myssion of sinne only for Christes sake which we receaue by inuisible faith and stablys the same by the use and exercise of sensible sacramentes Thewhich in place an tymear neuer to be spoken agaynst with tong nor wroten agaynst by penne Now that these wordes can make no alteracyon of the breade an wynne nor make the naturall corporall nor phisicall presens of Christes body The fyrst reason is that the wordes Hoc est corpus meum prouith that the bread is already the body before the wordes be spoken or else thei miâ—name the thing and call bread fleshe The second reason If the wordes and the thing ment by the wordes be one thâ—n is the cuppe and not the winne in â—he cuppe the testameÌ„t in Christes blud Luce 22. 1. Co. 11. Thirdly if it were the uery body of Christ corporally present Christes wordes were not trew for he bid them do it in te Remembraunce of hym Now the Remembraunce of aâ—hing is not the same selfe thing that is remembrid as many men use to remem hre aweyghty mater by alitle ring upon there finger If Christes moost honorable body were present corporally in the sacrament it were no nede remembraunce at all for the thing present presentith it selfe without thealpe of memory Turne they whiche wayes the lyste these wordes Hoc est corpus meum will not serue for there purpose except they adde there interpretacion the best glose they haue is this that these wordes Hoc est corpus meuÌ„ bringith withe them the body of Christ but this is there interpretacion of the text and not the meaning of the text Pondre euery word and first this pronowne hoc Which de montratiue they refer unto the bread and winne only How be it we may withe saynct Paule referr hoc unto â—hole action an ceremonie of the supper as well as unto the breade an winne Paule sayth not Hic panis est communio corporis Christi as thowgh we shuld thinke that he spake of the bread only But with playne wordes sayth Panis quem frangimus to declare that the bread is not the sacrameÌ„t of Christes body till it be broken unto the church according to thinstitucion of Christe à spirituall meat As Paule callith it so that the bread lyffte upp ouer the prystes hed nor kept in the boxe is not the sacrament but the bread ryghtly distributid And in the same place he callith the bread broken the table of the lord by the whiche is undrestond thole institucion of Christes supper And where men contend so much of this word corpus repeting thole hoc corpus meum Sainct Paule the trew interpretour of Christes wordes resoluith them thus Nonne panis queÌ„ frangimus communio corporis Christi est Where Christ sayd this is my body Paule sayth is not the bread that we breake à communion of the body of Christ Now what difference is betwene the communion of Abodi and the body it selfe and what Paule ment by this word Coenonia coÌ„munion it wilbe best knowen by the processe of the text when we perceaue what Paules purpose was to proue in the same place Paule meÌ„t in that place to with draw souch as had recâ—â—uid the faith of Christ at Cor. ffrom ffesting of souch aâ— usid to eat of the meates dedicatyd unto Idoles Logismos talis est His consideracion and intencion was to declare that it was Idolatryre to eat of ydoles meat with ydolatres And prouith his proposicion deducing his argument à comparatis if thisrae lites in etyng the sacryfices dedicatyd unto god were participant of the thing that the sacrifices were offryd for Then souch as eat of meates dedicatyd unto ydoles were pertakers of the same religion wherfore this meates unto ydoles were offryd The first part of the reason is trew by the wordes that he à legith out of Moses Videte Israclem iuxta carnem c. They were suer to be pertakers of the temple that eat the meat dedicatyd into the temple So were they sure that eat of the meates dedicatyd unto ydoles pertakers of ydolatrye Therefore Paule concludith thus Non potestis poculum domini bibere poculum daemoniorum Non potestis mensae domini participes esse mensae daemoniorum They that communicatid with the fideles were participant of there religion they that communicatid with ydolatres were like wyce participant of the ydolatrie Now the same wayes that thinfideles were participant of the deuilles that they worshippid the same wayes the fideles we reparticipant of Christes body in false fayth were the knyt and unit unto the deuill in trew fayth the fideles unit unto Christ And as the ydolatres dyd not by hand with the meat dedicatyd unto ydoles exhibit and delyuer the deuill to him that eat of the deuilles sacrament so those that eat of the bread broken by the minister as Christ commaunded had not the body of Christ deliueryd by hand unto them but â—â—re in communion and societe with Christ and therfore dyd eat of one bread dedicatid to be the mistery of his glorious death So dooth Paules argument procede that because wear by fayth one body mystically with Christ we eat of one mysticall bread to testifie the same Quoniam inquit unus panis unum corpus multi sumus Nam omnes ex eodem pane participamus 1. Corin. 