Varied from Other Papists
OrnrR say, that the body of Christ is made of bread. He saith, that the body of Christ is not made of bread, nor was never so taught, but is made present of bread, p. 72, line 14, and p. 178, line 10.
He saith that Christ made the demonstration of the bread, and called it his body, when he said, “This is my body,” p. 257, line 27. And in the Devil’s Sophistry, fol. 27. Other say contrary. And Smith, fol. 53.
He saith, that “this is my body,” is as much to say as, “this is made my body.” And so he taketh est for fit, p. 295, line 35. Other say, that est is taken there substantive, that is to say, only for “is,” and not for “is made.” Marcus Antonius, fol. 171, facie 2, consideratione 6.
He saith, that Christ is present in the sacrament after the same manner that he is in heaven, p. 141, line 6. Other say contrary, that he is in heaven after the manner of quantity, and that he is not so in the sacrament.
He saith, that where the body of Christ is, there is whole Christ, God and man; and that when we speak of Christs body, we must understand a true body, which hath both form and quantity, p. 71, line 37. Smith saith, that Christs body in the sacrament hath not his proper form and quantity, fol. 106.
He saith, we believe simply, that Christ’s body is naturally and corporally in the sacrament, without drawing away his accidences or adding, p. 353, line 1. Smith saith, we say that Christs body is in the sacrament against nature with all his qualities and accidents, fol. 105.
He saith, that God’s works be all seemliness without confusion, although he cannot locally distinct Christs head from his foot, nor his legs from his arms, p. 70, line 27?. Other say, that Christs head and foot and other parts be not indeed locally distinct in the sacrament, but be so confounded, that wheresoever one is, there be all the rest.
They teach that the body of Christ is made of bread: he saith, it was never so taught, p. 79, line 6, &c.
He saith, that Christ’s body is in the sacrament sensibly, naturally, carnally, and corporally, p. 159, line 9, &c. Other say contrary, Smith, fol. 39.
Other say, that Christ’s feet in the sacrament be there, where his head is: he saith, that whosoever say so may be called mad, p. 61, line 34.
He saith, that Christs body is in the sacrament naturally and carnally, p. 156, Ime 6. Other say, that corporally Christ goeth into the mouth or stomach, and no further. He saith contrary, p. 52, line 36.
He saith, that Christ dwelleth corporally in him that receiveth the sacrament worthily, so long as he remaineth a member of Christ, p. 53, line 1, p. 56, line 31, &c. Other say contrary, but that Christ flieth up into heaven so soon as the bread is chawed in the mouth or changed in the stomach, Smith, fol. 64, p. 65, line 2, and 25.
410. He saith, that no creature can eat the body of Christ, but only man, p. 66, line 30. Other say clean contrary.
He saith, that an unrepentant sinner receiving the sacrament hath not Christ’s body nor spirit within him, p. 225, line 36. Smith saith, that he hath Christ’s body and spirit within him, fol. 136.
[[ This table of matters, &c. is only appended to referring to the passages according to the direction t]
[the 1580 ed. As the paging of that edition has been of archbishop Cranmer. ];]
[carefully noted in the margin of this re-print, it has [2 Thus in ed. 1580. It is, however, a misprint, ——]
[been thought advisable to give it as it stands in the and should be p. 61, line 30.] dg]
[original copy. The reader will find no difficulty in?]
. He saith, that of the figure it may not be said, “Adore it, worship it,” and that is not to be adored, which the bodily eye seeth, p. 178, line 40, p. 239, line 32. Marcus Antonius, fol. 176, fac. 2. Smith saith contrary, fol. 145, fac. 2.
He saith, that reason will agree with the doctrine of transubstantiation well enough, p. 264, line 47. Smith saith, that transubstantiation is against reason and natural operation, fol. 60.
Other say, that worms in the sacrament be gendered of accidences. He saith, that they be wrong borne in hand to say so, p. 355, line 3.
