Linguistic DNA - Concept Modelling Demonstrator

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
body_n	blood_n	break_v	shed_v	10,145	5	9.7147	5	false

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A06764	An anatomi, that is to say a parting in peeces of the mass Which discouereth the horrible errors, and the infinit abuses vnknowen to the people, aswel of the mass as of the mass book, very profitable, yea most necessary for al Christian people. VVith a sermon of the sacrament of thankesgyuyng in the end, whiche declareth whether Christ be bodyly in the sacrament or not. By Chrystes humble seruant Anthoni de Adamo.; Annotomia della messa. English	Mainardi, Agostino, 1487-1563.	1556 (1556)	STC 17200; ESTC S111869	206,001	464

any turnyng of the bread and the wyne in to his body and blood because that the bread and the wyne doo suffise to bring to remembrans his passion and his body and blood geuen for our ransom As the paschal lamb was sufficient to bring to remeÌ„berans the passe ouer that is to say the passing by of the Angel in Egypt Yea it is not only not necessary that he shuld be there but if he were there he shuld be there in vayne becaus he shuld be there in such sort as shuld help nothing to remeÌ„berans for so moch as that he could not be seene And it is behouefull that the signes that bring a thing to rememberans as the sacramentes doo shuld be seeable And it is well knowen to what end the sacrameÌ„tes were instituted that is to say because we be bodyed as the old doctors say and among the rest Chrysostom vpoÌ„ mathew the. 83. Omelye the which sayth that therfor they were instituted that by them as by certeÌ„ seeable signes our mynd shuld be styrred vp to the spyrituall and vnseeable things signified by the same sacrameÌ„tes And therfor saint Augustne calleth the sacraments seeable wordes so that if we were vnbodied it neded not to institute them The reason standeth in this The sacraments were instituted in remeÌ„brans of Christes body and blood geuen for vs. That which seruith for remembraÌ„ce as an owtward signe ought to be seeable Christes body and blood if thei were in the sacrament shuld be vnseeable therfor thei shuld nothing serue to put vs in remembrance If thei shuld no waie serue to put vs in remembrance than it is not necessary nor conuenient that thei shuld be bodily present in the sacrament And it is enough that the seeable signes shuld be there that is to say the bread and the wine which may work that is to say which may bring to remembrances the body and blood the which thing Christes bodily presens in the sacrameÌ„t could not doo I confirme this reason thus If Christ be there bodily present in the sacrament of thanksgeuing and the substaÌ„ces of the breade and the wine be changed in to his body and blood we must say that either this is by a comen and generall right of a sacrament the which shuld belong not only to this but also to all the other sacraments orels by a particular and speciall right of this sacrament only That is to say that this and not the rest shuld haue this prerogatiue Of necessitie it must be by one of thes ij rightes or els by them both But first we can not say that it is by a comon and generall right of a sacrameÌ„t that is to say that if a thing be a sacrament it shuld be necessary that the thing signified by the same sacrameÌ„t shuld there be present and moch lesse that ther shuld be made any turning of the substances this can not be sayd because that their things signified ought thaÌ„ to be there present in all the other sacrameÌ„ts aÌ„d that there shuld be made a changing of the substances But we doo see the coÌ„trary for somoch as that in all the other sacraments the substaÌ„ce remayneth as at the first and is not changed and there was neuer any man that wold say any such thing If thei wold speake of the old sacraments and of the sacrameÌ„tes of the hebrewes that is to sai of the circumcision of paschal lamb of the rock owt of which issewed the water in the desert and of the manna the which things were sacraments to that people because thei were to theÌ„ signes of holy things no one of thes dyd euer change the substance for to be a sacrament The flesh of the paschal lamb remained flesh as before And we will sai the same of the rock and of the manna that there was no maner change of substancc The newe sacramentes also of the Christian people thei also doo not change substance The water of baptisme remaineth water as before The other likewise which be by the scoole men and newe doctors cownted for sacraments that is to say Creame Oile which thei call holy Penans Orders and matrimony the which in deede be no sacraments becaus thei were not instituted by Christ for sacraments thei doo not change their substances but remaine in their first substance and there is made no maner of change This is clere so that there nedeth not by comon and general right of sacraments to put Christes bodied presens in the sacrament and moch lesse to affirme that there shuld be made a substanciall changing of the bread and the wine in to his body and blood Nor we ought not neither to say that by particular and speciall right of this sacrament Christ shuld be bodily present nor that there shuld be made such maner of change For so moch as that the particular right of this sacrameÌ„t is cheeflie that it shuld be a signe sondred from the other sacrameÌ„ts that is to say that it shuld be bread and wine in substance which be things diuers from the other sacraments And further that it shuld haue a particular and diuers significacion from the other that is to say that it is instituted to bring particularly to our rememberans Christes passion and death and that it shuld represent vnto vs how Christ gaue his body and shed his blood for our ransoming This is the particular and speciall right of this sacrament by the which it is sondri and diuers from the other sacraments But it is not necessary by this ryght that there shuld be made a change of the substances of the breade and wine and that Christ shuld be in the sacrament For the breade and wine remayne in their substances as thei were first and may withowt that that Christ shuld be present in the sacrament work thes effects that is to say bring to our rememberans and represent vnto vs Christes passion and death and how he hath geuen his body and blood for our ransoming It is ynough for the working of this rememberans that thei haue a newe significacion It is not necessary to change the substances as in the first reason we haue sayd Yea I say that seing the sacraments were instituted to th entent that thei shuld be trewe signes of holy things their substance must nedes remayne as it was first For otherwise thei shuld not haue agrement and likelied with ther things signified nor thei shuld not be trewe signes As for example baptisme hath lykelihode with the spiritual wasshing because it is water And as the water wassheth aÌ„d cleÌ„seth the body so be thos that beleue in Christ spiritually cleÌ„sed aÌ„d wasshed froÌ„ their sinnes but if the Water of baptisme shuld not remaine water but shuld chaÌ„ge the substance it shuld not haue such agreement Soo we will say of the breade and the wine that therfor thei haue likelied with Christes body and blood because thei abide still breade aÌ„d wine for so moch as that euen as

turnekindinge If the bread be turned into the body and the wine into the bluod because Christ said this is my body shewinge the bread aÌ„d this is my bluode shewing the wine and that els Christs words should not haue benetrue if the bread should not haue bene turned into the body aÌ„d the wine into the bluode or at the least that Christs bodye should be in the bread and his bluode in the wine It followeth that the paschal lamb which Christ did eat with his disciples was turned into the passeouer because Christ said the laÌ„b is the passouer as it is written in luke I haue earnestly desired to eat this passouer with you before I suffer Luk. 22. if is clere that by this word passouer Christ did meane the paschal laÌ„b aÌ„d because that pascha is that going ouer and passing by that the Angell made wheÌ„ he passed ouer the hebrues not entering in but onely entered into the EgiptiaÌ„s houses killing theire first borne as we haue in Exodus Exod. 12. we shal be coÌ„pelled to say that that laÌ„b was turned into that same going ouer or passing by or els that that going ouer or passiÌ„g by was in that lamb according to there opinion that will that Christ should be really in the sacrament the substances of the bread and wine remaininge And because that that going ouer was not then when Christ said those words that is to saie that that lamb was the pascha or passouer but it was onely in Moyses time in Egipt it followeth that he did eat a thinge that was not behold what maner things do folow their opinion that wold that Christ should be bodily in that host and that cup because he spake these words this is my body shewinge the bread and this is my bluode shewinge the wine For so much as it is no lesse true that the lamb is the pascha or passouer then that bread aÌ„d that wine be Christs body aÌ„d bluod because Christ who cannot lie hath spoken th one and thother And god himself said the lamb is the passouer It was therfore of necessitie that the lamb should be turned into the passouer or at the least that that passouer should be in that laÌ„b because god said soo If we will say that Christ hath geuen to the words of the SacrameÌ„t of the bread aÌ„d the wine the power to make the turninge of th one aÌ„d tother into the body and bluod but he hath not gewen the pouer to thother words of the lamb to turne it into the passouer orels that the passouer should be the lamb Exod. 12. This saing must nedes be self willed and without reason because the one and thother is a sacrament and is made for remembrance the lamb was ordeined in remembrance of that passouer of the aungell that was in Egipt the bread and the wine in remembraunce of Christs body and bluod geuen for oure raunsominge Furthermore they must shew how Christ hath geuen suche power to those words that is to saie this is my body and this is my bluod that by vtteringe them such turning should be made orels that his body and bluod should be made present They shal neauer be hable to shewe this their self wild talk to be true neather by the holy scripture as it were behoue full thei should do Intending to affirme such a matter aÌ„d much lesse by any maner of reason auailable Further though it were so that Christ had geueÌ„ such power to the words yet he gaue it not but to those words that he theÌ„ said whan he did institute the sacrameÌ„t aÌ„d not to other And this they of the same opinioÌ„ do coÌ„fesse but the words that Christ spake theÌ„ be no more true because he spake theÌ„ of the time to come and not of the time past that is to say this is my bodi the which shal be geueÌ„ for you and this is my bluod the whiche shal be shed for you These words were theÌ„ true because that his body was not yet geueÌ„ nor his bluod shed but they were to be geueÌ„ but now they be no more true but false because that eueÌ„ as Christ now caÌ„ no more die nor suffer so caÌ„ he no more geue his bodie nor shed his bluod For so much as if he could do these things he should be sufferable and mortall aÌ„d this caÌ„not be Therfore if these words had power to work those effects theÌ„ false words should haue had pouer to turne the substances orels to make Christ present in the sacrament but if they be true theÌ„ haue they power to make Christ sufferable aÌ„d mortal I coÌ„firm this reasoÌ„ thus If because Christ said those wosds this is my body aÌ„d this is my bluod such turning should be made or els that he should be present in the sacrameÌ„t there wold folow inconueniences because that we shuld be compelled to saie that all the speeches of the scripture and of god in the which is affirmed that a thing is other this or that seing that god can not tel an vntroth we shal be compelled I say to affirme and graunt that it is so as the words seme to say And so we shal be coÌ„pelled to graunte that the Testament or gods couenaunt whither you will call it should be there in the same circumcision For so much as that god as we haue in the Genesis said to Abram whan he did institute the circumcision Gene. 17. this is my couenant speaking of the same circumcision and for all that the circumcision was not that couenaunt but onely a signe of that couenaunt as in the same place that is to say the same chapter it is plaine that god called the circumcision the signe of his couenauÌ„t It is plaine that the signe of a thinge is not the self same thinge And yet god said that the circumcisioÌ„ was the couenaunt We shal be compelled to graunt that that fearfull fantasy the which appered to Saule 1 ReguÌ„ 28. as we haue in the first boke of the kings was Samuel in deed because the scripture there dothcal it Samuel and yet al the Catholike doctours say aÌ„d affirme that it was a faÌ„tasie aÌ„d a deceipt of the deuel aÌ„d not Samuell And we shal be compelled also to saie that because Christ said that he was the vine that he was so in dede And because the scripture calleth Christ a rock a lyon a lamb a shepe and as many other things as it speaketh of him we shal be compelled to affirme that Christ in dede was all those things But what will they say to Christs owne words in the same institution of the sacrament Christ did not onely say this is my body and this is my bluod but he said takinge the cupp Luc. 22. 1. Cor. 11. as luke aÌ„d paule do affirme this cup is my new testameÌ„t in my bluode These words be aswell trew as those this is my body and this is my bluod aÌ„d Christ did aswell sai

with handes why should it not be seene It is playne that euery thing that is felt may also be seene if it be not a thorow shewer as the ayer is But who did eauer see Christ in the sacrament Thother fault of thesame glose is that it speaketh against the text For the text of beringarius confession sayth expresly that not only the sacrament but Christs body and bluod be sensibly handled with the priestes handes be broken and knawed to morsels with the teeth of the faithfull These wordes cannot haue that sense that the master of the sentences geueth them because that the body and the bluod be playnely spoken of and he sayth in the text that they be broken and gnawed into morsels with the faythfuls teeth Further it is not to be thought that they who were present at that confession did vnderstand the wordes otherwise theÌ„ according to the open and lettered signification For so moch as that in confessions men must chefelye speake playnely and not in such sort as it should be necessary to gyue them gloses and expositions but thei ought to be opeÌ„ and many fast and farr from any doubt And so moch the more as they that compelled him to make that confession did wirt it them selues as it lyked theÌ„ It is sayd that a certen maÌ„ called Humbertus cardinall of burgony worded or if you will so call it framed that confessioÌ„ O Capernites This is the honor that thei did to Christ to constraine a poore maÌ„ to confesse that Christ who is immortall and vnsufferable should be sensibly handled and broken with the priestes handes and chawed and gnaued into morsels with the teeth of the faithfull Be these the councels gathered together in the holy gost Let the master of the sentences for all that and as many other glosers aâ—â€¦ be in the world glose at their pleasure yet thei shall neuer sett the matter well together This thing is to doltish yea it is a skorning both of the sacrament and of Christ him self what the causes should be that haue moued the deuysers of these opinyons of Christes bodyly presence in the sacrament and of the turning of the bread and the wyne into Christes body and bluod to Imagin such things I say in my Iudgsment that they be chefely .ij. The first is the ignorance of the maners of speach of the holy scripture because they were not exercysed in the same and they did imagen when Christ sayd this is my body shewing the bread And this is my bluod shewing the wyne that such a maner of speach cold not be true except that bread and that wyne were substantially and beingly the very body aÌ„d the very bluod of Christ or at the least that the one and thother that is to saie Christes body and bluod were with in the sacrameÌ„t Thei sawe that the words were clere and on the other side also that the old doctours many tymes did affirme and call the breade and the wyne body and bluod they thought that that was the mynd as well of the same doctor as of the holy scripture the which thing notwithstanding was neuer so And thei considered not that the same scripture whan it treateth of sacrameÌ„ts is woÌ„t to speak after that sort that is to say to call the sacraments by the name of the things signified as allredy we haue beforcerteÌ„ tymes told aÌ„d that the doctors likwyse folow the same maner of speach this I think is one cause why thei did so vtter it And to proue this true whaÌ„ thei goo about to proue their purpose thei alledge the saings of the doctors euel vnderstaÌ„d aÌ„d those words of Christ This is my body shewing the bread aÌ„d this is my bluod shewing the wine as though he had meÌ„t to sai that the substaÌ„ces of the bread aÌ„d wyne shuld be turned into his body aÌ„d bluod Not coÌ„sidering that Christ speake as the scripture is wont to speak whaÌ„ it calleth the sacrameÌ„ts by the name of the things signified And therfor thei haue affirmed those their opinioÌ„s to be thiÌ„gs ê‘taining to faith the which euery one should be buÌ„d to beleue as an article of the faith The foresaid laÌ„fraÌ„ck in his boke of the sacrameÌ„t the which he wrote against Beringarius saith we beleue saith he that the earthly substaÌ„ces the which vpon the lordes table be by the priestly ministery deuinelie hallowed by the heaueÌ„ly powr be vnspeakably vncoÌ„ceiuably aÌ„d meruelously turned in the veri essens or beiÌ„gnes of the lords body the formes of the same things and certeÌ„ other qualyâ—â€¦ies being reserued And he saith also that the iust maÌ„ who lyueth by faith doth not labor to serchout with arguments and to vnderstaÌ„d with reson after what sort the bread is made flesh aÌ„d the wyne is turned in to bluod beingly the nature of the one and the other being changed because he will rather gyue faith to the heauenly my steryes to th entent that hereafter he might come to the rewards of faith then leauing the fayth to be toyled in vayne in conprehending those things that cannot be comprehended c. Thomas of aquyne in his hymne of the sacrameÌ„t of the lords body aÌ„d bluod sayth the lyke that is to saie the word flesh that is to sai the sonn of god made man with the word doth make bread flesh and the wyne is made Christes bluod and though the sense doo fayle to establish a pure hart yet faith only is sufficient And next after he sayth let him put to faith as a help for the fayling of the senses These .ij. men wold that opinion should be beleued as an article of the faith but if they haue beleued it as an article of the faith aÌ„d as their wordes doo affirme surely they haue slyghtly and euel fauordly beleued because that nothing ought to be beleued as an artycle of the faith except it be found expressely in the scripture Let them tell me then where is the scripture that they alledge Where is gods word on which they grownd their faith Should we beleue these doctours that make thearticles of the faith without gods word that bilde their bilding vpon the sand and not vpoÌ„ the sure rock The first cause I say of such opynions was the ignorance of the holy scripture The second cause without comparayson is moch wors than this And parauenture it shall appeare to some that I am of an euell mynd thinking so moch euel as I doo of the auctours of such opinions But if thei will consider the disceightes the craftes and the nomber of abuses that be malytiously committed in the masse thei will sai surely that I am yet to gentle that I think not moch wors What good caÌ„ be thought of the beginning of so great an error from whens doth procede so many inconueniences and disorders The second cause I say that I imagine is this that is to saie that thei desired to gyue credite to the priuate masse that is to say to

