Dilucida explicatio sanae doctrinae de vera participatione carnis & sanguinis Christi in sacra coena, ad discutiendas Heshusii nebulas

what he boasts to be implicit in my opinion. Meanwhile, he indignantly burdens us all at once as if we taught that the bread is a sign of an absent body: as if I had not articulated long ago to my readers regarding the double absence: that they might know that Christ's body is indeed absent in place, but that we enjoy a spiritual participation in Him: because His divine power overcomes all distance. Hence it is concluded that the contest is not about presence, nor about substantial eating, but only about the mode of both: because we do not admit a local presence, nor a crass or rather brutal eating, about which Heshusius babbles word for word: that CHRIST, as regards His human nature, is present on earth in the substance of His body and blood: so that He is not only eaten by faith by the saints, but also corporally by the mouth without faith by the impious. As I do not yet reach the absurdities: where is the expressed Word of God, the touchstone? Certainly it will not be found in this barbarism. Yet the explanation must be looked at, which he trusts is enough to obstruct the mouth of the Calvinists: when it is so insipid that it also opens the mouths of many to reclaim. He purges himself and the churches of his party, which he falsely accuses us of blaming for the error of transubstantiation. For even if they have many things in common with the Papists, we do not therefore mix them both together without exception. Rather, I have long since shown that the Papists are somewhat more modest and sober in their delusions. But what of him? Because the words are joined against the order of nature, τὸ ῥητὸν the literal statement, it is rightly defended, so that the bread may properly be the body. Therefore, so that the words may be consonant with the thing, they must be uttered against the order of nature. Afterwards, he excuses different forms of speaking, while they claim the body is under the bread, or with the bread. But whom will he persuade that it is under the bread, unless...

insofar as the bread itself is, and is not to be adored, except insofar as the locution says either under the bread, or under the species, and the genuine substance of the bread and Christ. If the bread is the Body, and is not, he himself from the futility of his own reasoning teaches that it is to be adored, "It is to be adored is Christ." And if this phantasy is unique, or a thousand Heshusiuses should see fit, Heshusius, the senses of a sane man, to whom it truly is, and is not, because it is not, but a reception, that it is substantially present, to us what the bread, and companions, and that the bread is. Indeed, concerning the bread, and nature it is permitted, and the laughter of the bread, it does not agree that it should properly be, yet this is the body, one, and that it had been for Irenaeus.