10. Paule in this place put too churches one of Christe and thother of the deuill all those at Corinth that were of Christes church came unto Christes sacrament participatyd and communicatyd with the companye and societe of Christes body souch as were infideles or souche as were nether hot nor cold associatyd them selfes with lik unto then selfes And so declaryd manyfestly that they were of the deuill as the other wer of god not that the deuill was yeuen I say by hand perauenture he had other businis at Ephesus or other where but it sufficid him that his membres assemblyd to gather and ty participacioÌ„ of the meat dedicatyd unto his ydoles in sprit communicatid with his sprit Repet agayne the proposicion of Paule 1. Corint 10. Panis quem frangimus nonne communicatio corporis estâ—in this word communio dependyth all the weyght of Paules argumentacion I haue shewyd what communion is and which wayes it is made by à sacrament conserning god or the deuill in this place of Paule where he callith Epulas immolaticiorum esse daemoniorum Coenonian illarum conuiuas daemoniorum Caenonous As communio in one place is taken in this purpose of Paule so must it be taken in thother or else Paule could proue no coÌ„clusion att all by reoson of aequiuocacion of the wor deâ— And thowgh the word coÌ„munio be indifferent and may be taken boothe actyuely and passiuely Vtapud Latinos Communicare dicimur siue alâ—s imparciamus aliquid siue ipsi cum alâ—s in participationem â—eniamus But in this place of Paule it cannot be taken actiuely as men say that the minister dooth exhibit and yeue
undrestond by adore the only gate into heauen and by the uyne the lycure of grace that confortithe euery troblyd coÌ„science and que nâ—ith thyre and displeasure of god the father agaynst us for our synnes So lyke wyce in these wordes Hoc est corpus meum there is none other thyng to be understond by them but that bread representyd unto his apostelles not only his precions body But also the manner how and wherefore it shuld be torn and rent upon the crosse and as they them selfes brak the bread betwene them so were they the cause that Chrystys body was broken and slayne upon the crosse and that by the meanes and use of this sacrament theremight be allwayes in the church of Christ à token of godes mercy towardes us an à remembrans of that glorious body that suâ—tenyd moost uyle death for the synne of the worold How be it the bread was nomore the body ner the winne his blud then Christ was à lame as Ioan callyd hym Ecce agnus dei qui tollit peccata muÌ„di Ioa. 1. so thowgh he sayd the wyne was his blud and the breade his body he ment none other wyce but that it representyd hys body and he that corporrally with trew repentence dyd eat of that corporall bread and corporall wynne in faith dyd eat spiritually Christes body and bludd and if thow confer Matthe and Mark. with Luke and Paule Thow shalt fynd that these wordes cannot be so grossly taken as men say withont trope or figure where as Mat saythe 26. and Mark 14. Et accepto poculo gratiâ—s actis dedit illis diceÌ„s Bibite ex eo omnes Hic est enâ—m sanguis meus qui est noui testamenti qui pro multis effunditur in remissionem peccatorum Luke and Paule sayt 22. 1. Cor. 11. Hoc poculum nouum testamentum est in meo sanguine Here Luke and Paule sayth playnli that the cuppe was the new testameÌ„t and attributith the same to the cuppe that Mattheu and and Mark attributithe unto the winne And sayth that the cuppe and not the wine conteynid in the cuppe is the new testament in the bludd of Christ Which was to be shed for the sinnes of the worold These wordes of Luke and Paule they will understond by a figure And let the letter passe what auctorite haue they to use thelpe and ayede of a trope in these wordes of Luke and Paule Where as they say plaineli Hoc poculuÌ„ est testamentum nouum in meo sanguine And exponud est in thys plae per Metonymiam And that Christ ment not that the cupp was the new testament but the wyne contaynid iâ— the cuppe Of equite and ryght if thay can take souche lycens to expound those texctes that makith agaynst them They must be conteÌ„tid that other men use them likewyce as mani times as necessite requirith by contrariete of textes Or when without thayed of a trope we cannot saue our fayth inuiolatyd But it may fortune They will say that Luk and Paule must be undrestond by Matthew and Marke Wherfore not rather Matt and Mark by the wordes of Luk and Paule for asmouch as they do more manifestly declare the supper of the lord then Matt and Mark. And likwyce there wordes better agreyth with the nature and propriete of à