in the last supper saing to the Corynthyans Hoc n accepi a DnoÌ„ ê™ tradidi nobis c. 1. Chorin 11. That is that wich I receiued of the lord deliuered I vnto you That pure and holy order geuin by Christ and kept with so great reuerence by his apostels ought to haue suffised vs and not to make so many addicions which blemissh I wil not say beray the purenes of the sacrameÌ„t as thei haue done of baptym to which they haue ioyned salt oyle spyttel coniuring which things neither Iohn Baptist whan he baptised Christ nor the apostels did euer vse And thes which with reuerence doo kepe Christes appointment and with humblenes doo obey him are now cownted for heretikes as though thei were more bownd to obey men than god Let euery faithfull Christyan iudge iff we say the treuth This fift part of the canon geueth to vnderstand clerely that by thes wordes offerings sacryfices and giftes is vnderstand the wine not yet consecrated And that thei be none other but breade and wyne ffor he desireth that thei may become the body and blood of Christ So that according to the canon the bare simple breade and the bare simple wyne are a sacrifice for the redempcion of sowles and for saluacyon as in the ij part hath bene sayd We may not here glose that the Canon intendeth that the breade and wyne whan they shall be turned in to the body and blood as thei say shall be a sacrifice for the raunsominge of sowles for it meaneth of that breade and of that wyne which are to become the body and blode Now is it certen yea affter their own mind that that breade and that wyne which are yet to become the body and blood of Christ are bare playne breade and bare wyne And yet the Canon sayth that thei be a sacrifice for the raunsominge of sowles which is a plaine wickednes The syxt part of the Canon saith The which that is to say Chryst of whom is made mencion in the former part the day before he suffered The sixt parte of the canoÌ„ of the masse whith the consecration toke the bread in his holy and honorable handes here the priest taketh the host in his handes and addeth And his eies beinge lift vp into heauen to the god his father almyghty yelding to the thanckes he blessed And here is made a crosse vpon the host and is added he brake and gaue to his discyples saing Take and eate all of this ffor this is my body And here the host is liffted vp and caused to be honored a thing which christ hath not appointed But why is not the breade than broken as Christ did seing he commanded that thei shuld doo this in his rememberance And not to cause the breade or wine to be honored Whan this is done the host is laid down vpon the aulter and the cupp is taken in hand and the other part which is the seauenth part is said that is to say Likewise whan thei had supped taking this noble cupp in his holy and honorable handes The vij parte of the CanoÌ„ of the masse rendring thanckes again vnto the he blessed and heâ—â€¦e is made a crosse ouer the cupp and added And â—â€¦aue to his disciples saing Take and drinck all of â—â€¦his for this is the cupp of my blood of the newe â—â€¦nd euerlasting testament a mistery of the faith â—â€¦he which shall be shed for yow and for many for â—â€¦he remission of sinnes so offt as yow shall doo thes things yow shall doo them in my remembraÌ„ce And saing thes last wordes the cupp is lifft vp and caused to be honored as we haue said of the host that is to say all to gether contrary to christes ordinance In thes ij partes is made the consecracion of the breade and wine And in the consecracion of the bread are added ij wordes that are not in the euaÌ„gelistes that is to say that word enim and that other Ex hoc oeÌ„s And in the coÌ„secracioÌ„ of the wine are added ij other that is eterni aÌ„d misteriuÌ„ fidei which likewise are not in theeuaÌ„gelistes And it is to be marueled seing the defeÌ„ders of the masse say that with Christes wordes the consecracion is made and that thei ought not to add or minissh them and so moch the rather as thei them selues say that Christ gaue the powre of consecracion to thos wordes that he spake not to any other how durst thei be bold to ad any one word I will not now say that by this the sentence is changed Neuertheles seing we ought not to vse any other wordes than thos same that Christ spake because he gaue the powr of consecracion to thos only and not to any other as thei say and that we caÌ„not knowe certenly what wordes thei shuld be but by the euaÌ„gelistes or by paule And finding thos wordes that the canon doth add neither in theuangelistes nor in paule it is a great rasshnes to add them Here the Rational or cause teller of diuine officis saith that the apostels had the maner of the consecration from Christ and we from thapostels And that it is not to be merueled though these wordes which seme added be not fownd in the euangelistes and yet spokeÌ„ by christ For the euangelistes for shortnes haue past ouer many things which the apostels haue supplied And he giueth thexample of the visioÌ„ which Paul declareth in the 1. to the corinthiaÌ„s 1. Cor. 15 that Christ affter his resurrection appeared to moo than v. hondreth brethern of which vision theuangelistes make no mencyon at all and yet it was trewe He alledgeth also that amoÌ„g theuangelistes one declareth one thing and a nother leauith owt the same c. All this is trewe that theuaÌ„gelistes haue leffe owt certeÌ„ things which were done aÌ„d allthoughe the one supplieth that which the other leaueth owt this maketh not that we ought to add to the wordes of the euangelistes chefely to them of the consecracion to which wordes only Christ according to their oppinion hath geuen powr to change the breade in to the body and the wine in to the blood and not to any other Who doth asserten vs that Christ spake this word enim aÌ„d thes other words aded that is to say Ex hoc oeÌ„s aÌ„d thos other ij that is to say aeterni and misteriuÌ„ fidei We be certeÌ„ of the appearing of Christ to moo than v. hondreth brethern because Paul to whom christ did reueale it hath writon it But if Paul had not writon it and finding it not in the gospell how could it be certenly known And how shall we be bownd to beleue it Likewise this is the cause why things lefft owt by one euangelist are knowen because a nother doth tell them but if all had lefft them owt how could we certenly knowe theÌ„ O sai thei the church had it froÌ„ the Apostels Saist thow so how doest thow knowe it I will not beleue

the how many things are sayd of the Apostels aÌ„d are attributet to theÌ„ which neauer were We might than affter this sort attribute to the Apostels what we wold Paul writing to the Choryntes 1. Corith 11. teacheth them the forme of the dedicacion of the breade and the wyne and sayth that he had it of the lord and yet he putteth not in any of thes wordes and yet surely for all that he teacheth to consecrate well Why than doth he not putt in thes wordes Iff in the consecration there were nothing considered but the senteÌ„câ—â€¦ it made no matter though some words were added or minisshed so that the senteÌ„ce were not altered But the consideracion here is of the wordes that is to say what thei be to which Christ hath geuen the powr to consecrate and to them it behoueth not to add or to minissh All this I say according to their opinion For thei wold that Christ shuld haue geuen the vertew of consecrating to the wordes which he himselff spake and not to other And yet thes wordes that I say are added be neither in theuangelistes nor in Paule Here must we say that Paul taught not to consecrate well because he spake them not Or els iff Paul taught to consecrate well that Christ spake not thos wordes And if Christ spake them not thei haue vsed a great rasshnes that haue added them specyally hauing that opinion that thei haue of the consecracion that is to say of the powr geuen to thos wordes only that Christ pronownced Moreouer what is the cause that in the consecracion of the bread are not putt in thes wordes which christ pronouÌ„ced that is Quod ê“uobis datur which is giuen for yow as Luke saith or els ê™ pro uobis tradet aÌ„d fraÌ„gitur which is brokeÌ„ for yow as Paul saith as in the coÌ„secratioÌ„ of the wine there be thes wordes Which shall be shed for yow and for many for the remission of sinnes the body being no lesse geuen for our redempcion than the blood Why haue thei in this part maymed the wordes of the consecracion of the breade and not thos of the consecracion of the wine let euery man Iudge if this ought to be done But this is the best of the matter that the defenders of the masse to mainteine it say that that breade and that wyne is changed the one in to the body that is to say the bread and the other in to the blood that is the wyne And are muche combered because thei can not tell what is shewed by this demonstratiue Hoc whan is said Hoc est corpus meuÌ„ that is to say this is my body If by this word Hoc be shewed the breade the saing is false because the breade is not changed in to the body till all the wordes of the consecracion be vttered Iff the body be shewed it semeth that the body shuld be there before the wordes were spoken and before the consecracion shuld be made And we haue the like to say of the wordes of the consecracion of the wine which thing is declared whan is said Hoc eÌ„ n. saÌ„guis meus c. Iff the wine be shewed it is false that the wine shuld be blood If the blood be shewed it semeth that the blood shuld be there before the consecration were made Which thing caÌ„not be And therfor some say affter one sort and some affter a nother and to be short thei knowe not what thei may say One saith that this Hoc doth shewe partly to the sence and partly to the vnderstonding And this is the meaning of thes wordes this is my body that is to say that into which this thing shall be transsubstantiate is my body And this is the opinion of Rychard of S. Victor in his boke of the trinitye CerteÌ„ other say that the with comes of the breade are shewed And this is my body is as moch to say as in this is my body Some other say that this pronown Hoc is taken materially and doth not shewe any thing whan it is pronownced in the coÌ„secracioÌ„ But christes wordes only are repeated To other the contray appeareth ffor whan Christ pronownced thos wordes he shwed some thing and did consecrate Therfor now also being the same wordes and hauing the selff same vse that thei had whan Christ spake them thei shall haue the selff same significacion And euen as Christ than shewed some thing so now must some thing be shewed Innocentius the iij. in his bokes of the office of the masse doth hold that Christ coÌ„secrated with other words thaÌ„ thes Hoc est corpus meuÌ„ and Hic eÌ„ calix saÌ„guinis mei Some other haue said that the powr of consecrating is geuen to thes wordes that is to say that at the vttering of them is made he traÌ„ssubstaÌ„ciacion Some other say and amoÌ„g he rest master Durant that Christ first did consecrate with a diuine powr not knoweÌ„ to vs and affter he declared the fasshioÌ„ with which affter him meÌ„ shuld consecrate For Christ blessed with his own powr but we doo blesse by the vertu that he hath geuen to the wordes with which men coÌ„secrate that is Hoc est corpus meum and hic est sanguis meus And whan the priest pronownceth thes wordes the breade is changed into the body and the wine in to the bloode There be other that say that Christ consecrated with other wordes than thes Hoc est corpus meum and that he consecrated whan he blessed Peter coÌ„mestor saith that Christ consecrated with thes wordes Hoc est corpus meum and hic est sanguis meus but he spake them sofftly to him selff and changed the breade in to the body and the wine in to the blood and affter he repeated them with a lowd voice to the apostels Other some say that Christ pronownced the wordes twise first to geue them the vertu of consecrating and affter he pronownced the same wordes to teach the apostels the fasshon of consecrating and this opinioÌ„ is litle differing from the former Some other say that the breade and the wine are both consecrated together that is to say whan the wine is consecrated than is the breade consecrated and not before Other some say that the breade first is consecrated and affâ—â€¦er the wine Abowt the forme of consecrating of the wine some say as Bonauenture in the iiij of the sentences the viij distinction and many other that thes wordes hic est calix sanguinis mei be of the substance of the forme of consecrating the wine the other which be added that is to say Noui aeter ni testamenti be only to furnissh Thomas of Aquine in the iij. part of his somm saith that all thes wordes be of the substance Scotus saith that being vnknowen for certenty whether thei be of the substance of the form or not that men ought not to determine that it shuld be so but thei ought to say all as iff thei were of

the substance of the forme albeit that comonly the doctors agree with Bonauenture And here is to be noted that according to the opinion of Scotus it is not yet knoweÌ„ what shuld be the wordes of coÌ„secracion of the wine but in part It is sure that he said the truth that neither he nor Bonauenture nor Thomas of Aquina nor as many moo scole doctors as be defenders of the masse euer knewe certenly the very poinctt which shuld be the partes of consecracion And this is the profe theroff For iff thei had knowen it there shuld not haue bene so great a diuersitie and confusion of opinions as we haue sene And we could yet iff we wold speake of others This their so gret diuersitie sheweth plainely that thei neuer knewe it nor neuer were certen of the matter And it is most certen that iff the opinion that thei defend were trewe there shuld neuer haue bene so many and so diuers opinions What a vaine thing is it than to say that by the vertu of certen wordes shuld be made a changing of the breade and the wyne in to the body and blood of Christ which thing not withstonding by the holy scripture caÌ„not be shewed that is that by the vertu of certen wordes the substance of things shuld be chaÌ„ged and of the other part not to knowe or not to be certen which shuld be thos wordes Thei speake also in such sort of this consecratoin that affter their owne opinion the church or the peple that heare the masse are neuer certen whether the consecracion be made or not For the master of sentencis saith in the iiij that the heretikes can not bring it to passe that is to say to consecrate And also he saith yow must haue the intent for otherwise yow consecrate not And who can be certen either of the faith or of the inteÌ„t of him that celebrateth Surely no man being such things in the consciens of man which none seith but god and he that celebrateth Therfor the peple that heare the masse is neuer certen whan the consecracion is made and whan not The cause whi this confusioÌ„ is amoÌ„g them first is because thei knowe not properly what maner of thing consecracion is For consecracion meaneth one thing and thei thinck it shuld haue a nother meaning Besides thei beleue or at the least cause meÌ„ to thinck that thei beleue and thei preach the same as an article of the faith that that breade and that wine is changed th one in to the trew aÌ„d substaÌ„ciall body of Christ that is to say the breade the other that is to say the wyne in to his blood And thei say that Christ really in body aÌ„d sowle as gret and as thick as he was vpon the wood of the crosse and as now he is in heauen is wholly in that litle host and wholly in that cupp where the wine was And thei will that here there shuld come to gether many miracles and thei hold that this meruelos change which thei call transsubstanciacioÌ„ shuld be done by the vertu of thos wordes of the consecracion And thei will that consecracioÌ„ doth meane changing of breade in to the body and of wine in to the blood made with thes wordes So that they make this consecracyon as the inchanters were wont to make their inchantmeÌ„ts with certeÌ„ wordes wich they being deceiued by the deuel thinck to haue vertu to worke certen woÌ„derfull effectys So doo they that thinck with thes wordes spoken softly ouer the breade and the wyne to change by vertu of the same the bread and the wyne in the body and blood of Iesus Christ Thes ij be the causes why they know not with what wordes the consecratyoÌ„ is made nor whaÌ„ it is made ffor hauing that opinyon that they haue that is to say that there is made that meruelous change of bread aÌ„d wine thes wordes hoc est corpus meum make than the difficultye and they knowe not what thing is shwesd by this word hoc For iff the breade be shewed the saing appeareth falss vnto them because the breade is not the body of Christ tyll all the wordes be spoken and whan they shewe the breade the wordes be not yet spoken Than seing the body is not yet there there can not be shewed by this word hoc the body which yet is not And if they say they shewe the body by this hoc that saing hoc est corpus meum semyth to them vntrew likewise for seing the body is not yet there in that host it can not be shwed in it And thus not knowing how to make trewe that saing what soeuer sort they shuld speake it they goo abowt writhing it a thowsand maner of ways aÌ„d wold fayne help the matter if they could but they fynd not the way for god will not As it chaÌ„ced to Pharaos coniurers that could not doo that they wold Exo. â—â€¦ So thei wold yet for all that holding that opinyon they hold and for to geue credyt to the masse they wold yet I say make that saing agree with this theyr opinion but there is no meanes how Let them turne it yet as they will theyr opynyon standing Christes saing hoc est corpus meum cannot be made trewe ThaÌ„ theyr opynynoÌ„ is most false which caÌ„not staÌ„d with gods truth that is to say his word It is chanced also to them as to thos that wold haue bylded the gret tower of Babilon and haue made it meruelos high as it is writon in Genesis Gene. â—â€¦ but god confused their tonges that one dyd not vnderstand a nother allthough that all did agre to the bylding of it EueÌ„ so it hapnyth to thes carpeÌ„ters or builders of the masse wich also wold if they could lifft it vp euen to heauen and make it be cownted as a godly thing and an high worship And thei all are agreed to this workmanship And because they see that iff thei hold not that the trew body of Christ is in the host aÌ„d his trew aÌ„d naturall blood in the cupp the masse shuld not be in price or any estimacion but rather by and by shuld decay therfor aboue all things thei take hede to this to persuade and by all meanes thei can to make the peple beleue that Christ is really and bodily in that host and that cup. Neuertheles god hath confused their toÌ„gs aÌ„d their mindes in to so many waies and opinioÌ„s in to so diuers fansies aÌ„d spechis that the one is disagreing aÌ„d coÌ„trary to the other This is now a plain and a manifest tokeÌ„ that this workmaÌ„ship pleaseth not god and finally shall fall to the grownd to the intent that the saing of Iesus Christ may be verified that eueri plantinge which the heauinly father hath not planted shall be rooted vp Mat. 15. We doo not now intend to goo abowt to proue here that that their opinion is false that is to say that the breade and wine shuld be changed

the one in to his body and thother in to his blood because we shuld make to long a digression from our purpos But with gods fauor whan we haue ended this discours of the masse and the masse booke we will in the end of the boke Ioine to it a plaine sermon of this matter in the which we will proue the treuth And for this time we will make it onli appeare that thei vnderstoÌ„d not what consecracioÌ„ meaneth Therfor yow must vnderstaÌ„d that CoÌ„secrare affter the holy scripture meaneâ—â€¦h not to chaÌ„ge one thing in to a nother by vertu of certen wordes as thei take and vnderstand the consecracion of bread and wine minding that it shuld be a changing of their substances in to other substancis that is to say in to the body and blood of Iesus Christ For a thing that is consecrated is not marred or destroied that it shuld not be any more the same that it was as thei say of the breade and wine that thei remaine no longer affter the consecracion but are vndone and destroied and be no more that thei were but the thing that is consecrated remaineth the selff same that it was first and is not altered in his substance but only is dedicate or appointed to a certen holy vse to the which first it was not appointed or ordeined This is the meaning of consecrare As for example And how 's is said to be coÌ„secrated to god whan it is appointed to some holy vse as a man wold say to the preaching of gods word to the administracion of the sacraments and to comoÌ„ praier Euen so man is consecrated to god whan he is dedicated and appointed to an holy and secred vse of gods seruice All christians be consecrated to god that is to say dedicated and appointed to his seruice which is an holy thing because thei be the trewe temple of god in the which he dwelleth with his holy spirite as S. Paul saith in many places 1. cho 3. 2. cho 6. Ephe. 2. Now it appearith that the man remainith still the same and is not changed in substance because he is consecrated to god but only is dedicated and appointed to gods seruice to which he was not first appointed This which we say we say not of our selues but owt of the holy scripture in mani places Exo. 13.29 num 6. Leuiti 27. as in Exodus numerus leuiticus It is writton in exodus that euery first borne male shuld be consecrate to god as well of men as of beastis Also that Aron and his childern were consecrated to be priestes It apperith in numerus as well of men as wemen that were consecrated to god In the last of leuiticus where is spoken of the consecracion of men and of feldys and vniuersally of eueri consecrated thing It appeareth that that consecracion doth not meane to change one thing in to another with wordes but meaneth to dedicate and appoint and as a man wold sai to appropriate a thing to god and to an holy vse Euery thing that is coÌ„secrated to the lord saith god whether it be maÌ„ beast or felde shall not be sold nor can not be redemed or raunsomed And thes were the consecracions made in the lawe which although we doo not now vse yet neuertheles thei giue vs to vnderstand what Consecrare meaneth and that it importeth nothing els but to dedicate aÌ„d appoint a thing to an holy vse And so we will say of the consecracion of breade and of wine that it is no changing of their substancis made by vertu of wordes but it is an appointing to an holy vse that is to say that thei shuld signifie and bring to our remembrance the body and blood of Christ how he gaue them for our redempcion As he him selff said whan he instituted this holy sacrament of breade and wine Matth. 26. Marc. 14. Luc. 22. 1. Corint 11. saing that thei shuld doo this in his remembrance We haue bene long in this our talk which we haue done for the ignorant and not for the lerned and becaus the matter is waighty THE III. CHAPTER This examineth the viij part of the canon and declareth how he that saith the masse vsurpeth that office that is Christes and also saith a most wicked praier which is a gret wrong to Christ THe viij part of the canon is this that is to say Wherfor we thy seruantes and thy holy peple remembring vs of christ thy sonn our lord of so blessed a passion and resurrection from the deade and of the glorios asceÌ„sion in to the heauens doo offer to thy most excelleÌ„t maiestie of thy rewardes and gifftes the pure host the holy host the vnspotted host and here saing thes wordes are made iij. crosses ouer the host and ouer the cup consecrated to gether that is to say ouer both of them And affter he addeth Holy breade of life euerlasting and the cup of continuall helth And here ij other crosses be made the one whan the bread is named ouer the same host and the other ouer the cupp whan the same is named In this viij part is affirmed that the priest and the peple by the remembrans that thei haue of his death resurrection and ascension doo offer vnto god that host and that cupp consecrated which be as thei think the trewe body and very blood of Christ. But where is it fownd in all the whole scripture that Christ or god did euer ordein that either the priest or the peple shuld offer vnto god the body and blood of Iesus Christ In dede we find that we ought to make a memory of such an offering as christ hath made And therfor he hath ordeined this sacrament to thintent that we shuld vse the remembrance of that oblacion But that we ought to offer to god either the body or the bloode of his sonn that hath god not appointed vs nor yet Christ nor ani Apostel euer made meÌ„cion of it For this office to offer vnto god the body and blood of christ belongeth only to christ who is the high aÌ„d euerlasting priest Heb. 7.9.10 and it belongeth not to vs. And the some christ hath done it ones for all whan he was offered and died vpon the crosse And it nedeth not to doo it offtner because that that only time hath suffised to satisfie god for the sinnes of all the elect And that which we doo now in the sacrament is not the offering of Christes body aÌ„d blood but is a memory of that offering And who knoweth not that the memory of a thing is not the selff same thing but a remeÌ„brance of it And if ani wold say for all this that it beloÌ„geth to christians to offer christ in the sacrameÌ„t because Peter saith that the ChristiaÌ„s be an holy priesthoode to offer spirituall offrings acceptable to god by Iesus christ To this I say that Peter meaneth not here to speake of the sacrament but meaneth of thos hostis