He saith, that the accidences of bread and wine do mould, sour, and wax vinegar, Ρ. 265, line 11, and 355, line 8. And Marcus, fol. 168, fac. 1, Smith saith thus: “I say that the consecrated wine turneth not into vinegar, nor the consecrated bread mouldeth nor engendereth worms, nor is burned, nor receiveth into it any poison, as long as Christ’s body and blood are under the forms of them which do abide there, so long as the natural qualities and properties of bread and wine tarry there in their natural disposition and condition, that the bread and wine might be naturally there, if they had not been changed into Christ’s body and blood; and also as long as the host and consecrated wine are apt to be received of man, and no longer; but go and depart thence by God’s power, as it pleaseth him. And then a new substance is made of God, which turneth into vinegar, engendereth worms, mouldeth, is burned, feedeth men and mice, receiveth poison,” &c. fol. 64 and 105.
He saith, “Every yea containeth a nay in it naturally, so as whosoever saith, This is bread, saith it is no wine. For in the rule of common reason, the grant of one substance is the denial of another: and therefore reason hath these conclusions throughly, whatsoever is bread is no wine, whatsoever is wine is no milk, &c. So Christ saying, This is my body, saith it [is] no bread,” p. 256, line 38, and p. 265, line 5. Smith saith, a boy “which hath only learned the sophistry,” will not dispute so fondly, fol. 77. Other say, that the mass is a sacrifice satisfactory by devotion of the priest, and not by the thing that is offered. He saith otherwise, p. 80, line 43.
He saith, that the only immolation of Christ in himself upon the altar of the cross is the very satisfactory sacrifice for the reconciliation of mankind to the favour of God, p. 437, line 1, 2, and 31. Smith saith, “What is it to offer Christ’s body and blood at mass, to purchase thereby everlasting life, if it be not the mass to be a sacrifice to pacify God’s wrath for sin, and to obtain his mercy?” Smith, fol. 24, 148, 164. Priests do offer for our salvation to get heaven and to avoid hell, fol. eodem. MATTERS WHEREIN THE BISHOP VARIED FROM 4i.
Himself
“The body of Christ in the sacrament is not made of bread, but is made present of bread,” p. 79, line 6, &c., and p. 202, line 40, &c.
Of bread is made the body of Christ,” p. 344, line 8.
“The catholic faith hath from the beginning confessed truly Christ’s intent to make bread his body,” p. 26, line 40. Christ gave that he made of bread,” p. 257, line 50. “And of many breads is made one body of Christ,” p. 144, line 23. “And faith sheweth me that bread is the body of Christ, that is to say, made the body of Christ,” p. 295, line 30.
“Christ spake plainly, This is my body, making demonstration of the bread, when he said, This is my body,” in the Devil’s Sophistry, fol. 27. “I will pass over the phantasies of them who wrote the principal chief text, This is my body, from consecration of the sacrament, to the demonstration of Christ’s body, &c.” in the devilish Devil’s Sophistry, fol. 70.
“The demonstration this, may be referred to the invisible substance,” p. 106, line 42. “The is,’ was of his body and blood, and not of the bread and wine,” p. 251, line 8.
lilis verbis, Hoc est corpus meum,” substantia corporis significatur, nec de pane
quicquam. intelligitur, quum. corpus de substantia sua, non aliena. pradicetur, fol. 94, fac. 9. Mar. Ant. Constant.
When Christ said This is my body,’ the truth of the literal sense hath an absurdity in carnal reason,” p. 138, line 19.
What can be more evidently spoken of the presence of Christ’s natural body and blood in the most blessed sacrament of the altar, than is in these words, This is my body’?” in the Devil’s Sophistry, fol. 5.
Where the body of Christ is, there is whole Christ, God and man. And when we speak of Christ’s body, we must understand a true body, which hath both form and quantity,” p. 71, line 47. “And he is present in the sacrament as he is in heaven,” p. 141, line 6, &c.
We believe simply the substance of Christ’s body to be in the sacrament without drawing away of accidents, or adding,” p. 353, line 1.
Christ is not present in the sacrament after the manner of quantity, but under the form and quantity of bread and wine,” p. 71, line 50, p. 90, line 43.
“In such as receive the sacrament worthily Christ dwelleth in them corporally, and naturally, and carnally,” p. 166, line 19, and p. 173, line 54, and p. 191, line 47.
“The manner of Christ’s being in the sacrament is not corporal, not carnal, not natural, not sensible, not perceptible, but only spiritual,” p. 159, line 17, and p. 197, line 32.
We receive Christ in the sacrament of his flesh and blood, if we receive him worthily,” p. 167, line 9, and p. 174, line 1.
When an unrepentant sinner receiveth the sacrament, he hath not Christ’s body within him,” p. 225, line 43.