sacrament rerum natura quae in sacramento representatur then the wordes of Matt and Mark. Mark the worde of Luk and Paule and thow shalt perceaue playnly that this pronowne hoc cannot be referrid unto the cuppe only but unto all thaction of the hole supper wherin the lord institutyd aperpetuall memori and sacrament of his glorious passion and death But incase this pronowne hoc could be referryd un to the bread and wyne as it cannot yet can nomam expond these wordes of the supper without atrope for theris more difficultye in thys uerb est then in the pronowne Hoc Forincase when Christ sayd unto hys dystyples Thys ys my body delyueryng them the bread It was indeade as Christ sayed hys body before he callyd yt so For euery thyng is callyd by hys propere name Aâ—ter that it hathe his being and not before The lygt was not callyd the day nether the darknes nyght Vntill souche tyme as god had mad the sonne and the mone and appoyntyd eche of them there propre officyce Gen. 1. and the sonne of god was not callyd the sonne of of man untill souch time Aâ— he receauyd the nature of man in the bely of the blissid uirgine wherfore if this uerb est in these wordes of the lordes supper must neadys be simply and playnly reserryd Vnto the bread and wyne of the sacramente the bread and the wine was the body and blud of Christ before Christ callyd it so his body and blud and before he speake the se wordes that they call wordes of consecracion Hoc est corpus meum when then began these externall signes of brâ—ad and wynne that he gaue unto his discyples tobe his body and blud And what were the wordes that alteryd the substaynce of bread and wyne Into the substannce of his moost precious bodye and bludd It was not this uerbe est that dyd it for if it had not byn his body before he callâ—d it so Christ would neuer haue namyd it so For he can not lye he usith not to mysname ony thyng He leuyth fraude and false inuentyd termes unto the deuyll and souch as meane no godd faythe by there wordes Now if it were his body Very fleshe blud and bones in deade what wordes of the scripture or what wordes usyd Christ to make this alteracion Perauenture he whisselyd some othere wordes and put apeace of breade in hys slyffe an there secreatly consecratyd his precious body and then sayed takeye eat ye for thys ys my body and so sayth some of these new papyshe church where before transubstanciation of breade was neuer spoken of the mother of thys Idolatrye was Rome and the father unknowen Abaster is thys transubstancion doutles Lan francus that ennymiâ— of truith and trew religion that wrot agaynst Berengarius Paschasius Guymundus Guydo Aretinus Algerus monachus Corbeiensis Adelmannus Episcopus Hugo his recentiores Lombertus Comestor papa innocentius with other begate this wyckid woman transubstaÌ„cion Where as Christ nethere his Apostelles no nether long after unto the consell of uercellen sein the time of leo theix about the yere of our lord 1052 and 300. yere aster the death of bede A wounders mater and an horrible practyse of the Deuill that contrary unto the scripture and unto the olde fathers thys mystery ys happenyd unto the sacrament That these masters of the later dayes fyghtso sore to defend an accidens with out à subiect And hath taken from the supper the thing that wese we touche we taste we eat we drynke and we swalow throwghe the throte to say bread and wyne As the Apostelles dyd and yeat say it is no
the goldin chalice tobe transubstanciatid into the bludd And say there remaynith nor gold nor syluer The substannce of the gold is chaungyd into the substannce of the blud of Christ And then let them drink the chalice as well as the winne And dout no more of godes poure in the cuppe then in the Breade For he that sayed by the bread this ys my body Sayd likwyce at the same tyme that the cuppe was the new testament And byd them drink of it them all and if Hoc est corpus meum Can alter tho substance of the bread then can Hic calix est nouum testamentum alter the substannce of the chalice and then as the eat the bread they shuld drink also the chalice for these wordes of the cuppe were spoken by Christ booth god and man The same word spoken by the same Apostellis in one sprit at one tyme for one purpose to one and to the same end and he that can change the bred with hoc est corpus meum Can change the chalice with Hic est calix nouum testamentum I trow or Christ perauenture and his wordâ—s auaylid not as mouche in the golde as in the brâ—ad And that were wondre for the Psalmist sayth dixit facta sunt Psal 148. he made all the worold with aworde and of nothing and now shuld his mighty poure be abrydgyd no god Christiane reader he can do now as he hath don before tyme. Mak the thing that he purposith to mak But to mak of bread his naturall Phisicall and corporall body he neuer ment it