that is to say spirituall sacrifices the which not only the priestes but all christiaÌ„s may and ought to offer vnto god accepted by Iesus Christ. And thes hostes or sacrifices we be first our selffes which ought to offer our selues uÌ„to god ass Paul exhorteth to the romans saing I pray yow that yow will giue vp or offer your bodies an holy liuing aÌ„d pleasing host vnto god which is your reasonable seruing of god This sacrifie is made bi denieÌ„g of ourseluis besides that praisses thankesgeuing praiers allmes deedes and to be short all duties off ChristiaÌ„ deuocioÌ„ be sacrifices And to proue that this is trowth Peter speketh not here to the prestis only but he speaketh to all the christen peple and to all the faithful whom he calleth a chosen peple a kingly presthode c. The prest than that saith the masse vsurpeth the office that beloÌ„geth only to christ But we will speake of this yet more largily in the iiij part There foloweth further more in this part a praier that is to saie Vpon which things or els vpon which gifftes and speaketh of that host and that wine coÌ„secrated which affter their opinioÌ„ are the trewe body and the naturall blood of Christ Vpon ihe which things saith he vouchsaue to looke with an helpfull and a fauorable cowntenance and to accept them as thow didst vouchsaue to accept the gifftes of thy iust seruant Abel and the sacrifice of our patriark Abraham and that holy sacrifice vnspotted host that thy high prest Melchisedech did offer vnto the. Thei that haue made this praier and that which foloweth which is the ninth part either thei byleued not that Christ shuld be in the host or in that cupp and so be heretikes affter the opinion of defenders of the masse which hold as an artickle of our faith that Christ is really in the Sacrament or els if thei byleuid it thei haue spokeÌ„ most folisshly and wickedly For in this praier is desiered that god wold accept the body and bloode of Iesus Christ as he accepted the gifftes and sacrifices of thes iij. that is to say of Abel Abraham and Melchisedeck which were plainly men aÌ„d not withowt sinne although iust by gods grace and had nede of the forgeuenes of sinnes Iff it be so thaÌ„ as in dede it is how doth this praier desire of god that he wold accept the bodi and blood of Iesus Christ his sonÌ„ as he accepted the sacrifices of thos 3. As though his own sonn were not more accepted but rather lesse accepted thaÌ„ the sacrifices of thes 3. which were sacrifices of vnreasonable beastes aÌ„d of plain creatures And who dowteth the body and blood of christ is withowt measure more accepted thaÌ„ as many sacrifices as euer were made in the world Yea who dowthet that all the sacrifices all the offerings all the seruices all the good workes of thes iij. fore named and of all other meÌ„ that euer pleased or were acceptable to god were accepted by Iesus christ by his body aÌ„d by his blood by the which god is pacified with vs who dowteth this but the infidel aÌ„d the wicked man And this praier desiereth that god wold so accept the blood of his sonÌ„ redemer of the world as he did the blood of beastes Ah blasphemos praier Thes be thos great misteries that this canon hath which WilliaÌ„ Durant expowndeth with so great reuereÌ„ce But some man may parauenture say that there is not desiered in this praier absolutly that the body and the blood of Iesus Christ for themselues shuld be acceptable to god as the sacrifices of thos iij. holy men because there is no dowt but that thei be more acceptable for them selues thaÌ„ all the sacrifices of all meÌ„ of the world But there is desiered that thei may be acceptable to god for vs and so is the praier to be vnderstond This answer semeth suttle and som contentios man might paraueÌ„ture shew him selff stowt with it but it is nothing worth For let them say what thei will it shall be allwaies inconuenient ffor iff they wil desyre that the body and blood of Ihesus Christ for them selues shuld be acceptable to god as the sacrifices of simple men no man wil euer say that this shuld be conueniente And euen so shall it be inconuenyeÌ„t also to pray that the body and the blood off Ihesus Christ shuld be accepted for vs as the sacrifyces of thos iij weare Because it is very coÌ„uenyent that thei shuld be moch more acceptable to god for vs than the sacrifices of thos iij. ffor because the body and blood of Ihesus Christ haue obteyned vs forgeuenes of sinÌ„es redemption grace and euerlasting liffe a thinge that thos sacrifyces could not doo to thos iij. that dyd them Thos sacrifyces were in dede fygures of Christ but they dyd not take a way sinÌ„es nor gaue not helth as S. Paul saith to the hebrews He. â—â€¦ Here WilliaÌ„ Durant sayth in his ratyonall that this word sicut doth meane likelynes and not quantytye But this is nothing worth for iff we shuld offer ony gyfft that were a playne creature we might ask this But the sonn of god is offered who caÌ„not but be more accepted to god withowt comparison than thos sacrifices This praier is fond and is as if for a gret prince that had infinite riches some frind of his wold desire and pray god that he wold make the same prince as rich as a priuate citizin Such a praier shuld be scorne worthy and folissh euen so is this And absolutely to him that well considereth the matter he that made this praier did not byleue that the body and blood of Christ shuld be really in that host aÌ„d cupp but beleued that there was thonly bread and wine euen as in baptime we haue no change of the water but the water remaineth water as before allthough it be a sacrament which it was not before Yet to be a sacrament doth not change the water as concerning the substance Euen so the bread and the wine in the sacrament remaine bread and wine still For iff he had thought that the body and blood of Christ had bene in the sacrament realli he wold neuer haue made that praier for it is to fond Iff Christes body and blood be there and he byleued it not it foloweth according to their opinion that this praier is heresy THE IIII. CHAPTER Here is examined the ix part of the canon which is most wicked it examineth also the x. part which is folissh aÌ„d speaketh against it selff And it examineth also the xi and last part of the same canon THe ix part of the canon is this praier On our kneis we besech the Allmighty god command that thes things that is to say that host and that which is in the cup may be caried by thy holy Angels handes to thyne high altare in to the sight of thy diuine maiestie to the intent that as many of vs as shall receiue of this partaking

of the altare the most holy body and blood of thy sonn may be fullfilled with euery heuenly blessing and grace thorow the same Iesus Christ our lord And here are made iij. crosses Masse prystes make ij manifest lyes in the canon euen whan thei are most deuoutly at mass which thei can not denie One vp on the host whan the body is named another ouer the cupp whaÌ„ the same is named the third is made crossing him selff And at this praier the prest boweth him selff a litle but he ought to knele downe seing he saith that he prayeth vp on his kneis and yet he doth not knele but only boweth him selff As in the first part of this canon he saith also that he kneleth and yet he kneleth not And here William Durant vpon thes wordes that is to say command that thes things may be caryed by the handes of thy holy Angel vpon the high altare c sayth that they be of so gret depth that mans vnderstanding is veri hardly sufficyent to enter in to them And minding to expound them he bringeth furth first Gregories wordes registerd in the decree of consecracyon the 5. distinction Cap. Quid sit sanguis And because he semed not satiffyed he bringeth furth iij. other exposityons the first is that that word Hec that is to say thes things may meane not the body and the bloode but the supplicacyons and prayers of the faithfull which prayers the angels offer vnto god And than he geuyth a nother significatyoÌ„ wich doth not satisfie hym And affter he geueth also the third that is this Command that thes things that is to say the mistycall body of Christ which is gods warfaring church may be caryed to the high altare that is to say to the victorios church and that by the haÌ„des of thy holy angel that is to say of christ who is an aÌ„gel of the great couÌ„cel as Esai in the ix saith He addeth yet a nother which for shortnes i will lett passe It is an hard matter surely to defend an vniust cause for a man is constrayned to say many things that be not to the purpos Id nedeth not here that master DuraÌ„t shuld find owt so many glooses For the canon speaketh whan it sayth thes things of the host and of the wyne consecrated as it spake before in the other prayer and speketh not neither of the praiers nor of the misticall body ffor it made no mencion neither of the one nor of the other in the tother praier And desyring in this prayer that god wold coÌ„maÌ„d thes things to be caried by the haÌ„des of his aÌ„gels ther is shewed by thos wordes thes things the selff same off which he spake off in the other prayer immedyately going before And iff he shuld haue ment of other things it shuld not haue bene to the purpos More ouer iff it shuld haue ment of the prayers or of the misticall body thes wordes shuld not haue bene of so gret depth as he sayth Yea they shuld haue bene very easy to vnderstand which is against Durant hym selff Therfor than the canon speaketh of the host and wyne consecrated which be as they thinck the very body and the very blood off Ihesus Christ and desyereth that they may be caryed and preseÌ„ted vpon gods high altar that is to say in heauen in gods sight What a tale is this that Christ â—â€¦huld be caryed by the hands of angels and preâ—â€¦ented in to gods sight Is not Christ now by hym selff present in heaueÌ„ in the sight of the father withowt being caried aÌ„d presented bi the aÌ„gels What the article of our faith sayth that he sitteth at the right hand of god and Paul to the Hebrews saith that he sitteth there contynually He. x. what nedeth it than to cary hym where he is allredy Iff any maÌ„ wold say that the angels may cary hym so farr as he is in the sacrameÌ„t because that affter that sort he is on the earth This saing is a very moÌ„ster aÌ„d vanytye for Christ so farr as he is in the sacrameÌ„t because he is there vnpartably as thei thinck he is there in such sort as he caÌ„ not be caried as the scole meÌ„ theÌ„selues say More ouer iff he shuld be caried forth affter such sort as he is in the sacrament it were necessary that the angels shuld cari the sacrameÌ„t in to heauen which is neuer sene I haue said now that he that hath put in thes ij praiers in to the canoÌ„ bi the talcke that he maketh doth shewe that he by leueth not Christes corporall presence in the sacrament as we told yow in the former chapter For iff he had bileued it he wold neuer haue said such wordes iff he had had any vnderstoÌ„ding He than that made thes praiers the opinion of thes scole men standing is an heretike And master Durant to defend the canon because he sawe that thes wordes according to his opinion could not stond he magnifieth them as diuine things but it neded not being mens wordes and not of the holy scripture so moch to magnifie them and to defend expresse errors desiring to make them holy matters as he is forced to doo in that his rationall or reason giuer The x. part is the Memento in which the dead are praied for And thus it saith Also o lord haue in thy rememberance thy seruants men and wemen here is made a particular rememberans for certen particular dead folkes as like him that saith masse and affter is added The which are gone before vs with the signe of faith and slepe in the slepe of peace To thes o lord and to all thos that rest in Christ we pray the that thow wilt grant place of comfort of light and of peace thorough the same Christ our lord Amen Here master Durant in thexposicion of this part saith that on the sonday thorough our lordes resurrectioÌ„ it is thought that the sowles shuld haue rest He meanith I think that thei suffer not the paines of purgatory but the other daies thei doo O master Durant it is very honest that the sowles in purgatory also shuld kepe the feastes But I meruel why thei haue not rest also on the friday on which day our sauior suffered to take from vs the paines that we had deserued Esay 53. as the scripture saith in so many places and chefely in Esay the Prophete where it is writton that he hath borne our greffes and that the lord hath layed vpon him all our iniquities and how he was beaten for the wickednes of the peple and other such saings which be there Thapostle Paule wold not that there shuld be difference of dayes in Christes church in this life And rebuked the galathians who obserued dayes Gala. 4. And he wrote to the colossians Let no maÌ„ iudge yow in meate or drinck Colos 2. or in part of an holy day or of a newe moone or off the sabboth dayes c. And shall we put

not said with a lowd voice to signifie that christ sometime cried owt Mathei 27. as whaÌ„ he cried on the crosse Heli Heli aÌ„d whaÌ„ also preaching he cried if any be thirst let him come to me and drinck And the rationall a litle affter saith that be cause we be not worthy to deserue the forgiuenes of the things past present and to come except it be geuen vs by the praier of the blessed virgin Mary and of the blessed Peter aÌ„d Paul aÌ„d thother saintes therfor we do call them here to our help But I aske by whos intercession are sinnes forgeuen by Peters Paulis or the sainctes all which had their sinÌ„es Iff this praier intend that that the rationall saith it is blasphemos as though we deserue not pardon eycept by the blissed virgin and of the blessed Peter Paule Andrewe and other saintes And where is this sownd in the holy scripture that we deserue not forgiuenes of sinnes but by the praiers of saintes How doth this rationall knowe this How can we surely speake of the remission of sinnes iff not by the word of god The word of god thorowowtly saith that sinnes are forgeuen vs by christes intreating and that Iesus Christ is our meane aduocate and intreater and it appointeth no nother but him nor maketh no mention of ani other And this praier will haue that by saintes praiers sinnes are forgeuen vs. Why saith he not by Christis intercession Why do we than faine to our selues of our fansy other aduocates and other intreaters But let the rationall with his masse tell me a litle the forenamed saintes and all the rest by whos intercession deserued thei pardon hauing all had one sinn or others Sureli all had nede of pardon It is necessari iff thei will answer well that thei say bi Christ Iff it be soo why do thei allege other than him in the forgeuenes of sinnes What man so euer he be in the world for so moch as by one only way the sinnes of the world are forgeuen as S. Iohn saith in his 1. pistell that he is the propycyacion for our sinnes and not only for ours but for all thos of the world WhaÌ„ this praier is done the host is broken ouer the cupp in 2. partes and one of thos partys is laid vpon the paâ—â€¦en and the other also is broken in 2. partes and the one of thes 2. second partis is laid also vpon the paten With the other that first was put there And affter holding in his hand that other of the 2. pecys also ouer the cupp he saith per omnia secula seculorum And Amen is answered And affter he addeth pax domini sit semper uo biscum And saing thes wordes there are made 3. crossis with that pece of the host ouer the cupp WheÌ„ the wordes be spoken and the crossis made the prest saith thes wordes that is to say Let the mixing and consecracion of the body of our lord Iesus Christ be vnto vs that do or shall receiue them vnto euerlastinge life And all thes things haue their significacions and their misteries that is to say their supersticions But why doo thei not handle the sacrament as Christ taught Christ did nat put any part of the breade in to the cupp but seuerally gaue it to his disciples first the bread which signified the body after the wine which signifyed the blood ech one a part by it selff And dyd not mingle them together as men are woÌ„t to doo sometymes with comon breade that is eaten sopt in wyne This is not conuenyent in the holy sacrameÌ„t the which ought not to be haÌ„deled otherwyse thaÌ„ as Christ hath taught vs. Here the racyonall sayth that this mixture is made for iij. causes The first is to signifye that the body is not withowt the blood nor the blood withowt the body The second is to signifye that there is not but one sacrament The third is to declare the returne of the sowle to the body And what meaneth it that the Apostels and the prymatyue church the which kept the singlenes of the institucyon of the sacrament haue not added thes mynglings What is this but to handell the diuyne misteryes affter our owne fasshion yea rather to make a mock at them And euen as they them selues haue added why also may not we make other addicyon and gyue them their significacyoÌ„s and add eueri day to this masse euen tyll the day of iudgement and make it so long that thei shuld stand an hole yeare in saing it Than what meaneth this word coÌ„secracyon whan the prest sayth let this mixture and consecracyon of the body and blode of our lord Ihesus Christ be mades Is not the consecracyon made allredy and the bread turned in to the body and the wyne in to the blood as thei say what nedeth it more that it shuld be made agayne a newe iff it be made allready Except thei wold vnderstand and golfe affter this fasshoÌ„ that is to say let the comixcyon of the body and the bloode that we make and the consecracyon allready made become to vs that shal take it the body and blood of Christ to the profite of euerlasting liffe But I can not tell if this were his mynd or no that ordeyned this part of the masse THE SECOND CHAPTER Of the Agnus Dei of the iiij prayers that goo before the receauyng of the sacrament and of ij that folow How gret a part of the last prayers in the masse be wicked and some of them speake against the pryuate masse THe agnus dei foloweth which is said iij. times Affter that are said iij. praiers the first destreth that god wold not looke vpon the sinnes of him that saith the masse and that he wold according to his will agree and make one the church The second destreth that by the most holy body and blood of Christ he wold deliuer him from iniquitie and from all his euels And praith that he may be brought nerer to the commandments of god and that he may neuer be sondered from him The third desireth that the sacrament shuld not become his iudgement and coÌ„demnacion but that it might be a defence of his sowle and body Whan thes iij praiers are said he taketh the host in his hand saing I will take the heuenly breade and wil call vp on the name of the lord and knocketh his brest iij. times saing also thrise Domine non sum dignus that is lord I aÌ„ vnworthie And affter he hath takeÌ„ the host in his haÌ„d he saith the body of our lord Iesus Christ kepe my sowle to euerlasting life Amen And whan he hath said thus he receiueth the host And affter he taketh the cupp in his hand saing Quid retribuam Domino c. that is what shall I render to the lord And he saith thus The blood of our lord Iesus Christ kepe my sowle to euerlasting life and receiueth the cupp Thone and thother being receiued the prest affterwardes