“He. that eateth verily the flesh of Christ, is by nature in Christ, and Christ is naturally in him,” p. 17, line 38, &c.
An evil man in the sacrament receiveth indeed Christ’s very body,” p. eadem, line 7.
412. Evil men eat verily the flesh of Christ,” p. 225, line 47.
Christ giveth us to be eaten the same flesh that he took of the virgin,” p. 241, line 27. “We receive not in the sacrament Christ’s body that was crucified,” p. 243, line 16.
Saint Augustine’s rule, De Doctrina Christiana, pertaineth not to Christ’s supper,” p. 117, line 21.
“The sixth of John speaketh not of any promise made to the eating of a token of Christ’s flesh,” p. 4, line 40.
“St Augustine meaneth of the sacrament,” p. 119, line 24.
“The sixth of John must needs be understand of corporal and sacramental eating,” p. 17, line 48.
Reason in place of service (as being inferior to faith) will agree with the doctrine of transubstantiation well enough,” p. 265, line 1. ^ And as reason, received into faith’s service, doth not strive with transubstantiation, but agreeth well with it; so man’s senses be no such direct adversaries to transubstantiation, as a matter whereof they can no skill, for the senses can no skill of substances,” p. 271, line 24, &c.
“Thine eyes say, there is but bread and wine: thy taste saith the same. Thy feeling and smelling agree fully with them.” Hereunto is added the carnal man’s understanding, which because it taketh the beginning of the senses, proceedeth in reasoning sensually,” in the Devil’s Sophistry, fol. 6. “The church hath not forborne to preach the truth, to the confusion of man’s senses and understanding,” fol. 15. “Tt is called bread because of the outward visible matter,” p. [257.] “When it is called bread, it is meant Christ the spiritual bread,” p. 284, line 25. “The fraction is in the outward sign, and not in the body of Christ,” p. 144, line 39, and p. 348, line 21. And in the Devil’s Sophistry, fol. 17. “That which broken is the body of Christ,” p. 348, line 18. ‘The inward nature of the bread is the substance,” p. 296, line 23. Substance signifieth the outward nature,” p. 359, line 22.
The substances of bread and wine be visible creatures,” p. 285, line 48, and p. 86, line 44. Accidents be the visible natures and visible elements,” p. 363, line 39.
Christ is our satisfaction wholly and fully, and hath paid our whole debt to God the Father, for the appeasing of his wrath against us,” p. 81, line 39.
“The act of the priest done according to God’s commandment must needs be propitiatory, and ought to be trusted on to have a propitiatory effect,” p. 437, line 13%.
“The demonstration this may be referred to the invisible substance,” p. 106, line 44. “The “is,” was of his body and blood, and not of the bread and wine,” p. 251, line 8.
“When Christ said, This is my body, the truth of the literal sense hath an absurdity in carnal reason,” p. 138, line 19. And it is a singular miracle of Christ “understanded as the plain words signify in their proper sense,” ibidem, line 21.
The sacrifice of our Saviour Christ was never reiterate,” p. 368, line 46.
“Priests do sacrifice Christ,” p. 381, line 42, &c. “And the catholic doctrine teacheth the daily sacrifice to be the same in essence that was offered on the cross,” p. 436, line 11.
“The Nestorians granted both the Godhead and manhood always to be in Christ continually,” p. 309, line 18.
“The Nestorians denied Christ conceived God or born God, but that he was afterward God, as a man that is not born a bishop is after made a bishop. So the Nestorians said, that the Godhead was an accession after by merit, and that he was conceived only man,” p. 309, line 12.
“Christ useth us as familiarly as he did his apostles,” p. 83, line 54.
Christ is not to be said conversant in earth,” p. 101, line 16.
Concessa
“ΟΝ what part thou, reader, seest craft, sleight, shift, obliquity, or in any one point an open manifest lie, there thou mayest consider, whatsoever pretence be made of truth, yet the victory of truth not to be there intended,” p. 12, line 19.
When Christ had taught of the eating of himself, being the bread descended from heaven, declaring that eating to signify believing, then he entered to speak of the giving of his flesh to be eaten,” p. 27, line 7.
Christ must be spiritually in a man before he receive the sacrament, or he cannot receive the sacrament worthily,” p. 48, line 46, and p. 140, line ultima, and p. 172, line 28, and 181, line 28.