If he had donde He would haue so made it that thow shuldes haue sinne it As thow seyst heauen and earth he would not be ashamyd and hyde his body now gloryfied more then he was ashamyd to be trayce hym selfe and open his awne person unto the wyckid companysent from the highe pristes and phariseis Ioan 18. it is not therefore as they say For the scripture dooth not testify that our saniour Christ Iesus euer tok ony other nature then the nature of man in the bely of the blessyd uirgine Marie And untill souche time as thow seyst the chalice eatyn as well as the bread belyued not that the breadis alteryd more then the chalice For as of the substance of an old chalice somtyme thowgh masse hath byn oâ—ten sayd with all is made new grotesâ— So of à new singyng looffe that hath bynne consccratyd with hoc est corpus meum somtyme hath creping wormes byningendrid Yea and some tyme cast into the ffyre and burnyd as Benno Cardinalis writtithe of Gregorie the seuenth other wyse callyd Hilbrandus Good prouffe hath byn tahen that bread remaynith aâ—ter the consecracion For by the sacrament poysenid ther was an Emperoure and Abyshope of Rome poysnid in what subiect shuld this poyson remayne in some subiect doutles for Aristoles scole will admittyd no accidens to be without his subiect nether admytony accidens to peryshe without his substance and when these men that say the muld and rot of the bread is nothyng euery man that hath his senses knoyth it is a manyfestlye For so long it may be kept that it will rune rowne about thaulter yâ—a if man had no senses at all and knew the scripture it were sufficient to proue that bread remaynid stille aâ—ter the coÌ„secration 1. Cor. 11. and there is no papist among them all but will graunt this moost folyshe and found contradiction some thynk tobe nothing Forse them to auswere what it is that corruptith What it is that is muldyd then will they say it is nothing thowgh ye se the uermynne ingendryd of the bred crepe byfore youre face If this proposicion of Aristotell shuld be disputyd an generacio unius sit corruptio alterius And they would saye that the generacyon of wormes in the sacrament were ingendrid of the corrupcion of nothing he would not be able in Aristotyles scole to auswere unto one argument Farthere it is souche ablasphemy agaynst god that euery Chrtstiane man awght to abhor it to say that ony creature can haue his being of nothing this is properly the Epitheton of god to be of nothing but of hymselfe and if they say god hathe made these corrupcions in the sacramâ—nt of nothing it repugnith the â—aythe that we haue in the scripture Gonesis 2. Igitur perfectisunt coeli terra omnis ornatus corum So that aâ—ter those ui dayes wherin god mad the mater of all thynges sithe that tyme neuer thing in this worold was made of nothing there fore we must for the reuerence and honor of our saythe sck aâ—athere for these putrifactions in the sacrament It shalbe the bread Say what they will boothe by the iudgment of the scripture and also by reason as for there termes that they crye sye upoÌ„ souche maner of speache and sye upon them herytykes that belyuâ— it is but breade and no sacrament as long as it is kept in the pyx it forsith not god for yeue them they know not what they say The deuyll hath closyd there yeys they haue nether iudgmeÌ„t of senses ner reason But this false doctrine Lanfrancus browght deuylyshly into the church aâ—ter that he had optaynid of leo the ix That the good and godly man Berengarius shuld be condem nyd for an herytyke an excellent clerk of great lernyng and notable uerteus as platina makith mencyon in uita Ioan. 15. Who tawght and wrot that the corporall presence of Christis body could not be in the sacrament These men hath conseuyd in them selfes acertayne persuacyon of new and late iuuentyd doctrine and holdyth the same as a principle of infallible uerite And rather then they would depart one iot from this adulterous doctrineâ— They will graunt an heresye not only folishe but also detestable A worme or muld in the bread to beingendiyd of nothing which is so far wyde from the fayth of 〈◊〉 Christiane man that itnedythe no probacyon God sayth Atanasius the â—ather à nullo est â—actus nec creatus nec genitus God when he would destroy the worold with water by myracle gatheryd to gather too of cucry kind that lyuyd into thark of noâ— that they might in there kind replynis the worold agayne as we at this day se and mad not euery thing agayne of nothing no he made aster thei ui dayes at the beginnyng neuer othing of nothing But that the substannce of one thing was made by and of the substaÌ„ce of othere creatures Euery thing in his kynd Man by god and man best by god and best Christ hymself god and man by god and the blessid uergyne mary The muld and bestes that ar ingendryd in the bread if there be no mater wherof they shuld be ingendryd they were no creatures But whatlerning is this tobe preachid and defendid among the people good Christiane reader to proue some thing nothing God of his infinite goddenys râ—store agayne his holy worde