the sacrament and not of the hole masse either thei meane of the breade and wine not yet consecrated or els affter that thei be coÌ„secrated Wich way so euer thei take it it is fals that thei shuld be a sacrifice for sinÌ„es Although I know that affter both sortis thei wold it shuld be a sacrifice both affter the consecration and before There is no dowt but affter the coÌ„secration folowing their opinion the bread and the wine be a sacrice For as thei think Christ all hole is there in body and in sowle and that there is no more neither bread nor wine but only Christ the which is the trew sacrifice Also that thei hold that that bread and wine is a sacrifice before the consecratioÌ„ how can thei denie it so many praiers secrets and chefely the canon affirming it The which canon in the first part praith god that he wold blesse that bread and wine and calleth them holy vntasted sacrifices in the plural nomber And in the second part that is to say in the memento he calleth them a sacrifice of praise The which is offered for the saluation of sowles And in the fourth part he calleth them an oblacyon And in the fifft he praith god that he wold vouchsafe taccept this oblacion so that it might becoÌ„e the body and blood of his best beloued sonn So that than they will that that breade and wine which are not yet coÌ„secrated shuld be a sacrifice for the ransoming of sowles And they pray that they may becom Christes body aÌ„d blood Iff they pray that they may become then be they not yet consecrated For whan they be coÌ„secrated they are become Christs body aÌ„d blood as they think and it nedeth not any more to pray that they shuld become soo becaus they be allready soo becomne That this bread and wine vncoÌ„secrated shuld not be a sacrifice for sinnes it is an easy thing to proue For that according to tholy scripture the sacrifice for sinnes is that that hath redemed vs. For so moch as the redempcion is as moch to say as the forgeuenes of sinnes according to Paul as it is writton to the Ephesians and to the Colossians Eph. 1. Collos 1. But we be not redemed neyther with bread nor wyne but only with the blood of the vnspotted lamb christ as Peter saith in his first pistle 1. Petri 1 Yow knowe that yow were not redemed from yowr vayne conuersacion which yow toke by the tradicion of yowr elders with fadeable things as gold aÌ„d siluer but with Christes precios blood as of an hole and vndefyled lamb Is not the bread and wine vncoÌ„secrated things fade able and corruptible How vile doth this masse make Christes redeÌ„pcion Of how litle valew his blessed blood God wold not pardon sinÌ„e but that there was paid so gret a price so gret a passioÌ„ so high a blood and so gret a death as that was of his sonn And they will that sinnes shuld be pardoned with bread and wine which yet are no nother but plaine breade aÌ„d plaine wine That the bread and the wine whaÌ„ the consecracioÌ„ is made shuld be no sacrifice although there were no more neither bread nor wine but the body and blood of Christ Ihesus as they wold haue it I say that they be no sacrifice They be so moch lesse a sacrifice iff the bread aÌ„d the wine remaine And that they shuld be the sacrament as without dowt the SacrameÌ„t is no nother in substaÌ„s but bread and wyne consecrated that is to say appointed to the vse to which Christ appointed theÌ„ that is to sai to bring in to remembrans his body and blood That the sacrament I say is no sacrifice in what so euer sort it be a sacrament I proue it by Paul in his pistle to the hebrews Hebre. 7.8.9.10 The which if the fauorers of the masse had but supperficially vnderstand they wold neuer so boldly haue vttered that the masse or let it be the sacrament shuld be a sacrifice It is writton first in that pistle that there were in the lawe many prystes becaus thei were mortall but Christ who is immortall hath now theuerlasting pristhode and therfor can saue for euer all thos that goo to god by him alweys liuyng to that end that he may intreate god for vs. And he addeth a none affter that thos prestes or els bysshops had nede toffer sacryfyces not only for the sinnes of the peple but for their own also But it behoued that Christ shuld be vndefyled innocent the which shuld not haue nede eueri dai toffer for him selffe and affter for the peple because he dyd this ones whan he offred hym selffe For so moch as that the lawe appointeth men bisshops that haue weakenessys Psal 110. but the word of the oth that is to sai the word of god and of which Dauyd spake in the Psalme appointeth the son for euer consummate that is to say perfite By thes wordes ij things are geuen vs to be vnderstand First that none can offer a sacrifice that may auaile as before god for sinnes except Christ that is pure innocent separated from sinners perfite and euerlasting bishop who hath in such sort offered him selff that the sacrifice is the prest him selff and the priest the sacrifice it selff For that toffer sacrifice for sinnes it behoueth not only that the sacrifice shuld be cleane pure and withowt spott but it is necessary that he that offereth it shuld be him selff also cleane and that he shuld not haue nede toffer for his own sinnes It is knowen off old that among men also whan a thing is presented by the handes of one that is in displeasure of any gret lord allthough that the thing be good yet it shall not be acceptable because that he which presenteth it is not fauored Iff it be so than that he who offereth must be cleane and no sinner the prestes that say masse can not offer sacrifice for sinnes because thei be vncleane and sinners And albeit thei shuld in deede offer Christ ones again that offring could not auaile for sinnes because it is nedefull for the bringing to passe of such an effect that both th one and thother shuld be cleane and withowt spott not only the sacrfice but also the sacrificer a thing that can not be among as many as be but men in the whole world And for this cause it behoued that Christ him selff shuld be he that shuld offer and make sacrifice to god and no nother but him selff because he alone is without sinne and all the rest be sinners Than it geuyth also tunderstand that it nedeth not any more to doo sacrifice for sinnes becaus he that hath done sacrifice Christ hath satisfied hauing done ones for euer because it was perfite being the same Christ theuerlasting bisshop that offred him selff Iff that haue suffised being ones done what nedeth it to make other sacrifices or to make againe the same at other times Surely

office betwene god and men doth send their praiers and supplications to god Some time this name masse is a nowne proper and doth signifie Christ first sent from the father to vs and sent from vs to the father to th entent that before him he might intreate for vs Albeit for shortnes I doo not recite all his opinion Some other as Ihon rewcklin a man very well lerned in the hebrew toÌ„g saith that the masse is no greke name nor latin but hebrewe aÌ„d is as moch to sai as sacrifice And now our massemongers wold that the masse shuld be a sacrifice for sinnes Othersome say as Polidor virgil of vrbine that Missa is as moch to say as geuing leaue to depart or licensing the peple that thei may goo their way that is to say-that licence and leaue is geueÌ„ them that thei may depart for so moch as in old time no man ought to depart from the holy things thei being present except licens were geuen them And Missa is as moch to say as missio or dimissio a licensing or geuing leaue to depart becaus that being ended the peple is licensed to goo at their plesure to their howses He saith besides many things vp on this matter but becaus I know that this name hath an abhominable signification I litle desire to serch any further for the beginning of so vngracios a name Whan it shuld haue begon to be so named and who shuld haue fownd it owt it is not well knowne It appearith that from pope gregories time the first hetherto it hath bene vsed And I doo not remember that I euer redd that before his time it was vsed THE IIII. CHAPTER That the mass is a gathering together and an heape yea a sea of abuses wikednessis and superstitions IT is not our purpos nor mind to tell all the abuses of the masse becaus we knowe them not all And allthough we knewe them thei be so many that to goo abowt to write them all thei wold make to gret a booke It shall suffise we write some of theÌ„ by the which may be sufficientli Iudged what maner a thing this masse is One of the chefe is the worshipping the host and the cupp the which is an Idolatry For froÌ„ whens gather thei that the sacrameÌ„ts ought to be worshipped The sacramentis ought to be handeled with reuerens as holy things and godlie institutions but that thei ought to be worshipped we haue it not in any place of the scripture nor by any example of the apostels or of the saintes of the old church eueÌ„ as the baptime is not worshipped but is a signe that maketh vs sure aÌ„d certen that our sinnis be forgeuin vs by Christ so neither the bread or let it be the host nor the cupp ought to be worshipped nor christ did not institute them to this end But be did institute them in remembrans of his body and blood geuin for forgiuenes of our sinnes This remembrans the bread and the wine allredy work withowt that that thei shuld be worshipped And it is to be noted that iff thei shuld be worshipped the apostles whan Christ did institute the sacrament of his body and blood thei wold haue worshipded it but thei did not worship it so farr as we haue by the story of the euangelistes yea thei sate still at the table And it well appearith by a certen text of Honorius the pope in the iij. booke of the decretalls in the title de celebratione missarum that this worshipping is no old but a newe thing And it semith that it shuld be the institucion of honorius himselff who died in the yeare of our lord 1226. His wordes in the said decretall be thes To th entent that thorow the small care of the pristes gods anger shuld not be more greuosly sent we doo straitely command that the sacrament of thanksgeuing be by the prestes placed in a singular place cleane and locked and kept deuowtly and faithfully But let the prest very offten teach his peple that whan the helthfull host is liffted vp on high in the celebracion of the masse thei reuerently bowe them seluis doing the same whaÌ„ the priest beareth it to the sicke Here honorius coÌ„maÌ„deth that the peple shuld bowe theÌ„ seluis to the host aÌ„d doth not say than expressely that thei ought to worship it he saith only that thei ought to bowe theÌ„ seluis And he geueth vs to vnderstand by this his talk either that he him selff was the institutor of that thing or els that this bowing to the sacrameÌ„t began not long affter him For iff the vse had bene old it had not neded to make so straight a coÌ„maÌ„dmeÌ„t to kepe it for thos things that the custoÌ„ aÌ„d vse is to doo are done withowt coÌ„maÌ„dmeÌ„t And whithowt dowt the saÌ„e hoÌ„orius iff such a custoÌ„e had beÌ„e before him he wold haue alledged either which had beÌ„e the beginÌ„er or at the least the custoÌ„ it selff And he of him selff wold not so haue spokeÌ„ as he hath done The defenders of tbe masse will say that christ may be and ought to be worshipped where he is he is in that host wherfor he ought to be worshipped in the same I aÌ„swer that worshipping is a deede of faith faith is not but by the same word of god Let them shewe one Iote if thei caÌ„ doo it by gods word that Christ shuld be in the sacrament bodily We doo worship Christ in heauen becaus we haue the scripture clere that he is ascended in to heauen and there abideth and sitteth on the right hand of god Luke 24. Mark 16. Act. 13. Ephes 4. Act 3. as it is writton in luke and mark in thactis of thapostles aÌ„d to thephesians Who doth asserten vs that Christ is in that host and in that cupp First we be not certen that the prest hath consecrated hauing not perceiued the wordes Furthermore he may haue said the wordes aÌ„d yet the consecracion shall not be made becaus that either he shal not haue had th entent or the trewe faith which things the consecracion requireth as the master of the sentencis saith I speake now affter their opinion But of this thing we will speake more at large in the sermon of the sacrament Now I will not stand to dispute becaus I shuld be to long That may be said to them that worship Christ in the host and in the cupp that Christ said to the samaritane yow worship that that yow know not Furthermore as we haue said before and also wil say there hath bene no one or very fewe trew priestes from many an hundreth yeare hetherto becaus thos that haue ordeined them were not trewe bisshops so than thei did neuer consecrate Here there might be said many things but for shortnes I will leaue them Another abuse is that the wordes of the consecracioÌ„ be not said with a lowd voice as thei ought to be seing thei be wordes of the holy gospell

and liue for euer to whom be all rule honor and glory for euer and euer So be it THE END A SERMON OF THE SACRAMENT OF THANckes geuing the which declareth whether Christ be really and bodily in the same or no. I CAN NOT SAY HOW moch mirth and yoie is in my hart whan I see in this our age that there is kindeled in the mindes of many the holy desire to vnderstand gods things that is to say the inestimable and the incomprehensible treasures hidden in Christ Iesus whose knowlege passeth euery other knowlege and wisdoÌ„ and doth so farr excell Philip. 3. that Paul thapostel thought euery other thing losse and worthy the throwing awai in comparison of that Neuertheles the lord doth not geue this desire to know Christ to all men but to his own that is to say to the elect only the which he hath before the beginning of the world forepointed that thei shuld be to his praise and glory Ephes 1. Of the other side not with standing I can not but be sory seing in thes same times whan the gospell that hath bene hidden so many worlds past is by the goodnes of god lately come furth to light that there shuld be so mani and so diuers opinions of thes things that god hath Instituted to kepe agrement and peace among the faithful that is to say of the sacraments of the church in such sort as Sathan the enemy goth abowt with the self same instruments of peace and vnitie to make warr against Christ setting dissension making schismes and sowing debates amongst Christians not only among the people and comon sort but among thos that shuld be lightes glasses and examples of agrement to whom belongeth to teach other that is to say among the ministers and preachers of the holy gospell But this dere brethern ought not to offend yow nor to remoue yow from your holy purpos that yow haue in Christ but rather to confirm yow in faith and to kindle yow to make a gretter entry in to the religion and way of God for so moch as that god doth suffer such striffes and diuersities of opinioÌ„s for the benifite of his church and of the trewe bileuers First to th entent that his 1. Corinh 11 who abide constant and stowt may be manifest whan thother that haue not a trewe growndwork but a fained and vaine faith doo falle and faile Furthermore also to th entent that whan we see such disorders we shuld not put our trust in men the which may all err but we shuld come to gods word the which onlie can not deceiue and that we shuld indeuor our selues with all diligens and care to vnderstand it and that we our selues shuld looke in the scripture whether it be so or ã€ˆâ—Šã€‰ as we may reade of thos that hard Paul preacâ—â—â—â€¦n the citie of Berrhoe in Macedony as it is writteÌ„ in in thactis of thapostels Act. 17. the which whan thei hard Paules sermon thei looked in the scripture itself whether it was so as he said ã€ˆâ—Šã€‰ â—â€¦o And to be short to th enteÌ„t that we shuld prai vnto god that he wold geue vs the trewe vnderstanding of the same because the matters of gods spirite be not vnderstand by any mans way but by gods disclosing 2. Pet. 1. 1. Cho. 2. Now to return to the purpose of the striffe that is of the sacraments Some say that in the sacrameÌ„t of the body and blood of Christ that is to say in the breade and wyne consecrated in remembrans of his death is conteined his very body and his very blood and that there we haue really and bodily all and hole Christ as great and as thick as he was on the crosse Other some say that he is not there but there is only the breade and the wine as signes of Christes body and blood geuen for our redempcion And this controuersy and striffe is in such sort gone forward that it hath with many hindered the course of the holy gospel And it hath made that Christes enemies haue taken occasion and boldnes to blaspheme the holy lerning and gods truth But be it as it will allthough some haue coÌ„mitted a great fawt in this thing striuing euer bitterly against the contrary opinion wherby thei haue shewed them selues to be men and haue in som part spotted their own glory lessening the credite and auctoritie that the world had of them We not withstanding will comfort our seluis with Paules saing which he speaketh to the romaÌ„s Rom. 8. that to gods elect euery thing groweth to good And although that presently thorow such dissensyon we see among many nothing but disorder offence and euel yea hatred toward the gospell yet god for all that who knoweth how to get order owt of disorder and good owt of euell will caus whan it shall please him some great profite to growe owt of it in his church for the present vnknowen but in the end open thus we schuld beleue And becaus I know that many desire to vnderstand what shuld be the trewe opinion of this sacrament I for the loue of the truth for the glory of god and to doo them a pleasure and also a benifite will simply and with as moch easines as is possible sett furth the opinion which I thinck and hold for certeÌ„ hath bene and is the opinion of the Apostles all the awncienty of the holy scripture and of Christ him selff And let no man meruell though I setting the suttletyes a syde shall rather procede with simplenes and familiaritie and also though I shall reherse one thing often for so moch as that my mind is to be plainely vnderstand of all men and chefely of the simple aÌ„d vnlerned And because the thing is of so great waight that it deserueth to be handled with all diligens to th entent that all men may the more easily vnderstand it we by order and by parts will consider it And First we wil see how that there hath bene aÌ„d yet be diuers opinions of this sacrameÌ„t of the supper of the lord aÌ„d the cause why aÌ„d we will bring furth the contrary talkes and reasons to the truth Secondarily whan we haue shewed the trewe and catholike opinioÌ„ we will proue it with sure grownd workes and plaine reasons In the third place we will make it certenly appeare that this is the opinion of the holy fathers and of the old church In the fourth we will answer to the contrary saings and reasons shewing them to be vaine and of no waight In the fift and last we will serch owt from whens the error of the fals Imaginacions in the matter of that sacrament is proceded let vs than in the name of our lord begin We must vnderstand that the cause of the differens in this matter that is to say that some say that Christ is really and bodyly in the sacrament of the bread and the wyne and some other say the contrary that is to