“How Christ is present,” p. 61, line 10, and p. 71, line 41, and p. 90, line 44, p. 57, line 17, and p. 197, line 30.
By faith we know only the being present of Christ’s most precious body, not the manner thereof,” p. 6l, line 43.
What we speak of Christs body, we must understand à true body, which hath both form and quantity,” p. 71, line 34.
Although Christs body have all those truths of form and quantity, yet it is not present after the manner of quantity,” p. 71, line 37.
For the worthy receiving of Christ we must come endued with Christ, and clothed with him seemly in that garment,” p. 92, line 31.
Really, that is to say, verily, truly, and in deed, not in phantasy or imagination,” p. 140, line 21.
“All the old prayers and ceremonies sound as the people did communicate with the priest,” p. 145, line 9.
Really and sensibly the old authors in syllables used not, for so much as I have read; but ecorporally’ and naturally they used, speaking of this sacrament,” p. 155, line 13.
Christ may be called sensibly present,” p. 155, line 26, and p. 159, line 10.
By faith Christ dwelleth in us spiritually,” p. 158, line 16.
“Our perfect unity with Christ is to have his flesh in us, and to have Christ
[[! Thus in ed. 1580. It should be p. 387, line 13.] [3 Ibid. It should be linel3.]]
.38 CONCESSA. bodily and naturally dwelling in us by his manhood,” p. 166, line 30, &c., and p. 17, line 34.
“Evil men eat the body of Christ, but sacramentally, and not spiritually,” p. 222, line 47.
Christ’s flesh in the sacrament is given us to eat spiritually, and therefore there may be no such imaginations to eat Christ’s body carnally, after the manner he walked here, nor drink his blood as it was shed upon the cross; but spiritually understanded it giveth life,” p. 241, line 18.
“To eat only in faith is specially to remember Christ’s flesh as it was visibly crucified,” p. 243, line 28.:
We eat not Christ as he sitteth in heaven reigning,” p. 243, line 32.
“The word transubstantiation was first spoken of by public authority in a general council, where the bishop of Rome was present,” p. 250, line 28.
“The word nature signifieth both the substance and also property of the nature,” p. 291, line 27.
“The sensible thing after the capacity of common understanding is called substance,’ but the inward nature in learning is properly called substance, ” p. 338, line 31.. [n common bread the substance is not broken at all,” p. 257, line 32.
“The catholic doctrine teacheth not the daily sacrifice of Christ’s most precious body and blood to be an iteration of the once perfected sacrifice on the cross, but a sacrifice that representeth the sacrifice, and sheweth it also before the faithful eyes,” p.396, line20. “The effect of the offering on the cross is given and dispensed in the sacrament of baptism,” p. 396, line 30.
By virtue of the same offering on the cross, such as fall be relieved in the sacrament of penance,” p. eadem, line 16.
“The daily sacrifice of the church is also propitiatory, but not in that degree of propitiation, as for redemption, regeneration, or remission of deadly sin, (which was once purchased, and by force thereof is in the sacraments ministered,) but for the increase of God’s favour, the mitigation of God’s displeasure provoked by our infirmities, the subduing of temptations, and the perfection of virtue in us,” p. 387, line 15, &c.
“All good works, good thoughts, and good meditations, may be called sacrifices, and sacrifices propitiatory also, forasmuch as in their degree God accepteth and taketh them through the effect and strength of the very sacrifice of Christ’s death,” p. eadem, line 19, &c.
“To call the daily offering a sacrifice satisfactory, must have an understanding that signifieth not the action of the priest, but the presence of Christ’s most precious body and blood, the very sacrifice of the world once perfectly offered being propitiatory and satisfactory for all the world,” p. eadem, line 43’, &c.
“Or else the word satisfactory must have a signification and meaning that declareth the acception of the thing done, and not the proper countervail of the action. For otherwise the daily sacrifice in respect of the action of the priest cannot be called satisfactory, and it is a word indeed that soundeth not well so placed, although it might be saved by a signification,” p. eadem, line 46, &c. “I think this speech to be frequented, that the only immolation of Christ in himself upon the altar of the cross is the very satisfactory sacrifice for the reconciliation of mankind to the favour of God,” p. eadem, line 50.
