tranſſubſtantiation, the ſame he ſaid of this ſacrament, he alſo ſaith by and by of baptiſme: wherein your ſelues accord with vsus, that no tranſſubſtantiation is wrought. As Chriſt is in the ſupper, ſo is he in baptiſme: inuiſiblie, myſtically, truelie in both: carnallie, bodilie, reallie in neither. Chryſostome hath ſpoken neuer a worde for you.
But M. Rainolds according to his manner tranſlateth a pace out of the Centuries, out of Melanchthon, pag. 189. &cWeſtphalus, and Luther: & with their ſayings filleth a number of pages, onlie to ſhew there is a difference of iudgement among the proteſtants about the ſacrament: which to be indeed true al the world knoweth. But what hereof will you hauehave your Reader to conclude,Controuerſie among the Proteſtants about the ſacrament confeſſed. when he ſeeth that Luther, and ſome others miſlike our doctrine, and reaſons concerning the ſacrament of Chriſtes ſupper? That neither he, nor we teach thereof a right? That you hould the true part? That no credit in other pointes is to be giuen to anie of vsus all? This is the marke whereat you aime here, & els where, in citing ſo manifold teſtimonies out of our writers: which ſleight although you muſt confeſſe is falſe, and knowe your ſelfe there is no plaine dealing nor ſoundnes therein, yet you are content for aduantage to ſet it out with greateſt countenance, that it may bleare the eies of the ſimple. If Luther teaching otherwiſe of the ſacrament, then Zuinglius and Oecolampadius did, diſputed againſt their reaſons, this is no matter to maruell at: for graunting the premiſſes to be true, it is to late to denie the concluſion.
The argument that is grounded onelie vponupon reaſon, in matters of Religion and faith, we graunt moſte vnfainedlie to be no lawfull weapon in the Lords warfare. And therefore whatſoeuer they hauehave ſaid againſt Philoſophie and reaſon,Arguments taken from reaſon in matters of Religion what force they hauehave. when it diſagreeth from the faith, which in the ſcritures we learne, all that we allow with all our heartes, and neuer vſed thus anie argument taken from naturall reaſon againſt either you, or Luther. For reaſon muſt ſubmit it ſelfe to faith we know, faith muſt not be reſtrained or ſtretched according to reaſon. But when reaſon in not controlled of faith, then I thinke you will not ſay, but an argument builded vponupon reaſon maketh a neceſſary proofe. Now in this matter faith and reaſon are not contrary: no faith teacheth that Chriſts body is without the properties of a true body: al reaſon prooueth, that if Chriſt hauehave a true body, as he hath, then his body is indued with natural qualities and properties of a body. Reaſoning againſt this ſound & immutable reaſon, you plainely ſhew your ſelues to be void of reaſon.
Now that one and the ſame body (as Chriſt hath but one onelyonly body) ſhould be at once of contradictory diſpoſitions, as namely both viſible, and inuiſible, both in a certaine place, & in no certaine place, as you teach, and boldly, but moſte vntruly maintaine, this is contrary not onelyonly to reaſon, but alſo to faith, which teacheth that God cannot lie, and therefore neuer can make two contradictories true; for in the one alwaies an vntruth of neceſſitie reſteth. As for example, if Chriſts body be alwaies viſible and circumſcripte, then is it a manifeſtlie, to ſay, the ſame body is inuiſible and incircumſcripte: but Chriſts body is alwaies both viſible & circumſcripte: and therefore in ſaying his body is inuiſible and incircumſcripte, you cannot be excuſed from vntruth and contradiction. In faith is no contradiction: in your aſſertion there is a foule and palpable contradiction: wherefore your aſſertion is not of faith. If I had to deale with Weſtphalus or Illyricus, further would I anſwere there ſpeaches: but as you make them here to ſerue your purpoſe, I hauehave not any more to ſay vntounto them. Then leauing them, I returne to your ſelfe M. R. to examine what you bring for defenſe of the cauſe, which you hauehave taken in hand to maintaine.