say that he is not there is the euel vnderstanding of Christes own wordes the which he spake whaÌ„ he instituted the same sacrament For one opinyon vnderstandeth them after one sort and thother after a nother so that the controuersy aÌ„d contraryetye of the opinyons is because they vnderstand not Christes wordes as they ought to be vnderstand Matth. 26. Marci 14. Luk. 22. 1. Cor. 11. Whan Christ dyd institute this sacrament he toke first the breade and called it his body saing this is my body â–ª After he toke the wine aÌ„d called it his bloode They of the first opinyoÌ„ say that seing the wordes be christes in dede they caÌ„ not be fals seing he hath playnely sayd this is my body shewing the breade aÌ„d this is my bloode shewing the wyne We must nedes say that christes body aÌ„d blood be there for els his wordes should not be trewe but fals which caÌ„ not be for somoch as that Christ being the chefe trouth can not say an vntrouth He hathe sayd that the breade is his body aÌ„d the wyne is his bloode ther for it must nedes be soo And in this opinyon there be also ij diuers myndes One sayth that Iesus Christ is not only in the sacrament but wil that neyther breade nor wyne shuld remayne in the sacrameÌ„t but that both of theÌ„ should be chaÌ„ged and should be cownted turnkynded that is to say transsubstaÌ„tiated as they call it the which meaneth turned in to Christes body aÌ„d blood The bread in to Chrystes trew aÌ„d natural body the wyne in to his blood And thei call this turniÌ„g or chaÌ„ging traÌ„ssubstaÌ„tiacyoÌ„ that is to say turning of the substances in such sort as there remayneth nothing of the bread aÌ„d the wyne but the withcommes or accydeÌ„tes that is to say the whytenes of the breade the rowndnes the tast the sauor And so of the wyne there remayneth the rednes if it be redd the swetenes or the sharpnes according as the tast is and so of the other withcommes the which remayne withowt any subiect that is withowt any body to be in But the substances of th one aÌ„d thother be turned in to the substaÌ„ces of christes body aÌ„d blood aÌ„d this is done by myracle becaus god can doo all things And this is the opinion of the prystes and fryres of the romish church And they haue in such sort preached it that the worlde in tyme past from certen hondreth yeares hetherto haue beleued it aÌ„d cownted it as an article of the faith And woo to hym that had sayd the contrary For they wold haue coÌ„demned aÌ„d burnt him as an heretik And that because the pope who was taken for god on earth for Christes lefetenant and had auctoritie to make men beleue what so euer liked hym and euery man was brought to his determinacion wold nedes haue it so Certen other of the first opinion too the which holdeth that Christ is realli and bodily in the Sacrament doo saie that not witstanding that Christes body is wholly in the breade and his blood wholli in the wine yet the breade and the wine abide in their substance as before and be not turned nor changed in to a nother thing as the former opinion saith And thes maner of meÌ„ must nedes saie that at the least .iij. very great miracles must come to passe in this Sacrament The first is that Christ is wholli under that breade aÌ„d under that wine as great aÌ„d as thick as he was on the crosse and as presentli as he is in heauen This is a gret thing that a great body continewyng great shuld be inclosed in a litle thing moch lesse then the same bodi The second miracle is that Christes whole bodi and his wholle blood is in the whole bread and in the whole wine and in eueri yea the least part of th one and the other as it is said of our reasonable sowle that it is whole in the whole bodi and whole in euery part of the body in such sort as if there shuld be made x. thowsand partes of the breade aÌ„d the wine whole Christ aÌ„d his whole blood shuld be in eueri of thos diuided partes which is yea a greater thing withowt coÌ„parison thaÌ„ that of the being of the sowle in the whole bodi aÌ„d in eueri part of the bodi For allthough the sowle be in eueri part of the bodi whilest that the partes abide yoined together yet it is not in all the partes of the bodi whan thei be separated For whan one part is diuided from the body the sowle is no more in the same But Christes bodi and blood according to this opinion be in all the partis of the bread aÌ„d of the wine whan thei be yoined to gether and whan thei be diuided or sondred The third miracle is that the same body and the same blood is in heauen and in earth both at a time and is in all places of the world where the sacrament is In France in Spayne in England in Almainy in Flanders in Italy in the east in the west in this in that citie In this in that church on this The tabernacle is a litle-closet wherein the sacrament is kept nere the altare on that Altare In this in that tabernale as thei say Yea and that thei say that Christ is euery where and filleth euery thing But it is behouefull for them that put or will haue the changing of the substances of the bread and the wine that is to say that their transsubstantion to put besides thes .iij. miracles others also and to make a better marcket of miracles than thei that put it not yea a better market than the holy scripture and god maketh to whom notwithstonding belongeth to make miracles who is not so liberall of mirakels as thei be The chefe grownd worck of this first opinion is that Christ said This is my bodi shewing the breade aÌ„d This is my blood shewing the wine And therfor Christ must be in the same sacrameÌ„t For els he shuld haue spokeÌ„ falsely the which caÌ„ not be Thei bring furth in dede other reasoÌ„s but thei all doo litle auaile as that same that if Christ were not in the sacrament it shuld not haue bene so gret a fawt to him that had receiued it vnworthely as Paul saith that is to say who euer eateth that breade and drinketh that wine unworthyle he eateth and drinketh Iudgement that is to say coÌ„demnation If Christ were not there say they it shuld not be condemnation to eate that breade and to drink that wine But the condemnacion is to him that eateth and drinketh vnworthily Therfor Iesus Christes very body and blood is there And the same Paul in the self same chapter doth call the consecrated bread the lords body and therfor they say that Christ is in that breade and in that wine Thei of this opinion to my IudgemeÌ„t doo make no other reasons that be any thing worth Not withstanding whan

we shall haue placed the trewe opinion we will answer to this shewsom reason and with the help of the lord we will make it appeare that it is triffling and of no valewe The other opinion and mind abowt this matter is that Christes body and blood be really in heauen where he sitteth on the right hand of god the father and that thei be not really and bodily in the sacrament but saith that the bread and the wine be signes appointed to signifie the body and the blood how Christ Iesus hath geuen both th one and thother for our ransom and satisfaction for our sinnes to th entent that we shuld kepe in our rememberans so great a thing and mistery as he him self whan he did institute the same sacrament in the presence of thapostles sayd Matth. 26. Marc. 14. Luk. 22. 1. Cor. 11. that is to say as oft as yow shall doo this yow shall doo it in my rememberaÌ„s And this is the trew and catholik opinion a greable with the holy scripture and with the doctrine of the old church and awncient teachers the which haue not said as any one of the for said opinions saith that is to say that Christes body and blood be inclosed in that breade and wine aÌ„d moch lesse as thother opinion sayth the which affirmeth that the substances of the breade and wine be turned in to Christes body and blood and that there is no more neyther breade nor wine but only the withcommes of th one and thother but haue sayd that the breade and the wine remaine aÌ„d be signes of the body aÌ„d of the bloode for to bring to our remeÌ„brans the most great aÌ„d high benefite that Christ hath wrought vs dieng for vs that is to say of our redempcioÌ„ And the growndworkes of this opinion be sure and of such sort stedfast that all the Ingines in the world be not sufficient to throwe them to the grownd because thei be grownd wrought vp on the sure rock that is to say thei agree with gods trowth aÌ„d his word that abideth for euer We doo not Intend now here to bring furth all the reasons and grownd workes with the which this opinion is proued For we shuld than make a long treatyse and not a sermon to informe the ignorante and IoÌ„glings in the knowlege of gods things as we intend to doo But we will only bring furth some fewe persuasions by the which it may be clerely knowen that it is euen soo as we sayd First this opinion saith The first reason that the definicion of the sacrament must nedes shewe and make Plaine to vs that the matter standeth thus that is to say that the breade and the wine remayne and that Christes body and blood is not really there in them For the definicion of a sacrament receiued of all men and is sent Augustines a catholike doctor is this that is to say that a sacrament is a signe of a holy thing Euery man confesseth that the thankes geuing is a sacrament If it be a sacrament it is no nother but a signe of an holy thing If it be a signe of an holy thing it nedeth not that the breade and the wine for to be signes shuld be changed in to other substances for so moch as that the signes that thei may be signes do not change any substans but only take a newe significacion And it is moch lesse nedefull that Christes body and blood shuld be really and bodily present in the same breade and wine for so moch as it is not necessary that the things signified and represented by the signes shuld be inclosed or present in the same signes as by experiens we may see in many sortes of signes that it is not nedefull that the thing signified shuld be either present or inclosed in the signe It is ynough that it be represented Let vs geue an exaÌ„ple The Emperours Image is a signe of the Emperor And because it is no nother but a signe we will neuer say that the Emperor him self is in that Image nor that that Image is changed in to the emperors parson For if he were present where his Image is he neded not to sett vp the ymage for so moch as the Image is therfor sett vp speaking of the bodied things in any place because the thing signified is not there present and therfor it is sett vp to th entent that it may represent it So will we say of the breade and of the wyne that Christ hath Instituted them to th entent that thei might be representers of his body and blood to th entent that whan we see them and vse them for a sacrament as he hath ordeined we shuld remember that Christ hath geuen them that is to say his body and blood for our ransoming And for to be signes affter this sort it nedeth not that the body and blood shuld be there bodily present and moch lesse that thei shuld be changed in to other substances It suffiseth as we haue said that thei be signes as we haue spoken of the signes of the emperours ymage The reason standeth in this that the thaÌ„ks geuing or for to vse paules wordes the lordes supper is no nother but a sacrament therfor it is no nother but a signe Because by the definicioÌ„ allredy geuen A sacrament is a signe of an holy thing The signe of a thing is not the thing it self nor is not changed in to it but only doth signifie it Therfor the breade and the wyne be not changed in to Christes body and blood nor they be not inclosed in them that is to say in the bread and the wyne And it suffiseth that thei be truly represented by the bread and the wyne And though we say that the bread eaÌ„d the wyne be no nother but signes we meane not to denye the effects that the spyrite of god of the which the same sacraments be the mynistery doth worke in the beleuers that receiue them For by meanes of the sacraments the trewe beleuers be as it were by certen signes and seales of god confirmed in his promises and be assuered of gods grace and of many benyfites which god doth geue vs through Christ but we doo only denye that Christ is body lythere for so moch as that to work thes effectis which we say that the sacraments by the verteu of the holy gost doo work it suffiseth that they be signes appoynted by god to that end And it nedeth not that Christ shuld be there bodyly present nor that there shuld be made any change of the sustances of the breade and the wyne The second reason Luk. 22. 1. Cor. 11. Further this sacrament was instituted by Christ in remembrans as the wordes them selues of the same insttucion doo witnes saing Doo this in mi rememberans If it be so than that it was instituted for remembrans it is not necessary that Christ should be bodyly there and moch lesse that there should be made

the breade and the wine doo noryssh and mainteine the life of the body so Christes body and blood receiued spiritually and thorow faith in to the mind doo norissh and mainteine vs in the spirituall life And for this cause Christ Iesus called his flessh verily meate and his blood verily drinck But if the substance of breade and wine shuld not abide but the only withcommes shuld remaine there shuld not be that liklihode and agreement which this sacrament requireth because that the only withcommes of breade and wine withowt the substances can not norissh And whan the dewe agreemeÌ„t aÌ„d likelyhode is not there thei shuld not be trewe signes and consequently thei shuld not be trewe sacraments And here it may be seene that thei of this opinion destroie the sacraments making them not to be trewe but vaine signes taking from them the growndwork of their trewe meaning A nother reason is this The third reason If Christ were bodilie in the sacrament it should be nothinge profitable forsomuch as that the onelie spirituall eatinge of Christ is that Iohan. 6. that is profitable as the same Christ himself said to them that thought whan he said that his bodie was meat aÌ„d his bloude drinke aÌ„d that it was behouefull for the hauinge of life to eat his flesh and to drinke his blode They thought I say that he ment to speake of the bodily eatinge and drinkinge sending the one and the other thorow the mouthe in to the stomake as also they beleue that hold that Christ should be personalli and bodely in the sacrament What said Christ to these maner of men The spirit is that whiche geueth life the flesh helpeth nothinge that is to saye when I saie that you must eate my fleshe aÌ„d driÌ„k my bluode I meane that you must eat my flesh and drink my bluode spiritually aÌ„d after this sorte they geue lyfe but my flesh eaten and my blood dronken as you vnderstand it do help nothinge It is necessary for the geuing of lyfe that my flesh be eaten and my blood be dronken spiritually and not fleshly Christ is eaten and his blood is dronken spiritually as he him self declareth wheÌ„ meÌ„ beleue in him And Augustine iÌ„ the exposicioÌ„ of the said words saith Crede et maÌ„ducasti that is to sai beleue and thou hast eaten geuinge to vnderstaÌ„d that Christs intent was when he said these words that is to sai that it was behoufull to eat his flesh and drink his blood to say that it was behouefull to beleue in him And after this sorte his body was eaten and his blode was dronken And the text it self geueth vs to vnderstand that this is trewe the which saith first that the fathers will is that euery one that beleueth in Christ should haue lyfe euerlafting And a fewe words he addeth veryly veryly I say vnto you he that beleueth in me hath lyfe euerlaftinge I am the bread of lyfe And a litle after he saith if you shall not eat the flesh of the sonne of man and drink his blood you shall not haue lyfe in you He that eateth my flesh and drinketh my blood hath lyfe euerlastinge If thes wordes spoken by Christ be trew as necessaryly thei must be trew because Christ cannot tell an vntroth It doth necessaryly folow that the eatinge his flesh and drinking his bloode is none other but to beleue in him or at the least that the eatinge his flesh and drinking his blood and the beleuing in him be things so ioyned to gether that they cannot be separate the one froÌ„ the other The reason is this becauce that if these words were not the same in sentence or ells that thei were suche as might be separated the one from the other that is to say that the one might be trew without the other we must needs say that a man might be saued and haue the lyfe euerlasting without the eating of Christs flesh and drinking his blood the which is against Christs expresse wordes who saieth that he can not haue lyfe that eateth not his flesh and drinketh not his blood Or els we must nedes saye that a man might be saued not beleuinge in Christ This is clere because Christ saith that he that eateth his flesh and drinketh his blood hath lyfe euerlasting If it be so that man is saued by eating his flesh and drinking his blood when as this eating and drinkinge be not the same that beleuinge is or els that they may be separated that is to sai that the eating and drinkinge should be without the beleuing a man then shall haue life euerlastinge without beleuing in Christ the which likewise is against Christs expresse words who will that he that bebeleueth should be saued aÌ„d he that beleueth not should be damned Seing then that the one aÌ„d the other of these two sainges be trew that is to saie that he that eateth Christs fleshe aÌ„d drinketh his blood hath lyfe euerlasting and he that dothe not this can not haue it And this other also is trewe that is to saie he that beleueth in Christ hath lyfe euerlastinge and he that doth not beleue cannot haue it It followeth of necessitie that to eate Christs flesh and to drink his blood and to beleue in him should be one self thinge or els yf they should not be the same at the least that they could not by any meanes be separated that is to saie the one to be without the other I haue made this longe discourse to make men vnderstand that these words of Christ of the eating of his flesh and drinking his blood be not to be vnderstand of the bodyly eatinge and drinking and much lesse are to be vnderstand of the eating and drinking the sacrament of the lords supper but of the onely spirituall eatinge and drinkinge and thei that alledge them of the body or els of the sacramentall eating or drinking do alledge them out of the purpose Further also to make men know the chefe purpose that is to sai that althoughe Christ were bodely in the sacrameÌ„t it should helpe nothing because that the fleshly eating after what so euersorte it should be done doth nothing proffit to the witnessing of Christ seing the spiritual eatinge onely is that which geueth life And if any wold answer and saie that when Christ said that the flesh did help nothinge that he did meane that it did help nothing whan it was eaten as they did vnderstand it to whome Christ spake that is to saie the Capernaits the which thought that he did meane to saie that they should eat his flesh as the flesh of the shambells is eaten and drink his blood as wine and water is dronk But Christ in the sacrament is eaten after suche a certene sort as he is not seane nor perceauid no nor chewed because he is in the same sacrament vndiuideably nor his flesh is not eaten nor blood dronken for to norish the body as other bodelie meates but to norishe the soule