whom I delyt and dooth also with reuerence and honor inbrace and receaue hys commanudement whych is ipsum audite hyre hym Now let us with the healpe of his holy spryt se whether Christ euer tawght thys doctrine that in the sacrament of his holy supper he ment ony alteracyon or transubstanciacion of the bread into hys uery naturall body and the wynne into his ueâ—y naturall blud as my lord of wynchester teachyth in hâ—s booke or not Or whether â—ith his gloriouse body was ascendyd into heauens heuen herth man and Angell baryng recod therof without cryes and admiracion Viri Galilâ—â—i quid admiramini aspicientes in coelum hic â—e sus qui assumptus est à uobis in coeluÌ„ c. Act. 1. Mark the maner of his uisible and corporall ascencyon and belyue the scripture thangellis an holy Apostoles yâ—ys that sawe hym body ly ascend and these wordes Sic ue niet c. better then this new massers whether it be possible that the seade of Abraam the â—rute an yssew of the bely of that gâ—oâ—yous uirgyne mary being in all thynges except synne as consubstancyall equall and like unto the nature of hismother and nothyng dysferyng from the sonne of Adame consernyng hys humanyte Ebre 2. as in hys godhed ys aegall and lyke in all thynges unto the father eternall that hath nether begynnyngner endyng Can be or may be agaynst the nature of atrew body Present bodely at the commanudement of euery pryst when he speakyth these wordes Hoc est corpus meum whych thyng is as possible tobe donne by aword as to make an end of the worold when he would for when so euer hys gloryons body shall descend from aboue thend is come act 1. Matth. 24. untill that day Christiane reder loke not for hyme but belyue thy crede and what so euer thow heryst spoken by those yle persones of the newe lernyng that it schuld be present corporallie in â—he masse whych is but à yesterdayes byrd trust thow to the hold lernyng of godes word Sedet ad dextram dei patris inde uenturus est iudicare uiuos mortuos Act. 1. 7. 1. Ioan. 2. belyue Chrystes body to be really and corporally in the sacrament when tho seist him there with thy corporall yeies and not before for Christ hath no body inuisible nor insensible as men dreame but auery trew and naturall mannys body like unto mortall man exceptsynne and now likewyce à glorifyed body immortall as oure shalbe in tyme tocum and as many places of the new tâ— stament prouyth Chrystes humanyte as prouyth hys deyte and more and as the word attributyth unto the one nature dyuine all qualites condicyons and propertyes appertayning unto the godhed so of thoâ—her part it more manisestith openyth and declaryth his humany â—e to be anature of other contrarye qualites and condycyons For a smouch as god dyffyrith from man so far dooth thone nature in Christ differ from thother and as I must belyue that these wordes betrewe in all thynges coÌ„sernyng the godhed of Christ deus erat uâ—rbum Lik unto god and uery god So must Ibelyue this uerbum caro factum est Ioan. 1. Christ to be in all thyngzlike unto man and uery trew man in all thynges except synne And as the scripture prouyth these too natures to be unit and knyt in one person and that god and man ne is but one Christ So prouyth it like wyce the qualytes of thone nature to be contrarie unto the qualites of the other nature thone mortall thother immortall thone tobe buryd in the sepulchre the other to resustytat the insensible and ded body 27. 29. Mar. 15. Lu 23. Ioan. 19. thone nature uisible to be taken aster xl dayes of his resurrexcyon from thearth into heauens Mark 16. Act. thother nature inuisible to contynew with his electis in â—e churche untill the woroldis end Matt. 28. he that kno with thus by the scripture that thone nature of Christ uery man is taken out of the worold And shall not be in the worold till the great day of iudgment Act. 3. Can not be persuadyd Contrary unto the word of god That the same body maybe naturrally and corporally under the forme of bread But will diligently incase the scripture seme by wordes to proue the same sarch how that place may be agreyd wy â—hother that manysestly repugnith the presens of Christes body And so agre them that no coÌ„traryete may be admittyd in the scripture for if one place be false there is none trew which were ablasphemy to say The prophete Dauid thus commendyth the scripture Psalm 19. Lex domini perfecta conuertens animas testimonium domini uerum imperitis sapiâ—ntiam suppeditaÌ„s Decreta domini recta sunt cor exhilarancia praeceptum domini repurgatum illuminans oculos Therefore there must be as good hede yâ—uento the meanyng of the