A17219:265
Questions of religion cast abroad in Helvetia by the adversaries of the sameQuestions of religion cast abroad in Helvetia by the aduersaries of the same
Questions of religion cast abroad in Helvetia by the adversaries of the same: and answered by M. H. Bullinger of Zurick: reduced into .17. common places. Translated into English by John Cox. 1572Questions of religion cast abroad in Helvetia by the aduersaries of the same: and aunswered by M. H. Bullinger of Zurick: reduced into .17. common places. Translated into Englishe by Iohn Coxe. 1572
London: printed by Henry Bynneman for George Byshop, 1572London: printed by Henrie Bynneman for George Byshop, 1572
Title page typeset from the transcription.
Modern spelling is a reading aid: the words are the author’s, only the spelling is modernized. Original shows the page as printed, with the transcription marks.
And truly the ancient fathers did1 thus believe and teach concerning this holy Sacrament: to wit, that there is two things chiefly to be considered: the signs: that is, the bread and the wine: the things signified, that is, the body & blood of Christ. But if it be true which the church of Rome teacheth, that the substance of bread is not in the sacrament, but only the body of Christ, then surely, the Sacrament is no more a sacrament, but only the thing signified. And is not this their definition of a sacrament? ⟨p. 90⟩A Sacrament is the sign of an holy thing? If therefore the bread be no bread, neither keepeth his substance, but in the place thereof cometh the substance of Christs body, I pray ye then, what is that they do break in the sacrament? Is it the body of Christ, or what other thing else? For it is no bread, for they say there is no bread in the Sacrament. Therefore if the body of Christ be present only, then is the same broken, which thing cannot •e. Neither is it any more a Sacrament, for it is not the sign of an holy thing, but the very holy thing it self. Then was there no need that the Lord should have given bread and wine in •ys last Supper. But if it be as they were wont to say, that the form and accidents of the bread, as the whiteness, colour, roundness and •aste, be the signs & the things that are broken, then do we demand of them […] what substance the whiteness, •oundnesse and taste doth abide? They ••nne not say I trow, that they are the accidents of Christs body, or that ⟨image 101⟩they rest in his substance, and therefore it necessarily followeth, that they remain in the bread. And therefore the substance of the bread in this Sacrament, is not changed but remaineth, and so their Doctrine hath no good foundation. Yea these words also, Substance, Accident, form, and accident without substance, doth sufficiently declare that this their doctrine, was forged from the devises of subtil• Sophisters and their craft, whereof the Apostles were altogether ignorant. But now, when they are at a sopp game, then say they, these things a altogether done miraculously by the omnipotent divine power of God: b yet they cannot prove that, and there […] no cause so false, but that it may be defended by this kind of reason.