And therfore Christ reprouid the Capernaties because thei vnderstode him euel fauoredly and not as he wold be vnderstand This answer is nothinge for whan Christ said that the flesh helpeth nothinge but the spirite is that which geueth life he ment that the only spirituall eating the which is done with the harte and with the minde thorow belefe was that which helped but the bodily and fleshly eating helped nothing after what so euer sort it should be done There is no doubt but though that Christ be not eaten in peeces and partes orels chawed as other flesh is chawed and eaten as the Capernaites did vnderstand it Yet not with standinge after what so eauer sort he should be eaten by the bodily mouth whether it were by parts or whole as they of the first opinion beleue the which will that Christ great and thick as he was vpon the wood of the crosse shuld be wholy in the sacrament that is to say in that litle host as they call it This is a fleshly aÌ„d bodely eating for so much as that a thing is no whit lesse bodely eaten whan it is put all hole into the mouth and sent into the stomake as Ionas was wholy swalowed by the whale or as the pills that be receauid whole It is no whitlesse bodely eaten I say theÌ„ if it were eateÌ„ by partes I therfor by the bodily eatiÌ„g do meane that which is not of the spirite This of the whiche they speak that is done by the mouthe is not with the minde therfor it is bodely If it be bodelie it helpeth nothiÌ„ge I wil say to be shorte that if Christ were bodily preasent in the sacrameÌ„t that his being there should be nothinge ê“fitable at all althoughe that we should eat his flesh aÌ„d driÌ„k his bluode a thousaÌ„d times for so much as that the spiritual eating and drinkinge onely the which is by faith beleuinge truely in him is that whiche helpeth The bodely and fleshly eating and drinking his body and blood the which is done by the mouth helpeth nothing They then do litle honour to Christ that wold that he should be really in the sacrament because they wold bringe to passe that Christ should haue made vnprofitable thinges the whiche we may not think much lesse speake But because we haue said that the onely spirituall eating and drinking Christs flesh and bluode is that which helpeth and not the bodely some man might saye to what purpose then did Christ institute the sacramentall eatinge and drinkinge the which is not spirituall but bodelye c. To this I answer that the sacrameÌ„t was therfore iÌ„stituted by Christ because that although the eatinge and drinkiÌ„ge of it be not spirituall but bodely yet not with standing it serueth and is profitable to the spirituall eating and drinking the whiche is by faith for so much as the sacrament doth confirme vs in faith because it is ordeyned to this end Not that it shuld already haue this power of it self but because it is an instrument or els a ministerie of the spirite ioined to the word of the holye gospell with which instrument and ministerie the same spirite worketh in vs And it is not necessarye that Christ should be bodelye in the sacrameÌ„t to serue for the eating and drinkinge spiritually and by faith it is enoughe that the bread and the wyne as holye signes be there for vs as we will better tell you in the last reason And whan I say that the spirituall eating and drinkinge onelye is proffitable and not the bodelie I meane of the bodely eating of the same trew bodye and of the bodely drinking of the trew bloude of Christ put into the mouth as the Capernaites did meane and as they affirme the which wold haue Christ to be really in the sacrameÌ„t both in bodye aÌ„d soule I do not meane of the sacramentall eating the which without doubt is profitable when it is ioyned with the spirituall And whan it is not ioyned it is not onely not profitable but it is damnable as Saint Paule saieth in the first to the Corinthians because it is vnworthelie receaued 1. Corin. 11. If Christ then be not really in the sacrament the substances of the bread and the wine be much lesse chaunged but do both abyde in substance as be fore The fourth reason Another reason is this and it is particularlie against the opinion of transsubstanciation that is to saye of them that would that the bread and the wine shuld be chaunged into Iesu Christes bodye aÌ„d blode aÌ„d that there shuld remaine no more of the bread and the wine but the withcommes that is to saye the white coloure of the bread the coloure of the wine the taste of the one and the other the roundnes or other forme of the same bread And so we will saie of the other withcommes that is to saie of the moystines drines heat and could This opinion cannot stand with those effectes that we may manifestlie see and that experience it self doth shew vs. First the sacrament is hable to norishe bodelie wherfore if there were one that should eat a quantitie of hostes and wine consecrated they wold norishe as other bread and wine not consecrated Further it is seen by experience that the sacrament somtimes is corrupted and wormes be ingendered in it as in other bread and wine not consecrated But how caÌ„ these effects be wrought this opinioÌ„ standinge of the chaunginge of the bread and the wine into Christs body and blood the onely withcommes of the bread and the wine remayning How can the withcommes norish without the substance What is to norishe but that the substance of the meat and drink is turned into his substance that eateth and drinketh it Seurly the withcommes without substance cannot norishe because that norishing meaneth chauÌ„ging of the substaÌ„ce of the meat into the substaÌ„ce of the thinge norished we caÌ„not now say that the substaÌ„ce of Christs bodie aÌ„d blood should be that which should norishe because that the thiÌ„ge that norisheth is as we haue said coÌ„uerted iÌ„to the substaÌ„ce of hiÌ„ that receaueth it Christes body aÌ„d bluod â—â—iÌ„g iÌ„mortal aÌ„d vncorruptible be not receiueable of such chaunges Like as we haue said of the norishemeÌ„t we wil say of the ingeÌ„deringe the which we may see is made in the sacrameÌ„t wheÌ„ the wormes be engeÌ„dered How caÌ„ a substance be engendered of the only withcommes Here thy of this opinion be intangled and they answer some after one sorte and some after another Innocentius the thirde in his booke of the office of the masse saith that euen as the substance of the bread is miraculously turned into the substance of Christs body the withcommes only of the bread and the wine remaininge so the substance of the bread of the which the wormes or any other thinge might be engeÌ„dered may miraculouslie returne Egidius Romanus in his Theoremes of Christs bodie saith that such an engeÌ„deriÌ„ge is nat miraculous but natural for

he should not haue neather the one nor the other of these two proê‘ties It foloweth I say that Christ in the sacrament should not haue a trew bodye yea no bodye because that his body be it where it will and as it will it cannot be separatid froÌ„ these two properties to a bodie most naturall aÌ„d inseparable according to Austen aÌ„d the troth Here they say that it is true speakinge naturally that these two conditions aÌ„d properties caÌ„not be separated from bodies but speaking supernaturally aÌ„d by miracle they may be separated froÌ„ the bodyes as in effectt they be separated from Christes bodye in the sacrameÌ„t To this I answer first that the substaÌ„tiall properties be neuer chaunged by miracle let them finde that god euer did it let them geue me one onely example We know that god is almighty and there is no maner thinge that may be done Impossible vnto him as the AuÌ„gell sayd to Marye but who knoweth that this thinge may be done I will not stand now to dispute this thinge I desier theÌ„ that they wold geue some other example but they will neauer do it Further I say that it belongeth to them to proue that god doth these miracles This is no good reason God can do it therfore he hath done it How many thinges caÌ„ god do that he hath not done God could haue sent more then twelue legions of Aungels for to delyuer Christ out of the Iewces hands Math. 26. as he himself doth witnes in S. Mat. aÌ„d yet he sent theÌ„ not And how many other thinges might we alledge if we wold that god can do aÌ„d yet he doth them not Thei must proue then that god doth these miracles By Christes sainges nor by the scriptures they cannot proue it except that they will alledge that Christ hath sayd it that is to say this is my body shewing the bread and this is my blood shewing the wine but this is a tryflynge profe for somuch that Christ ment not by this manner of speache to affirme that he is within the bread and the wyne but ment to saye that both the one and thother were signes and a remembraunces of his body and blood as plainly we will shew hereafter Peraduenture they will say that in matters of faith there nedeth no profes but men must stand to the letter This thinge is of faith therfore it nedeth no profe I say that in matters of faith we must stand to gods worde with the right vnderstanding of it and trew sense of the words nor we must not geue theÌ„ other and straunge senses Contrary to the mynde of the spirite The sense of the spirite is not that Christ should be bodelye in the host and in the cupp as it is sayde but it is that whiche we haue said and will better saye in the talke that foloweth where we will declare the maÌ„ners of sacramentall speaches according to the scripture And to be short that we may end now at leÌ„ght this reasoninge I saye that this opinion of the being of Christs body aÌ„d bluode in the sacrament doth diminishe the troth of Iesus Christs trew bodye and trew bluode And it maketh him to haue in the sacrameÌ„t a phantasticall body aÌ„d much more phantasticall then Martiane aÌ„d Manicheus who wheÌ„ they spake of Christ and apointed him notrew and naturall body but a phantasticall and Imaginable orels a seming bodie they saied things lesse striuing against nature then this opinion because they did neauer deuide Christs bodie nor speak of him things so vnimaginable as this opinion doth nor they neauer said that he was in two places at ones This opinioÌ„ maketh him to be in that he is man In infinite places nor they neauer said that a great bodie was conteined in so litle a thinge as these meÌ„ say aÌ„d so we wil saie of the other so many ImaginacioÌ„s which the forsaid opinioÌ„ placeth And yet though Manicheus aÌ„d MartiaÌ„ did say these or like things as they say It should haue bene lesse in coÌ„uenieÌ„t seinge they did apoint him a fantastike and a semeable bodie But this opinion affirming that Christ hath a trew and a naturall body in the sacrament doth yet speake such things of him as neather can be in dede nor be not Imaginable and be without all reason without also gods worde aÌ„d more reproweable as to this theÌ„ the fore said opinioÌ„s I meane of Manicheus and Martion and without doubt they speak things disagreing to themselues Furthermore if Christ be in the sacrament what meaneth it that the old church wheÌ„ should make the consecration of the bread aÌ„d wine did singe the preface as it is called Sur sum Corda that is to say lift vp your harts on highe aÌ„d also these words be now said in al the masses Suerly we ought to haue our harts where Christ aÌ„d our treasour is as he himself in S. Math Matth. 5. saith that is to saie where your treasoure shal be there will your hartes be Oure treasoure ought to be where Christ is And S. Paule to the Colossians saith Coloss 3. If you be risen againe together with Christ that is to saie If leauing the euell you haue taken the good aÌ„d new life to the likenes of Christ who leauinge the corruptible and mortal life hath takeÌ„ the incorruptible Immortal aÌ„d glorious life seek things which be aboue where Christ is who sitteth on the right hand of god seek those things that are aboue aÌ„d not the earthly things geuinge vs to vnderstaÌ„d that seing Christ Iesus is oure treasour aÌ„d all oure welth we ought to haue our harts were he is If it be so then that we ought to haue our hartes where Christ is let him be in what so euer place he will what neded it that the old church should admonish the people that they should lift vp there harts on highe that is to say into heauen if by and by after a few words he should haue desceÌ„ded into bread and into wine what need we to seek Christ so farr of that is to say in heaueÌ„ if he be so nere vs that is to say in that bread and that wine This sainge Sursum corda suerly geueth vs to vnderstand that the old church did not beleue that Christ was bodelie in the sacrameÌ„t for if they had beleued it they wold neauer haue said lift vp your hartes on highe but they wold haue said be you atteÌ„t o you faithfull for by aÌ„d by Christ Iesus oure lord shal be here present in the bread aÌ„d the wine as sone as the coÌ„secratioÌ„ is made Direct youre minds to the bread and the wine whaÌ„ they shal be coÌ„secrated because Iesus Christ shal be ther bodely but they said not after this sorte they haue in dede said lift vp your hartes on highe geuing to vnderstand that they beleued that Christ was in heauen and not in the sacrament The ninth reason The ninth reason is this and it gainsaieth the

these as those except luke and paule did tell a lye which is not to be spoken Therfore we must nedes graunt that that cupp was turned into the new TestameÌ„t or els at the least that the new Testament was in that cup the which is not trew for the new TestameÌ„t is not the cupp nor is not in it but it is the ordinaunce or disposition the which god made to leaue to his elect childreÌ„ the euer lasting wealth that is to say the forgeuenes of sinnes the freing froÌ„ all euell the euerlasting lyfe aÌ„d the possessioÌ„ of euery good thing If thes be incoÌ„uenieÌ„ces as we may see theÌ„ their opinioÌ„ is false The last reason is this The tenth reason Christ mai be eateÌ„ aÌ„d his bluod droÌ„k onely two waies that is to say spiritually and sacramentally the which sacramentall eating therfore as we haue said serueth and is profitable to the spirituall eating I do not fynde after what other sort except these two we may eat Christ and drink his bluod But to eat Christ and drink his bluod after thes two sortes we nede not to put him really into the mouth nother his body nor his bluod therfore it is not necessary that Christ shuld be really in the sacrament That Christ may be eaten and his bluod dronk after these two sortes though that he really in body aÌ„d in soule be not in the sacrament I proue it thus First to receaue his body and his bluode spiritually we nede not to receaue hym by the bodely mouth it sufficeth to receaue him by faith that is to say to beleue in him as we proued before in the third reason nor it nedeth not I say for to eate his body aÌ„d drink his bluode after this sort that we should put ether the one or thother into the bodely mouth this is plaine because that such eating and drinking is done with the spirite and with the mynde And this the aduersary will not deny That also it is not necessary for the receauing him sacrameÌ„tally that he shuld be really in the sacrament I proue it by the Apostle paule who saith to the Cor. that the hebrue is he people were baptised aswel they 1 Corin. 10 as we althoughe vnder other signes then oures because that we be baptised with water and that people sayth paule was baptised with the cloude dni with the sea passing thorow the middest of the read sea and that cloude that couered them and the red sea thorow the middest wherof thei al passed was to theÌ„ baptisinge where we may note that according to paule not onely they of full age were baptised but the children also because that all were couered with the cloude aÌ„d all passed thorow the middest of the sea I desired to say these few words for their sakes that be seduced by the wicked spirit of the Anabaptisticall error who being led about by sathan do denye the baptisme of children If the hebrues children were baptised in token that they were also of gods people for what cause should not now our childreÌ„ be baptised being no lesse of gods people theÌ„ they and being no lesse redemed by Christ theÌ„ they of full age this I desired to say by the waye After paule addeth in the same place that all did eat the self same spirituall food aÌ„d dronk all the self same spirituall drink And he calleth that spirituall meat or els foode whether you wil call it the paschal lamb and chefely the manna the which meates they all did eat and he calleth the spirituall drink that water which came out of the rock And he addeth that that rock was Christ that is to say did signifie Christ That spirituall foode that is to say the paschall lamb and the Manna did also signifie Christ as the water did betoken him although paule doth not expresly speake it And to be short he meaneth that the hebrueish people did aswell coÌ„municate with those signes as we do that eat the sacramentall bread and sacramentall wyne And paule meaneth in his tong that all did eat and drink Christ sacramentally for so much as that to eat a thing sacramentally is none other but to eat the sacrament of the same Well now if that people did eat Christ and drinke his blood sacramentally when they did eat the paschall lamb and the manna and drunk that water that rann out of the rock the which things were a sacrament of Christ as the bread and the wyne be to vs and did signifie the same as paule sayth and Austen expoundeth it in the 45. treatyse vpon Iohn saing that those sacraments did signifie the self same that oures doo althoughe after an other sort And yet not withstanding they did not eat Christs body nor drink his bluod really putting theÌ„ in to the mouth What is the cause that we mai not also eate his body and drink his bluod sacrameÌ„tally without eating or drinkinge him really and bodely forso much as that to eat or drink Christ sacramentally is none other but to receaue with the mouth his sacrameÌ„t And to be Ã sacrament it is not nedefull that the thing signified should be in the same sacrament and much lesse that there should be made any turninge of the substaÌ„ces of the signes And it is enoughe that the sacrament should be a signe of the same that is to sai that it should signifie it according to the definition of a sacrameÌ„t which sayth Sacramentum est sacrae rei signum that is to say A sacrament is a signe of a holy thinge It is plaine that Christ as man was not really in the hebrues sacraments because he was not yet ether borne or incarnated And how could his body and his bluod be in those sacraments seing his body and bluod were not yet And yet paule saieth that they did eat the self same spiritual meat aÌ„d the self same spiritual drink that is to say Christ spiritually Certein expound paules text of the spirituall eating and drinking of that people that is to saye by faith but because that all did not eat and drink spiritually and by faith for so much as that a great parte of them as paule affirmeth in the text were vnbeleuers aÌ„d yet he sayth that all did eat the self same spirituall meat aÌ„d drink the self same spirituall drink I haue therfore expounded it of the sacramentall eating and drinkinge of the which all aswel beleuers as vnbeleuers did eat aÌ„d drink and not of the spiritual that is to saie by faith the which beloÌ„ged to the beleuers onely And thoughe paule calleth that meat and drink spirituall yet he meaneth not that it should be spirituall in it self as that which is of faith is in dede spirituall but he calleth it spirituall as to the signification and as to the vse that is to say that it was apointed to signifie Christ who is a spirituall and an holy thinge as oure sacraments may be called spirituall things be cause they be appointed to spirituall

things There was not withstanding difference betwene those sacraments aÌ„d oures because that thei beside that they were apointed to spirituall things serued also for the bodely things that is to say to the necessitie of the present lyfe for so much as the manna and the water were their dayly meat and drink so that they had two vses the one spirituall because it was to them a sacrament the other bodely the which serued to the necessitie of their bodyes Our sacraments be not so the which be taken onely for the spirituall vse that is to say for sacraments and not for the necessitie of the body To coÌ„clude therfore I saie that seing Christ caÌ„not be eateÌ„ nor drunke but after one of these two sorts that is to say spiritually and by faith and then sacramentally also And after these two sortes Christ may be receaued though he be not really that is to say in body and in soule in the sacrameÌ„t It is not therfore proffitable and much lesse necessary to affirme such reall being in the same sacrament They that say that Christ is really in that host and in that cup do not know what meaneth to eat and drink Christ sacramentally for so much as that to eat and drink sacrameÌ„tally as we haue said is none other but to receaue the sacrament that is to say the signe of the holy thinge and doth not meane to take bodely the self same thinge that is represented by the sacrament I might if I wold and did not feare to be tedious to the readers make dyuers other reasons also but it nedeth not and those that we haue made do suffice But let vs put the case that we had made no one reason to proue this oure negatiue that is to say that Christ is not really in the sacrament nor there is not made any turninge of the bread and the wyne into his body and bluod nor that we had not alledged any saing of the scripture the which not withstanding god ayding vs we haue sufficiently done let vs put the case I say that we had done no one of those things yet they of the contrary opinion should not by this haue had their purpose because that it doth not belong to vs to proue our negatiue but it belongeth to them to proue there affirmatiue For eueri one that affirmeth any sainge is bouÌ„d if he speak reasonably to proue it If it were not already so plaine that euery man might see it He that denyeth is not bouÌ„d to proue his negatiue It is not enough for a maÌ„ of what so euer aucthoritie he be for to be beleued to say it is so the matter staÌ„deth thus but he must proue his affirmatiue sainge chefely if it be a matter of weight aÌ„d pertaining to faith as this is Nor it is not enough nether to be hable to defend and maintaine it for so much as that many false opinions be with witt with distinctions with wrangelinges and intangelinges defended as thoughe they were true We mai see this by experience in the schoole doctoures and questionists for few or none of them do agree to gether but they be of contrary and dâ—â€¦uers opinions and alwaies euery one of them defendeth his oune fantasies and they striue coÌ„tinually and it is neauer knowen who hath the right and they confound the minds of men they lose the tyme and cause other also to lose it I desire then of these maner men that they wold proue this their rule or opinion that is to say that Christ is bodely in the sacrament and that the substance of the bread and the wyne be turned into his body and bluod I desire that they wold proue it me other by reason or such aucthoritie as I should be bouÌ„d to beleue This my request is iust reasonable and honest By reason they can not proue it this is clere and themselues by agrement do confesse it by aucthoritie how do they proue it They bring furth the old doctours they alleâ—â€¦ge the determinations of popes and of Councels the common opinion of the churche last of all they alledge Christs words when he did institute the supper that is to say this is my body shewinge the bread and this is my bluod shewinge the wyne and Christs sainge also in S. Iohn Io. 6. that is to saye I am the bread of lyfe I am the lyuinge bread that am come doune from heauen and he that eateth of this bread shall lyue for eauer And the bread which I shall geue is my flesh which I will geue for the lyfe of the world And after truely truely I say vnto you if you eat not the flesh of the sonne of man and drink not his bluode you shall not haue lyfe in you he that eateth my flesh and drinketh my bloud hath lyfe euerlastinge And further my flesh is veryly meat and my bluode is veryly drink these be the aucthorities that thei alledge To the which aucthorities I answer and first to those of the old doctours that is to say as for exaÌ„ple of Ireneus Tertulian Cyprian Origen Hilary Athanasius Basill IoÌ„h Chrisostom Gregory Nazianzene Gregory Nicene Cyrill Ambrose Iherom Augustine And such other holy fathers the which labored for Christs church in wrytinge bokes expounding the scripture disputinge against heretiks preachinge and teachinge wherby they do in dede deserue to be honoured for their lerninge and holynes but I say that no one of them nor of the other anucients was cauer of this opinion that Christ should be bodely in the sacrament and much lesse that the substances of the bread and wyne should be turned into his body and bluod but in dede they haue sayd the contrary And thoughe somtyme it semeth that they should affirme that the bread and the wyne be Christes body and bluode yet this is for none other cause but that they speak of the sacraments after the maner of the scripture the which doth call them by the name of the thinges signified by them as we ofteÌ„ finde that Augustine did Who very often hath declared such maner of speches as we will tell here after And let vs admit also that all the old doctours had bene of that opinion and that all the world wold say it yet ought we not to beleue them if thei bringe not furth the witnes of the holy scripture because that this is a thinge pertaining to faith and faith is ground wrought onely vpon gods worde as paule saith to the Romains Ro. 10. faith coÌ„meth of hearinge but hearinge is by the worde of god he doth not say by the word of men the whiche may all err but he sayeth it commeth of gods word and the holy scripture is gods worde Let them alledge vs in such thinges the holy scripture and we will beleue them els not And if any wold say and the scripture also was made by men therfore we ought not to beleue it I answer that the scripture is writ-told and made by the holy