The teſtimonies of Cyrill and Damaſcen you lightly paſſe ouer.pag. 198. De Trinit. lib. 2. The fathers againſt the Reall preſence. Cyril ſaith that Chriſt touching the preſence of his fleſh is abſent from vsus. Which though it be contrary to your Reall preſence, yet you ſay, you beleeue as your Creede: your beliefe perhaps is according to ſome new Creede: for of this beliefe, one parte cannot ſtand in the ſame Creede with another. Firſt the true, auncient, and Catholike creede teacheth, that Chriſt is aſcended into heauen touching his humanitie: whereunto Cyril agreeablie writeth,The true Catholike Creed is contraie to the Popiſh Creed that he is abſent in fleſh. your newfangled Popiſh Creede would hauehave vsus beleeue, that Chriſt touching the preſence of his fleſh is in the ſacrament. If his fleſh be in the ſacrament, then is not his fleſh abſent, but the ſcriptures, and fathers and al Catholicke Creeds doe ſet it downe as a ground of faith, that Chriſts fleſh is onelie in heauen, and there remaineth vntill he come againe in carnall preſence to iudge the world. What hauehave you to anſwere now? forſooth, now muſt you fal into your former contradiction, that Chriſts fleſh is viſible in heauen, and inuiſible in the ſacrament: which doctrine is repugnant to diuinitie, to reaſon, to ſenſe, to all principles of truth, as you hauehave hearde already: or els muſt you ſay, that Chriſt hath two bodies, one viſible, and an other inuiſible: which though it be heretical, yet is it leſſe abſurde and vnreaſonable then the other. But anſwere what you liſt, this is ſufficient to ouerthrow your reall preſence before God and all his ſaints, that Chriſts fleſh is abſent from vsus: the ſacrament is with vsus: and therefore Chriſts fleſh is not in the ſacrament. Your aſſertions are to groſſe; your anſweres are abſurd: your Reall preſence is a reall contradiction.
Cyrill, you ſay, was no ſacramentarie. No verely: for your ſacramentary hereſie was vnhathced in Cyrills time. But did Cyrill euer teach your reall preſence? a place you bring, that maketh nothing to this purpoſe. Cyrill ſpeaketh not a word of the ſacrament,Cyrill. in Ioh. lib. 4. c. 13. but generally that Chriſt giueth vsus his fleſh: which is true of thoſe alſo that neuer receiued the ſacrament. Wherefore Cyrill meant not any reall preſence, as you full ignorantly alledge him. He onelyonly diſputeth againſt the infidelity or curioſity of ſuch as enquire,A popiſh ignorant argument, Chriſt geueth vsus his fleſhe to eate: Ergo we eate Chriſts fleſh Really in the ſacrament. How it is poſſible that Chriſt ſhould giuegive vsus his fleſh to eate. we know that Chriſt can giuegive, and doth giuegive his fleſh to all faithfull: and make no doubt, nor queſtion thereof. But thinke you all meanes of eating his fleſh is remooued, if reall preſence be denied? Conſider this point a litle better M. Rainolds; and I doubt not but you ſhall eaſilie eſpie your owne ouerſight. That you bring out of Peter Martyr, is idle. That which he ſaith, if Cyril ſhould auouch, it were not to be graunted, your ſelues will not maintaine: namelie that Chriſt doth dwell in vsus corporallie, and mingleth his fleſh with our fleſh. Then to what vſe ſerueth your reall preſence? tell vsus if you can: but prooue by ſcripture that which you tell; els we ſhall not greatly regard what you tell vsus.
Damaſcen you are content to handle as lightly.Damaſ…le orthod. fide. lib. 3. cap. 3. He teacheth againſt your reall preſence, that the nature of Chriſts bodie remaineth circumſcript and viſible, as it was. So your fantaſie of Chriſts body being preſent in the ſacrament reallie, but incircumſcriptly and inuiſiblie, is prooued to be vainer then any dreame. Al you alledge at large for the reall preſence out of him in an other place,Lib. 4. c. 14. may ſhortlie be diſpatched. That Chriſt can make the bread his body, we graunt. For Chriſt being god can doe whatſoeuer he wil. Onelie ſhew that Chriſt wil make of real bread, his real fleſh, and then this controuerſie is brought to an ende.The Catholike faith teacheth that Chriſts body was made of the virgine once: the Popiſh faith that it is made of bread daily. Chriſt indeede maketh the breade his body, not really, but ſacramentallie. For Chriſt hath not a body made of bread, his body was made once of the pure ſubſtance of his bleſſed mother: and other body then this, or oftner made then once, hath he none. Whereof all doctrine that teacheth Chriſts bodie is made of bread, is impious and hereticall: the popiſh doctrine of Reall preſence teacheth that Chriſts body in the ſacrament is made of breade, by changing the bread into his bodie through force of conſecration: wherefore we may boldlie and trulie conclude that the popiſh doctrine of Reall preſence, which Maſter Rainolds holdeth, but miſerablie defendeth, is both wicked and hereticall.