“I have not read the daily sacrifice of Christ’s most precious body to be called a sacrifice satisfactory, ” p. eadem, line 52.:
But this speech hath indeed been used, that the priest should sing satisfactory, which they understood of the satisfaction of the priests duty to attend the prayer he was required to make,” ibid. line 53.
“In the sacrifice of the church Christ’s death is not iterated, but a memory daily renewed of that death, so as Christ’s offering on the cross once done and consummate is now only remembered,” p. 391, line 5.
‘The same body is offered daily on the altar that was once offered upon the cross,
[[’ It should be line 32.] [3 line35.] [5 line 43.] [Ὁ line 47.] [5 line 48. ]]
” but the same manner of offering is not daily that was on the altar of the cross. For the daily offering is without blood-shedding, and is termed so, to signify that bloodshedding once done to be sufficient,” p. eadem, line 8, &c. MATTERS WHEREIN THE BISHOP VARIETH FROM THE TRUTH
And from the Old Authors of the Church
“If we eat not the flesh of the Son of man, we have not life in us, because Christ hath ordered the sacrament,” &c. p. 17, line 12.
. When Christ said, Take eat, this is my body, he fulfilled that which he promised in the sixth of John, that he would give his flesh for the life of the world,” p. 27, line 28. Mar. Ant. fol. 168.
When Christ said, the flesh profiteth nothing, he spake not of his flesh as it is united unto his divinity,” p. 27, line 53, and p. 329, line 24.
God in baptism giveth only the Spirit of Christ, and in the sacrament of the altar the very body and blood of Christ,” p. 34, line 44.
Unworthy receivers of the sacrament receive Christ’s body with mouth only, the worthy receivers both with mouth and heart,” p. 54, hne 47, &c.
“We must believe Christ’s words to be most perfectly true according to the truth of the letter, where no absurdity in scripture driveth us from it, howsoever it seem repugnant to reason,” p. 62, line 20.
“The fathers did eat Christs body, and drink his blood in truth of promise, not in truth of presence,” p. 74, line 23, &c.
“The fathers did eat Christ spiritually, but they did not eat his body present spiritually and sacramentally,” p. eadem, line 26.
“Their sacraments were figures of the things, but ours contain the very things,” ibid., line 27.
“Albeit in a sense to the learned men it may be verified, that the fathers did eat the body of Christ and drink his blood, yet there is no such form of words in scripture. And it is more agreeable to the simplicity of scripture to say, the fathers before Christ’s nativity did not eat the body and drink the blood of Christ,” p. 78, line 28.
And although St Paul in the tenth to the Corinthians be so understanded of some, that the fathers should eat and drink the spiritual meat, and drink that we do, yet to that understanding all do not agree,” ibid., line 34, &c.
“Their sacraments contained the promise of that which in our sacraments is given,” ibid., line 36.
And although that willing obedience was ended and perfected upon the cross, (to the which it continued from the beginning,) yet as in the sacrifice of Abraham the earnest will and offering was accompted for the offering in deed, so the declaration of Christ’s will in his last supper was an offering of himself to God the Father,” p. 82, line 2, &c.
“In that mystery he declared his body and blood to be the very sacrifice of the world, by the same will that he said his body should be betrayed for us,” ibid., line 12.
As Christ offered himself upon the cross in the execution of his will, so he offered himself in his supper in declaration of his will,” p. 82, line 13, &c.
Christ’s body in the supper or communion is represented unto us as a sacrifice propitiatory for all the sins of the world, and it is the only sacrifice of the church, and the pure and clean sacrifice whereof Malachi spake,” p. 84, line 4; p. 88, line ultima, &c.
As Christ declareth in the supper himself an offering and sacrifice for our sin, offering himself to his Father as our mediator; so the church at the same supper, in their offering of lauds and thanks, join themselves with their head Christ, representing and offering him,” p. 89, line 10.
“The sun-beams be of the same substance with the sun,” p, 92, line 5.
We have in earth the substantial presence of the Son,” ibid., line 7.
[cnaNuzR.] £5
“When Christ said, This is my body, this word This, may be referred to the invisible substance,” p. 106, line 44.
“To eat Christs flesh and drink his blood is of itself a proper speech,” p. 112, line 35; “carnally,” ibid., line 50; “with teeth and mouth,” p. 112, line 8, and p- 34, line 38.
“To eat Christ’s body carnally may have a good signification,” p. 113, line 4.