gost as peter saieth in the second Epistle 2. Pet. 1. and it was confirmed with great signes and meruelous miracles Nor no â—â€¦ue of the fathers or old doctours did â—â€¦auer desire that they should be beleued as the holy scripture but they all with one voice do say and chefely Saint Augustine that concerninge matters of fayth we should so farr beleue them as is found in the holye scripture and none otherwise And thei will that it should be laufull to denye any men yea let them be of what so euer holynesse learninge and aucthoritie you will but not to deny the holy scripture Tell me who is he that wold beleue the article of the trinitie althoughe the whole world had told him if it were not plaine in the holy scriptures who wold beleue the article of the incarnation of the sonne of god and the other articles of the fayth If gods word had not told it What can men know of such thinges except so much as god oppeneth vnto them by the scripture Loke vpoÌ„ Austen in the 19 epistle The 19. pistell where he sayth in senteÌ„ce that he beareth this honoure towards the Canonicall bokes of the scripture that he beleueth seurly that no one of them hath â—â€¦rred but for all the rest he may deny them if thei do not proue their suings by the holy scripture The 3. pistell The very same in meaninge he sayth in the hundreth and eleuenth epistle writing to fortunatianus the bishop They all beside all this that I haue sayd were of this opinioÌ„ that Christ in that he is mâ—â€¦ is only in heaueÌ„ bodely In the se second boke against the denatists cap. 3. Let vs say the same of the determinacions of popes and of couÌ„cels that all may err Austen in the second boke against the donatists sayth that the vniuersall former CouÌ„cels may be amended by theÌ„ that folow If they may be amended suerly they may err and so they that folow after them who doubteth but they mai err aswell as they that go before And we by experience maâ—â€¦ see that many councels do err for one of theÌ„ doth gaynsay an other I speak not this because that men ought not to haue reuerence to councels when they be lawfully gathered together and in the holy gost and when the determinations that be made in them be accordinge to the holy scripture as the Councell of Nece was against Arrius The councell of Calcedone against Eutiches And certein other old councels the which had gods word for their rule And these onely were gathered to gether in Christs name and in the holy gost But I say in dede that whan they determine anye maner of thinge pertaining to fayth and do not stick to gods word that we ought not to obey such councels nor men ought not to beleue them And in our dayes we haue the example of the councell of Trent the goodly determinations that it made all at the popes good pleasure whome the bishoppes cannot gainsay because they haue all sworne neauer to go against the sea Apostolike What estimation should men haue of such couÌ„cels where no respectt is had to gods honoure nor to his worde and such as be gathered together against Christ for to queÌ„che him out and to establish the kingdoÌ„ of Antichrist shal we allow such couÌ„cels This is a cheefe grounde The faithfull Christian is not bounde nor ought not in matters pertaining to faith to beleue the hole world together if they do not bringe forth gods worde that is to say the holy scripture for their witnesse Wel now thei wil say that they haue gods worde that is to saye Christes words who sayd this is my body and this is my bluod she winge the bread and the wyne therfore the bread and wyne be turned into Christes body and bluod and Christ is wholly in the host and in the wyne Further he sayd those words in the sixt chapter of Ihon aboue recyted where he willeth that we should eat his flesh and drink his bluod and this is not done except in the sacrament therfore he is bodely in the sacrament I answer first to those words this is my body and this is my bluod and I aske where in the scripture at any tyme is found that suche a speche as This is my bodye and this is my bluode should meane this is turned into my body and into my bluod or els my body and my bluod be in these signes I neauer found this maner of speche Therfore the fore sayd words haue another meaninge then that the whiche they geue them or that whiche the scriptures vse that is to say this is the signe of my body shewinge the bread and this is the signe of my bluod shewinge the wyne as before we haue sayd and we will also better say in the declaration of those words This is in dede their meaninge To the saings of the sixt chapter of Ihon I say that they do not alledge theÌ„ to purpose because that there Christ doth not speak of the sacramentall eatinge but of the spirituall and by faith as in the third reason we haue declared yea as Christ him self doth expounde it in the text and so all the old doctours do expounde it And cheefely Augustine who sayth beleue aÌ„d thou hast eaten so that seinge that opinion of the turninge of the substaÌ„ces of the bread and wyne into Christs body and bluod nor that of his bodely presence in the sacrament cannot be proued nether by reason nor any aucthoritie that auayleth we ought to conclude that it is a fayned inuention and imagination of men and commeth not from god The reasons of the true and Catholike opinioÌ„ beinge ended before that we answer to the obiections and ground workes of the partyes contrary to the trueth there remanith to mak apere that the opinion which we haue proued is that of the old church and the forenamed doctours and holy men And because I should be to long if I wold bringe the multitude of doctours It shall suffise me therfore to tell Augustines opinion a most ware and true expounder of the old and sound opinions the which Augustine holdeth not but the opinion of the Auntiens and that which was holdeÌ„ in his tyme aÌ„d of his predecessours In his Epistle to bonifacius he writeth after this sorte Epistle 23. If the sacrameÌ„ts should not haue some similitude of those things of the which they be sacraments they should be in no wyse sacraments And by this lykelynes those same sacraments many tymes take the name of the things them selues Euen us therfore after a certeyn meyns the sacrament of Christs body is Christes body the sacrament of Christes bluod is Christs bluode and so the sacrament of faith that is to say the baptisme is faith and is called faith See here Augustine how he vnderstandeth Christs speache when he sayth this is my body shewing the bread and this is my bluode shewinge the

wyne not to meane that the bread should be in dede Christes body and the wyne Christes bluod He meaneth not this But he meaneth that therfore the bread is called Christes body and the wyne his bluod because thei be sacrameÌ„tes and signes of Christes body aÌ„d bluod Also in a boke the which is against Adimantus the Maniche in the xij chapter Augustine sayth Against Adimantus ca. 12 The lord doubteth not to sai and he speaketh of Christ this is my body when he gaue the signe of his body Here Austen plainly expoundeth this sainge of Christ that is to say this is my bodye that is as muche to saye as this is the signe of my body The 3. boke cap. 16. And in the third boke called de doctrina Christiana in the xvi he sayth that if that thinge whiche Christ commaundeth shall seme strange inconuenient or euell done then we ought not to vnderstand such speach accordinge to the letter but figuratyuely And geuinge the examples of these words of Christ that is to say If you eat not the fleshe of the sonne of man and drink not his bluod you shall not haue lyfe in you He saith that such speche ought not to be vnderstand accordinge to the letter because that vnderstanding it according to the letter it is a disagreable and an inconuenient thinge that is to say that the flesh of a man should be eaten and his bluod dronk And therfore it ought to be vnderstand soundly that is to say that Christ did not meane of the eating of his flesh and drinkinge his bluode fleshly but spiritually beleuinge in him and hauinge remembraunce of so great a benefit as he hath wrought vs sufferinge and dyinge for vs. And this is the eatinge and drinking that Christ ment of And to eat and drinke after this sorte It nedeth not that Christ should be really in the consecrated bread and wyne The thirty treatise vpoÌ„ Ihon. but onely that the faith of Christ should be in vs. And in the xxx treatise vpon Iohn he sayth The lord is aboue that is to say in heauen but the lord that is the trueth is also here Christes body in the which he rose must nedes be in one place but his troth is euery where and he meaneth by the troth Christes godhead And in the epistle which he wryteth to dardanus he sayth he shall come for to iudge the lyuinge and the dead in the self same forme that he asceÌ„ded into heauen to the which forme he hath seurly geuen immortalitie but he hath not taken away the nature of it we may not thinke that according to this maner of forme that is to sai mans he should be spred abrode euery where For we must take hede that we do not so affirme his god head that we take away the truth of his body for it followeth not that that which is in god should be so euery where as god Of these two saings of Austen the which before we haue also alledged in the seauenth reason is concluded that Austen wil not that Christes body may be in more then one place at one tyme he will in dede that his god head should be euery where but not his manhode the whiche is in one onely place that is to say in heauen The master of the sentences glosinge or els expounding certeyn sainges of Augustine in the fourth of his sentences the tenth distinction where he bringeth furth amongst his other sainges this In the 4. of the sentences the tenth distinction that is to say that Christs body may be in one place but the trueth is spred abrode euery where he sayth that Christes body may be in one placeseable in mans forme but his truth that is to say his godhed is euery where vpon Ihon the sixt And he addeth the truth also of the same that is to say his very body is on euery aultare in euery place where men celebrate Sauinge his reuereÌ„ce this is not to set forth Austen mynd but it is to geue it strauÌ„ge senses that he neauer ment and it is in dede a maiminge of his saings AusteÌ„ by that word troth meaneth Christes godhed the whiche is powred abrode euery where and doth not meane the bodye and yet he doth notwithstaÌ„ding expounde it for the body the whiche is as he sayth on all the aultares where thei celebrat And so he doth with many other saings of S. Augustine in the sayd distinction and in other where he speaketh of the matter of the thanks geuing mayming S. Augustines sainges and calling those heretikes that say the contrary that is to say that hold not that Christes bodyly presence is in the sacrament But we will let him glose at his will and say what pleaseth him And it is to be maruelled-at that he should so lightly and without reason pronounce these to be heretiks that speak nothinge contrary to gods word but they do in such sorte honoure it as they do not alow in the matter of religion and faith any more then so muche as the same word speaketh not mindinge to stand to mens opinions except they be agreable with the holy scripture The master of the sentences here geueth an vniust and a wicked iudgement But in the third boke of the trinitie The third boke of the trinite ca. 10. Augustine sayth that no myracle happeneth about the sacrament of Christes body and bluod If it be so that according to Saint Augustine there chaunceth no myracle about that sacrament he then beleued not that Christ shuld be bodelye in the sacrament for if he had beleued it he wold neauer haue sayd that there was no myracle but he wold haue sayd that there happened many and most great myracles as before in the fifth reason we haue seene Well it is playne then after Austens mynde that Christ is not really in bodye and in soule in the sacrameÌ„t but he calleth the coÌ„secrated bread aÌ„d wyne Christs bodye aÌ„d bluod because they be signes of his bodye and bluod not that they should be really and in dede his true body and bluod because he will that those should be in heauen and not on the earth in the sacrament We might if we wold alledge the other old doctours as Ireneus Tertullian Origen Cyprian Ambrose Ierome and Chrysostome all the whiche be of the self same opinion but let S. Austen suffise vs who amonge all the rest is the most faythfull witnes of all the auntientie And this we do to be shorte not withstandinge if any wold see these doctours sainges let him loke vpon Ireneus who herd Policarp IhoÌ„ the EuaÌ„gelistes disciple in the fourth aÌ„d fift boke that he maketh against heresies Let him loke vpon Tertullian that was next to Ireneus in the first fourth and fift boke against Martian the heretike Let him loke vpon Origen vpon leuiticus the seauenth and nynth homely Let him loke vpon Ambrose in the eleuenth chapter vpoÌ„ the first epistle to the

Corinthians Let him loke vpon Chrisostom in the 83. homelye vpon S. Mathew Let him loke vpon IeroÌ„ vpon Ecclesiastes the thirde chapter all whose sainges for shortnes I leaue out Then it is playne that the opinion aÌ„d iudgemeÌ„t of the old churche Marke is that which before we haue proued And we must here marke that the old doctours inteÌ„dinge in their maner of speache to agree with the scripture the which whan it speaketh of the SacrameÌ„ts doth name them by the name of the thinges signified very ofteÌ„ when they treat of the same sacraments and chefely of the thanks geuinge theical it many tymes bodye and bluod and they speak in suche sorte as it semeth thei meane to affirme the bodely presence of the body and bluod in the sacrament a thinge that they neauer intended The which thinge when the late wryters and chefely the schole men haue not taken hede to they haue boldely setfurth the bodely presence of th one and thother in the sacrament but they be deceaued for so much as that was neauer the opinion of the Auntientes And if any one wold bringe furth the boke of sacramentes ascribed to Ambrose the which putteth this new opinioÌ„ of Christes bodelye presence in the sacrament It may be boldely answered him that that boke was neauer Ambroses because that neyther the style of the speche was Ambroses nor the sentence the which is contrary to many his sainges in his other bokes Nor let no man maruell thoughe I denye those bokes to be Ambroses for many bokes were ascribed to the old doctoures that they neauer saw much lesse made as that boke of the true and false repentance ascribed to Austen the which teacheth against Austen naminge him and yet certein haue attributed it to him Certeine men of small consciences haue done this other that they might better sell such bokes or to make their opinions be beleued and to geue them auctoritie vnder the name of Auntients or els for some other respects scant honest It is no small fault to go aboute vnder other mens auctorities without their consent to make men beleue their opinions as it is a great faulte that their laboure and bokes should be attributed to other And I say more also againe that althoughe all the old doctours were of suche opinion that is to say that Christ were bodely present in the sacrament we be not bounde nor we ought not to beleue theÌ„ If they proue it not by the holy scripture the which they neauer did nor it can not be done And this is the signe that as mani as eauer were of this opinion could neauer hetherto mak reason that might auaile If this bodely presence of Christ in the sacrameÌ„t had bene true it should haue bene a thinge much belonginge to faith and the Apostolike wrytinges wold haue made vs clere and suere of it but we see that such a presence is affirmed in no one place of the scripture Therfore it is not true but it is an inuentioÌ„ of maÌ„ the which ought not to haue any place in gods thinges Now there remayneth to answer to their reasons that hold this bodely preseÌ„ce of Christ in the sacrament They make as in the beginninge we haue sayde many profes and reasons but none auayleth And we will not answer but to three or foure whiche haue a certeine small shew for answeringe to these few it is an easy thinge to answer to all the other One and the first is this The first reason that is to say Chist calleth the consecrated bread his bodye and the wyne his bluod therfore it is so that the bread is his body aÌ„d the wyne his bluod that is that the bread and the wyne be turne into his bodye and bluod or at the least be there really present or els he should haue spoken a lye the which cannot be seing Christ is the vndeceaueable troth This is the greatest reason that they can make the which not withstandinge is nothinge worth yea it commeth of an ignoraunce of the maner of speche of the scripture or els if it come not of ignoraunce it procedeth of an obstinacye and self willednes because they desire to defend whether it be accordinge to the common sainge right or wronge that which ones they haue affirmed because thei wolde not seme to haue erred I answer to this reason and saye that Christ sayd the troth and could not speake an vntroth because he could not err beinge god And it is true that the bread is Christes bodye and the wyne is his bluod and I confesse it but it is true as Christ ment it not as they wold haue it Christ when he sayd this is my bodye shewinge the bread aÌ„d this is my bluod shewing the wine did not entend nor went not a bout to saye that that bread was really and substantially his bodye and the wyne his bluod but he ment to say that that bread and that wyne were a sacrament and did signifie his bodye and his bluod And he folowed the maner of the speche of the scripture when he speaketh of sacramentes you know well ynough that Christ alwayes did honoure the holye scripture alledginge it very often and prouokinge men to the same And therfore because he knew that the custome of the scripture is to name the sacraments and call them by the name of the things signified and represented by them he also desired to vse that maner of speche callinge the bread and the wyne his body and bluod because they did signifie both the one and the other that is to say he called the bread his bodye because it did signifie his bodye and the wyne his bluod because it did signifie his bluod as before S. Augustine hath sayde That the custome of the scripture is to call the sacraments by the name of the thinges signefied by them it is easelye proued and we haue alreadye sene it in the former talk The circuncisioÌ„ was a sacrament of the hebrewish people and because it was a sacrament the scripture doth call it couenauÌ„t because it was the signe of gods couenauÌ„t made with AbrahaÌ„ and his of springe as it is written in genesis where god doth first call it the signe of the couenaunt aÌ„d after a few words he calleth it the couenaunt The couenaunt was this that god wold be the god of AbrahaÌ„ aÌ„d of his seed that is to say of his of springe It is a plaine matter that the circuncision was not really this couenaunt or promesse and yet god doth call it couenaunt because it was the signe of the couenaunt should we saye that the circuncisioÌ„ was in dede gods couenaunt because god called it by this name couenaunte Sewerly no but we must say if we will saye well that therfore god calleth it so becaus the same is a signe of gods couenaunt or els of gods promesse And if ani should say what meaneth it that god did vse this maner of speche Could not he vse