“Origen doth not mean to destroy the truth of the letter in these words of Christ, Except you eat the flesh of the Son of man,” &c. p. 114, line 40.
“St Augustine taketh the same for a figurative speech, because it seemeth to command in the letter, carnally understanded, an heinous and wicked thing, to eat the flesh of a man,” p. 116, line 40.
“The said words of Christ, Except you eat, &c. is to the unfaithful a figure, but to the faithful they be no figure, but spirit and life,” ibid. line 48.
“The fathers called it a figure, by the name of a figure reverently to cover so great a secresy, apt only to be understand of men believing,” p. 117, line 3.
“That is spiritual understanding, to do as is commanded,” ibid. line 13.
“This word represent in St Hierome and Tertullian signifieth a true real exhibition,” p. 190, line 27, and p. 128, line 11.
“The word eucharistia cannot well be Englished,” p. 161.
“In God’s word, and in baptism, we be made participant of Christ’s passion by his Spirit, but in the Lord’s supper we be made participant of his Godhead by his humanity exhibited to us for food.. So as in this mystery we receive him as man and God, and in the other by mean of his Godhead we be participant of the effect of his passion suffered in his manhood. In this sacrament we receive a pledge of the regeneration of our flesh to be in the general resurrection spiritual with our soul: in baptism we have been made spiritual by regeneration of the soul” p. 158, line 45, &c.
“In baptism Christ’s humanity is not really present, though the virtue and effect οἐ his most precious blood be there,” p. 159, line 4. ’
“The manner of Christ’s being in the sacrament is only spiritual,” ibid., line 16. “To understand Christ’s words spiritually is to understand them as the Spirit of God hath taught the church,” ibid., line 34.
Our perfect unity with Christ is to have his flesh in us, and to have Christ bodily and naturally dwelling in us by his manhood,” p. 166, line 32.
“By Christ’s flesh in the sacrament we be naturally in him, and he is naturally in us,” ibid., lin. 45, &c.
“Christ dwelleth naturally in us, and we be corporally in him,” ibid., line 35.
Christ’s flesh is very spiritual and in a spiritual manner delivered unto us,” p. 167, line 19, and p. 243, line 11, and p. 243, line 28, and p. 295, line 33.
Christ dwelleth in us naturally for the natural communication of our body and his,” p. 167, line 19.
When Christ united himself unto us as man, (which he doth giving his body in the sacrament, to such as worthily receive it,) then he dwelleth in them corporally,” p. 172, line 27.!
“In baptism man’s soul is regenerate in the virtue and effect of Christ’s passion and blood, Christs Godhead present there without the real presence of his humanity,” p. 181, line 16, &c.
“In baptism our unity with Christ is wrought without the real presence of Christ’s humanity, only in the virtue and effect of Christ’s blood,” p. 181, lines 2 and 16.
“In baptism our soul is regenerate and made spiritual, but not our body in deed, but in hope only,” p. 181, line 6.
“In baptism we be united to Christ’s manhood by his divinity, but in the Lord’s supper we be in nature united to Christ as man, and by his glorified flesh made partakers also of his divinity,” p. 181, line 8..
“Christ’s body and flesh is a spiritual body «and flesh, and is present in the same after a spiritual manner, and is spiritually received,” p. eadem, 26, [p.] 351, ine 19.
- [n this sacrament Christ’s humanity and Godhead is really present, and in baptism his Godhead with the effectual virtue of his blood (in which we be washed), not requiring any real presence thereof,” p. 191, line 35.
“Spirit and life may fall upon naughty men, although for their malice it tarrieth not,” p. 211, line 17.
Christ’s words were not figurative, but true and proper, when he said, This is my body’,” p. 9, line 1, p. 257, line 1 and 14. Marcus Antonius, fol. 24, fa. 1.
“All the naming of bread by Christ and St Paul and all other must be understand before sanctification, and not after,” p. 258, line 15.
“When St Paul said, We be partakers of one bread, he speaketh not of material bread,” p. 258, line 7.
No man knoweth the difference between the substance of bread, cheese, and ale,” p. 271, line 39; p. 272, line 23; p. 339, line 33.
“The accidents of bread may be called the visible part of bread, the outward kind 418. and form of bread, the appearance of bread, a true sensible part of bread, bread, the nature of bread, the matter of bread, the visible matter of bread, not that it is properly bread, but after the common speech and capacity of men,” p. 272, line 16, and p. 273, line 25, p. 283, line 11, and p. 289, line 31, and 290, line 7, and 292, line 16, and p. 396, line 43, &c., and p. 305, line 44, &c., and p. 243, line 45, p. 359, line 22.
The accidents of bread do corrupt, putrify, and nourish,” p. 273, line 30, p. 290, line 7, and p. 296, line 48, and p. 358, line 28.
The glorified body of Christ is of the own nature neither visible nor palpable,” p. 273, line 40.
“In baptism the whole man is not regenerated, but the soul,” p. 286, line 10. ~ “The soul only of man is the substance of man,” ibidem.
“The soul only is made the Son of God,” p. 286, line 23.
“It is called meat because of the outward visible matter,” p. 290, line 9.
As really and as truly as the soul of man is present in the body, so really and so truly is the body of Christ present in the sacrament,” p. 296, line 5, and p. 396, line 15.
“The sacrifice of the church is perfected before the perception,” p. 396, line 32. In the sacrament, being a mystery ordered to feed us, is the truth of the presence of the natures earthly and celestial. The visible matter of the earthly creature in his property and nature for the use of signification is necessarily required,” p. 310, lines 44, 48.
“This saying of Gelasius, The substance or nature of bread and wine cease not to be there still may be verified in the last, and nature he taketh for the propriety,” p. 310, line 50.
Theodorete’s saying, that the substance of bread remaineth,’ seemeth to speak of substance after the common capacity, and not as it is truly in learning understanded, an inward, invisible, and not palpable nature,” p. 321, line 2.
Christ in his supper fulfilled this promise, Panis quem ego dabo, &c., p. 329, line 25.
Accidents in common understanding be called substances,” p. 339, line 31.
In common bread the substance is not broken at all,” ibidem, line 39.
Accidents be broken without substance,” p. 339, line 6, &c.
“All alteration is in accidents and the corruption of accidents in the generation of new accidents,” p. 355, line 4.
Substance in Theodorete signifieth the outward visible nature, that is to say, accidents,” p. 359, line 20.
One thing is but one substance, saving only in the person of Christ,” p. 359, line 41.
Baptism is not wondered at, how the Holy Ghost is there; but the wonder in this sacrament is specially directed to the work of God in the visible creatures, how
This word not” is not found in the passage referred to
25—2
they be changed into the body and blood of Christ, which is wrought before ceive the sacrament,” p. 366, line 45.
419. “Priests do offer daily Christ’s flesh and blood,” p. 384, line 26. ^ “Christ offered himself in his supper,” p. eadem, line 27. Otherwise than Christ did cannot be now done,” p. 384, line 28.
“The daily offering by the priest is daily offered for sin, because we daily p. eadem, line 30.
“That is done in the altar is a sacrifice, and the same that is offered once, daily to be the same,” [ibid.] “Visible priests, ministers to our invisible priest, offer the daily sacrifice in church,” p. 392!, line 46.
‘The body and blood of Christ is properly sacrificed by the priests, and offered for the effect of increase of life in us, as it was offered upon the cross to life unto us,” p. 390, line 46, &c.
“The same body is offered daily upon the altar that was once offered upon cross, but the same manner of offering is not daily that was on the altar of the for the daily offering is without bloodshedding, and is termed so to signify that shedding once done to be sufficient,” p. 391, line 7, &c.
“The sacrifice of the church is propitiatory,” p. 391, line 8.
“The sacrifice of the church is a sacrifice giving life,” ibidem, line 8.
Our sacrifice of laud and thanksgiving cannot be said a pure and clean to fulfil the prophecy of Malachi,” ibidem, line 10.