the proper maner of speche and not the improper To this I answer that god often tymes vseth with vs the custome of men because we be men and he agreeth to oure maner of speche for so muche as the custome is amonge men that they call the signes of a thinge by the self same name of the same thinge signified As for example If at any tyme we should make a couenaunt or an agrement with any man as sone as the agreement and couenaunt is made we cause to be made an instrument or a wrytinge of such agrement and we call it couenaunt or els agrement not that that instrument is really such agreement for the couenaunt and agrement went before but because it is a signe of such couenaunt and agrement So we call the wrytinge of a sale or of a purchase a sale or purchase because it is a signe and confirmacion of the sale or purchase And we do call the wrytinge or the instrument of such thinges testament or legacie or gift because it is the signe and confirmacion of these thinges Let vs geue an other example which also is of the scripture In Exodus and in many other places the ceremony of the paschall lambe is called passouer And Christ and the Apostels did so call it Christ sayd in saynet luke I haue ernestly desired to eat this passouer before I suffer Here Christ called the paschall lamb passouer And the Apostells said to Christ where willt thou that we prepare for the to eat the passouer And for all that the paschall lamb was not really the passouer because the passouer as we haue in the same Exodus was that passage as it is also sayd before in the ninth reason the which the AuÌ„gell made wheÌ„ he strake the first borne of Egypt aÌ„d passed by the houses of the hebrues Now that passage was properly the passouer But because the lamb was ordeined that it should be killed and after eaten with many ceremonyes in signe and remeÌ„brauÌ„ce of that thinge therfore the scripture calleth it passouer Behold how the scripture calleth the sacrameÌ„tes by the names of the thinges represented and signified why shall we maruell then that Christe did call the coÌ„secrated bread his body and the wyne his bluod because they should be signes and a remembrauÌ„ce of his body and bluod We ought not to maruell yea it is oure great rudenes and dulnes that we see not this thinge and why he hath done it that is to saie whye he calleth the bread his body and the wyne his bluod Euery man sayth that the sacrament of thanks geuinge doth come in stede of the sacrament of the paschall lambe And if it be so seinge that the scripture and the Apostels call the same such lamb passouer yea Christ him self in the same supper when he instituted the sacrament of his body and bluod called that lambe passouer not for any other cause but for that it was a signe and a remembraunce of the passouer why should not the bread be called the body and the wyne the bluod because they be signes and a remembraunce of the bodye and the bluod euen as the lambe is called passouer because it is the signe and remembraunce of the passouer And that rock out of which came furth the water in the desert paule calleth it Christ not for any other cause but for that it did signifie Christ nor there was neauer any men that bi such a sainge wold think that paule ment to affirme that that stone was really Christ but that he ment onely to say that it did signifie Christ So likewise let vs saye of the bread and the wyne that they be called body and bluod because they be signes and a remembraunce of such thinges We haue bene longe in answeringe to this reason because in dede the whole consisteth in this declaration that we haue made The second reason is this If Christ were not really in the sacrament S. Paule wold not haue sayde that it should be condemnation to them that should take it vnworthelye nor he wold not haue sayde that such should be giltie of the lords bodye and bluod For so much as that if Christ be not in the sacrament there should not be any other thinge but bread and wyne and beinge none other thinge there it should not be to vs such condemnacion as it is in dede no condeÌ„nation to eate other comeÌ„ bread and to drink other wyne To this is answered that therfore paule sayth that they be giltye of the lords body and bluod the which do take the consecrated bread and wyne and the sacrament vnworthelye not for because that eather the body or the bluod be in the sacrament but they be therfore giltye of the one and the other because thei dispise Christs death thei dispise his body and bluod not goinge with that faith and with that reuerence that they ought to take those holy signes Instituted by Christ in remembraunce of his body and bluod geuen to death for oure raunsome In old tyme thei that did dispyse or dishonoure the name or the glory of the Romane Empire thei were gyltie of treason against the state of Rome And they that had done wronge to Cesars Image or els had defaced any of Cesars writings This was as if thei had layd violent hands vpon the princes persone He that wold dishonoure the armes or the badges of any great state that prince wold haue estemed such dishonoure and disworship to be coÌ„mitted against his oune person for when his badges or els his Armes be dyspysed he him self is dispysed So seinge that Iesus Christ the chefe prince of the world hath Instituted the sacrameÌ„tall bread and wyne to the inteÌ„t that that it should be a remeÌ„braunce of so great a thinge and should represent so great a misterye that is to say that hath geuen his body and his bluod and dyed for to deliuer vs from sinn and from euerlastinge death and to geue vs euerlastinge lyfe Sewerly they that will take these holy signes withoute true repentaunce of there sinnes and without true faith and without consideration of so great a misterie and benefite they make no counte nother of Christes body nor his bluod nor of his death no nor of Christe himself it is no maruell therfore that they who go to take such a sacrament vnworthelye do eate and drinke Iudgement that is to say condemnation because when they dispyse the signes of so great thinges they do consequently dispyse the same thinges and him also that did institute such signes It is not proued by this that Christ is enclosed in this sacrament but the contrary The third reason The third reason the which semeth to haue some shew is this that is to say that if Christ were not here in this sacrament there should not be wrought any such great myracles as men see Sometyme it is seen that the hostes haue cast out bluod and such bluod is kept in many places It

is god the maker of nature can bringe it to passe in his body that is to saye that first the bread should be turned into his bodye and the wyne into his bluod and after then that it should be whole in the whole hoste and in the cupp and whole in euery parte of the sacrament and that it should be in dyuers places If he can do those thinges and will doo them as we vnderstand by the words of the sacrament the whiche say this is my bodye shewing the bread and this is my bluod shâ—â€¦winge the wyne then they be done because it is written in the psalme Quaecunque uoluit fecit dominus All thinges that the lord wold do he did I answer first to the reason it self and after I will speake of the similitudes To the reason that is to say if god can do it therfore he hath done it I say that it awayleth not and it is already answered before in oure seauenth reason that god doth not all that he can do as we geue the example of the twelue thousand legions of Aungels the which god if he wold could haue sent to help Christ and yet he sent them not God can bringe to passe that we all maie walke vpon the sea without shippes as some tyme Christ did And as it is written in the boke of wysdom and yet he doth it not Oure question is not whether god can do it or no but it is whether god hath done it or no. Thei saiyes and we saye no It belongeth to them to proue that he hath done it and that he doth it a fresh the which they shall neauer do nor can neauer bringe it to passe by gods word this is a suer rule Concerninge that they go aboute to saye that god had desire to do it this is not onely false but most false What reason is this Christ sayd this is my body shewinge the bread and this is my bluod shewinge the wyne therfore he will that the bread should be turned into his body and the wyne into his bluod or at the least that he should be in the sacrament in such sort as they say This reason doth not deserue any answer for so much as Christ by these words ment not to saye any other but that the bread and the wyne were a sacrameÌ„t and signes of his body and bluod and ment not to saye that which they affirme as before we haue so often declared The exaÌ„ples or similitudes that they bringe furth be not to the purpose and thei be rather dissimilitudes then otherwise The example of Moyses rodd turned into the serpent and after the serpent turned into the rod and of the waters turned into bluod it is not like because the serpent Note further that in turninge of Moyses rod of the water into bluod and such other myracles the senses did witnes the chaunge of the thinges which holdeth not in the transubstantiation into the which the rodd was turned was not before but was newly made Likewise that bluod into the which the waters were turned was newlye made and was not before but Christes body and his bluod were and be before the bread They put certayne turninges against nature not maruelous but rather monstrous and Imaginatiue Let them geue me but one example in the hole scripture that god eauer turned one thinge into another that was before they shall not fynde it How dare they then be so bold to affirme such a thinge yea that which is more to go aboute to make men beleue it as an article of the fayth and yet thei cannot neather proue it by gods worde nor bringe furth any example that eauer any lyke thinge was done The example of the heauen that it is in oure eye which is litle is nothinge worthe because the heaueÌ„ is not really in oure eye but there is onely the image or the similitude of the heauen the which similitude is litle as the eye nor it is not vnconuenient that the similitude or the Image of a great thinge shuld be litle as the Image of Cesar was in the coyne that was shewed to Christ by the pharisees the Image of Cesar was in that coyne the which was much lesse then Cesar himself and neuertheles it did represent Cesar who was great and much greater then that Image We will say the like of the Image of the man in the glasse the which althoughe that it be muche lesse then the man yet it doth represent the man This is no great matter that the Image of agreat thinge should be litle but it should be agreat matter that agreater body should be conteined in one much lesse as they say of Christ that great and thick as he was vpoÌ„ the wood of the crosse and as presently he is in heauen he should be whole conteyned in a litle cake They that geue these examples of heauen and of the thinges that be seen in glasses do not proue that agreat bodye is conteyned in a litle as they say of Christ that he is conteyned in the hoste but they proue onely the Image or similitude of agreat thinge may be whole in a litle thinge the which we denie not but if the similitude or image of agreat thinge be in a litle thinge this is because that that Image it self also is litle and no greater then that body wher in it apereth yea it is lesse so that these exaÌ„ples be not to the purpose To the other similitudes I say also that they auayle not that of the soule that it should be whole in the whole bodye and whole in euery parte of the bodye This is because the soule seing that it geueth lyfe to all the bodye as it is playne must nedes be in euery parte of the bodye for so much as that seinge it geueth lyfe not onely to the whole body but to euery parte of the same It is necessarye that it should be in all the partes because that if it were not in any parte that parte should not be a lyue And because that the soule wheresoeauer it is of necessitye it must be whole there being vndyuidable and not hauing partes because it is a spirite there fore it is necessary that the soule be whole in the whole and whole in euery parte of the body but Christes body not being a spirite and hauinge many partes beinge longe brode and thinke cannot be whole in the whole and whole in euery parte of the place where he is and as it is repugnaunte to a bodye to be a spirite so is it repugnant to it to be vndeuydhable in a place To the other similitude of oure face the which is whole in the whole and whole in euery parte of the glasse after this sorte that is to saye that when the glasse is broken the Image of the face is in euery peece of the glasse I say they be deceaued nor it is not true that one Image is in all those peeces of the glasse when it is

not there bodyly preseÌ„t of any maner of sort but as maÌ„ he is onelie in heauen where he sitteth on the right haÌ„d of the father froÌ„ whence he shall come to Iudge the liuinge aÌ„d the deade The first reason as tharticle of our faith doth sai And this opinion we haue proued with many reasons First by the definition of a sacrament the which is none other but a signe of an holy thing and it is not nedefull for to be a sacrament that Christ should be really as man in the same and moch lesse that there should be made any substantiall turning of the bread and the wyne It suffiseth that the bread and the wyne be there as signes of his body and bluod The 2. reason Then next seinge that this sacrament was instituted only for remembrance it suffiseth that it doo bring vs in remembrance of Christs body and bluod geueÌ„ for our raunsominge And it nedeth not to put there the bodyly presence of th one or of thother for so moch as that the right of no sacrament either in generall or particular requireth thys c. The third seing the spirituall eating of Christ is only profitable and not the bodyly The 3. reasoÌ„ If Christ were as man in the sacrameÌ„t he should help nothing The turnekindinge of the bread and wyne into Christes body and bluod The. 4. re cannot stand together with certen playne and many fest effects which be sene that is to say with the noryshing because the sacrameÌ„t doth norish as other bread and wyne doth and with thingenderyng of certen beasts as magots or such like beastes the which things cannot be made admitting this turnkynding of the bread and the wyne in to Christes body and bluod The fift if any such thing were god with out any maner of nede shuld work some The fift reason yea many most stonishfull myracles such as was neuer the greater The syxt it should not be necessary that Christ on the day of iudgement should come down froÌ„ heauen The syxt reason but that he shuld stepp out of the sacrament seing he is here moch nerer on earth then in heauen The seuenth The seuenth reason the opinion of Christs bodyly presence in the sacrament dymynisheth the truth of his body and maketh it phantasticall yea nothingeth it The eyght The eyght reason The sursâ—â—m corda which is song in the masse geueth to vnderstand that in old tyme Christs bodyly presence in the sacrament was not beleued The nynth The nynth reason If forbecause Christ sayd this is my body shewing the bread and thit is my bluod shewing the wyne the bread and the wyne shuld be turned into his body and bluod or els that the body and bluod shuld be there present seing there be many other speaches in the scripture like vnto this it shuld be behoue full that the lyke shuld be done in all those from whens wold folow many inconueniences The tenth reason The tenth seing that Christes flesh can not be eaten nor his bluod droken but after .ij. sortes that is to say spiritually by fayth and sacramentally And this may be done without the bodyly presence 1. Chor. 10. as the auncients did eate and drink him before that he toke mans fleshe as paul saith wryting to the Chorynthyes there is therfor no necessytie to affirme that bodyly presence in the sacrament Then further all though that we shuld bringe forth no reason for vs it belongeth not to vs to proue our negatiue but it belongeth to them that affirme such a being there to proue their affirmatiue the which thei did neuer nor can not doo by any saing of the scripture We haue after also made appeare that our oppinion is of thold church and chefely Augustines And we haue answered to the obiections of the contrary opinion making it apparant that they be vneffectuall vnpithye and weak to proue their purpose declaring the maners of speach that the scripture vseth when it treateth of the sacraments In the end we haue added from when the false ImaginatioÌ„ of that maner error is proceded And we haue bene long in treating of this article and we haue made many moo wordes than we thought and haue repeated the self things often and haue somthing exceded the measure of a sermon for the which thing the readers shall haue me excused We haue coÌ„sidered first that the thing was most wayghty and worthy to be well expressed the which could not be done with few wordes Then further also the error was so coÌ„firmed and after such sort rooted in the myndes of the people that it could not be pluckt vp nor rooted out without as it is comonly said moch digging and deluing And therfor it was necessary for vs to be long and parauenture somthing tedious to the lerned neuertheles this labor is chefely taken for the vnlerned Well it suffiseth that this our purpose was vpright and that we toke not vpoÌ„ vs this entreprise for no nother end but for gods honor and for the loue and defence of the truth And last of all to doo good and help to the simple Christians who haue bene so long tyme drowned in so great an error and deceiued by the suttle and wicked Antichrist WhoÌ„ let vs all praye vnto god with a good hart aÌ„d continually that he will so roote owt and plucck vp or to speak better destroie sauing allwayes not withstanding the men to whoÌ„ we desire all good I sai euen destroie as the lytle stone did that great Image which Nabuchodonosor sawe in his dreame that is to sai that he will make him vtterly vanysh away and be come nothing to the entent that gods finall aÌ„d perfite kingdome mai come thorow Christ Iesus his son our lord and redemer to whoÌ„ be honor and glory world without ende Amen FINIS Faults escaped in the printing and corrected after this sort Take lea for the leafe A for the first side B for the secoÌ„de side Ly. for the lyne R for read Lea. 2. b. ly 8. headolugnes r headlongnes Lea. 4. a. ly 21 opinious r. opinions lea 6. b. ly 1. ehyrch r. church lea 9. b. ly 18. strst first Lea. 12 b ly 1 euy r any lea 11 b. ly 20 Hollis r. holies lea 21 a ly 2. vpistle r epistle 6. ly 13 soruant r seruant lea 25 b ly 13 and the blud r and the winne the bluod lea 35 b. ly 20 glorios r. gloriousnes lea 36 a ly 11. tedyosnes r. tediousnes lea 40 b. ly 8. ho r hoc lea 42 a. ly 26. poinctt r poinct b. ly 20. coÌ„secrationi r. consecration lea 49 a. ly 24 ony r any lea 54 b. ly 16. wat. r. was lea 60. a. ly 8 mades r. made and for CoÌ„secrauyon r. coÌ„secration lea 65 a ly 16. no r. not ly 25. superstitos r. superstitious Lea. 67. a ly 18. tho r. to lea 68 a li. 5. thert r. there l. 17. fom r from lea 74. a. ly 16 byleuers r beleuers and all waies after lea 72 a. ly 10 he fore r. before lea 77 a li. 19. candache r candace lea 81. b. ly 26. crimin crimine lea 88. a. ly 21 offied r offered lea 94 b ly 12. passhion r passion lea 111. b 21. except r except lea 115 a li 1 song r soung ly 2. rong r roung lea a li. 2. misfortutune r. misfortune lea 118 b ly 11. apostos r. apostles Lea. 120. ly r. super r. supper lea 121. b. ly 22 Now he he r Now. he lea 122 a ly 19 parauentur r. perauenture le 124. a li. 12. thes r. those lea 125 b ly 13. the chefe greatest miste ry r the cheefe mystery lea 126. a. li. 15. the lawe I speak r the lawe Nor there is no sinn but that is against gods lawe but gods law I speake lea 126. b. ly 7. haue heuier sinnes than r haue heuior sinnes then mans laughter then lea 127 a li. 5. Idolatros r Idolatrous li. 9. thcik r thicke li 13. in them r in it lea 127 b ly 8 benefice r benefite lea 128. a. ly 18 ame r. same Lea. 131. a. li. 19. saint or saintes r saint or sainctess ly 20 S. loreto r loreto b ly 6 say here willâ—â— say here be these Idolatreis how can thei de â—â€¦ey it will Lea. 131. b. ly 9 Hiperdulia r Hyperdulia lea 137 a li. 5. wis r. with lea 138. a. li. 13 folow done a nother r folowed one an other lea 156 a li. 22. and and. r. and. lea 174. b. ly 19. mas r masse lea 177. a. li. 7. couered with r. couered wear couered with b. ly 1. crafft r. craft and lykewise in other places lea 178 a. li. 14 eschew r. issue and generally read for off of for thos those for thes these for couerid couered and for such other in vid read coÌ„meÌ„ly ved and often for ans or ens read ance or ence as for importans read importance and for reuerens reuerence and often for or read our as for sauior read sauiour and for byleuers allways beleuers and commenly for os read ous or ose as the word geueth as for gratios read gratious and for purpos read purpose Lea. 180. a. l. 8 yoie r. ioy 182. b. ly 15 trewe faults in the sermom read true and 185. b. li. 9. who euer read whosoeuer 186. a. li. 15. remembrans read remembraunce and after 187. a. ly 18. substans read substance 188. b. li. 5. body lithere read bodyly there 192. a. li. 7. dewe read due 193. a. il 3. euerlasting read euerlasting 193. b. li. 17. be beleweth read beleueth 194. b. li. 15. seane read seene 196. b. l. 14 blode r. bluod 199. b. l. 3. satisfing r satisfiing 205. a. l. 25. wheÌ„ should r. when thei should 222. b. l. 1. turne read turned and 228. a. li. â—â€¦ beinge r. bringe 225. b. li. 5. shose r. those FINIS

Selected quad for the lemma: body_n

Text snippets containing the quad