[Thus in the original text; the paging being by mistake printed 392 instead of 389. ]]
x 4 hv: EM =~ x.. 5f Fh E n i os UPS ς ae 1 y ΣΝ hoa ΓΞ a ho ERI rca XX i lp aR ΠΟΥ SITE aha BT Ca eT ger ENS der us a urn C PUR ei, i gel uM nd, d BA eR ων E Ve PV dec ad LE SR BE NR D δ᾿ Bp. EET. a tT Mee i Cy ’ WE TL. p A cb das AMO pae “is uu. mu 320 DR ER eom us eb, E Sw 3 bre Fark Fok: “ἢ PIT 5 Foe σελ. ἐν ΣᾺΣ ν Ε Ee um uer Nr EE A 2 ipf AT SEs pup. Ἐς a id p e ὌΝ n. ip 7 ip MES” us m 2 tut LA “x a αἵ Pe a FAT xat F^. pot Er 4 T7. Mu ws uu E vos voa BU τω or on LM Hy sr cu MEE ΤΑ S xol EE E det s ” MA: M TE Fra τ RY > AEE day e CREE δ. c d d 21 NOS SUMAR CT RT INI TIE Dn SE vp beu MERE ERO iuge Ub EC OE “ΡΣ ΞΕ A ἜΗΙ “ες ua PEE m e xl EAE LS us M - E. T Ed vie δ ie lr. $us d m E CLE e Ἢ I Soke Fs LF Lye qur Aet E YEA Me / τ var ΑΝ E “d ver e cup Urt ah ἘΣ pe Re ἀν E J ESL em ^ qu a TP E Ri JM “1 E UN pow y LAT. t Wei hr Fp) RA: A xs F eo EIER vp. A ες: AL T T EN rana ἜΘ ἘΞ E 1 x ENT ” - 2.4 2 τς re 135 AL iz EI ” Ψ Fr ] Ω 4 ry ral 5 Ἐπὶ pa ΓΛ m xy AN Mer uS CM reme B. Ay., ne - ”: rr t ’ 3 πα E To ^ τὰ repe CE rt E LL UM Mar ἐς δα Ant j:;! No Uy gem oix = HE NES nt. on. I wea hiss I A ΣΝ, ΡΞ T ^! ’ 2 d - εν, 7 ” - NS ut e Εν ARE Fr Α r3 - ἰ i frm Ne MT εν τος το οὶ à t I E oo PER LIS: NM ig —— Ἢ” f i OUT Er aT en J NUNC.4 MS FERES Ἢ E es 1: = ἐάν πάγον Ὁ} ^20. AN A JM: VU e T pe TES ” DE v E E, pna» mre wie 7. Ἢ [ ah ix ne τ v7 A X 1 > EY AP MR AE oa emm po Tun eos.: “n bu E uel da ee o e us ls ^ dee = y! ao ES. JA nd a Η it s KE DM ond ME.. E Lig:,. E E Lu A rei. T ] Kur up ev, » E Bun Trl M 1; rx C: hans cu; id 4 ι: Ἧ Ἐ v ” i?” Bun us TER SA ΣΝ nn dr eM. usa AE 4 RENE AL kot E. SAT” “A erg i v. ” y P I= Ee 48; VEI AIR ET INTEL. La X 1: 2 - AES ERR 2 aeri t au NAIVE Ro pn; Ls k T Ψ Ἡ d ^g » go a ) Ly P J à EL EVE ME SNNT; evi er EN EUM uS ATE 6 τ i Wh: EE SOM ^ “Ue Wr AT Re Th y Y e Ey “Cy. A duy fh ” ^ I) τὰν resis) α M Mpsey EIR Ae FERRI fe STOR BR haa Nagy NA AUS ey I ΝΟΣ a E AER xe ue 5 NES NY X SE d νη IN vir 1 EM at NN PRSE d ο M onte leu uii. ” 5 SR e ACH ES fe uda ACIEM ED mM. 7 IP POD RARE ER ^ ER mee t ul. UB Om. EST EM “u “BRUN [345 dw. EAR Hw TUS CX fs, a CR A TT Seals 3 ^ Ἴ A u uu. ELM S ENTE VS TM Bm B MU MA Cy ra cs Ha mr DR UN ν----- τ v e I Ey AT M. te Bari] Jeri x 5e ao TOP, Nu. m As ^ Ἐ a EL Uo E ERA ΔῊΝ λῆς i AE A CMT n A e EE uh 1X n 1 z^ YE ‘ 13 4 ^ TE -Ὡ Δ AES ΚΑΘ x np τ & us LE Em ics EN TRAN “isis Ra Su HS in Sets sel LAM TT Ls V ES EE A) EIN Nu SR TIT E OL R- ” ἜΣ es τ τῆς ἐν ἐς: d SP rud HUE LT ay I E. - πὸ δ”
← 20. The Answer unto the Preface of Doctor · Contents · 22. The Disputations at Oxford, Part 1 →