wordes As unto the wordes or else they illuminat not the consciens but rather darken the coÌ„sciens and led it into all false doctrine and detestable heresis As we may se hyre in those wordes of the lordes supper Hoc est cotpus meum Matt. 26 leauyng Christes meanyng playne and constrayng the letter forsyng it to serue awyckyd purpose men would make the people belyue that these wordes consecratyd the bread into the naturalle body of Christ and tellyth the people that thowghe it repung neuer so mouch unto reson yet it repugnyth not unto fayth which belyuyth euery thyng agaynst reson Christ sayth they spak these wordes and made hys body of the breade and byd us do the same â—o these bethey wherwith all this alteracyon of bread is made the substannce therof turnyd into the substaynce of Christis body Hoc est corpus meum dispute not how belyue the words and leaue reson sai with the blessid uirgine Ecceancilla domini Luce 1. she held here selfe contentyd when she knew by the word of god that by diuine operacion of the holye goost she shuld be the moder of godes only sone she stayed hereselfe by fayth in the promese and committyd the meanes and doyng therof unto god so say they ye must hold captyue all your reson and thynk that god is able to do it belyue and it sufficyth Godis able to do all thynges as in dead he can and all these wordes be trew that they persuade the people withall if they were placyd aryght And applyed to proue à trew conclusion as they be alegyd to stablyshe afalse and detestable heresy god could haue yeuen manne wynges to flye as he gaue unto the byrdes of thayre if he would But he would not therefore he could not Quia omnia quecunque uoluit fâ—cit in coelo in terra And as for the literall senses of these wordes Hoc est corpus meum which they say must be undrestond with out ony trope or figure prouy the nothing Christ callid hymselfe adore Ioan. 10. auyne Ioan. 15. and yet was nether dore nor uyne except ye
bread nor wyne If it be alteryd some were best that best can mayntayne alye to shew how and by what wordes it is changyd By these wordes hoc est it is not done For noman can do more by the uertewe of those wordes then Christ him selfe Now Christ by these wordes declaryd that it was his body And not made his body Then must ye shewe theother wordes that wrowght this meruelous transubstancion Or else we shuld make Christ alyer who is the fontayne of all ueryte and truyth But souch as defend thys alteracion of breade rather then they would say that by the wordes of Christ Hoc est corpus meum were not made the uery body of Christ They will expound thys uerb est per fit And say thus that by the poure of god and uertewe of his wordes spoken by the minister the substannce of the breade is alteryd into the substannce of Christe bodi So is Christes bodi made present by this word est But thys interpretacion the lettre without atrope will not admyt Nether that est schuld be expoundyd by fit Nether that the bread shuld be made the body of Christ but that it is already the body of Christ before these wordes be spoken Hoc est corpus meum If it be not before he calle it the body why dooth he lye then And call it other wyce then it is If it be the body as he sayth it is by what wordes of the scripture hath he made the breade te body and the wyne the bludd By these wordes hoc est corpus meum there is nether breade nether wyne alteryd But the text sayeth that the bread is the body and the wyne the blud Which this new doctrine will not admyt that bread shuld be booth bread and also the it glorious body of Christ For then duo corpora essent simul in eodem loco Which indeade reason will not graunt Nomore then it is possible that à trew body may be and yet ocopy no place Souch as would defend a wyckyd and moost damnable purpose good reader Cleane contrary to the nature of thys uerbe est expound it per fit Yet would they blynd the people and say thei use plainely with out trope Christe wordes and with opeÌ„ moÌ„the cry out upon souche as booht reuently godly and lernydly botth wryt use and speak of the sacramentz and say they be heretikes people depertid from god and all uertewe When they them selfes use souch à trope as the scripture froÌ„ the begynnyng to the latter end neuer usith se there trope in these wordes Hoc est corpus meum Christ sayde takeye eat of this this ys my body The popes doctrine sayth Vnder the forme of bread is Christes bodye Thow seyst that Christ sayd not so but sayd that the bread was his body As no dout it was if Christis meanyng betaken as well as his wordes as it must be of euery Christianeman and where Christ sayd est They understond Fit and teach Christ to speake as thowghe he could not for lack of wordes conuenient expresse his mynd in this mater But these wordes of the supper diligently consyderyd and one Euangelist conferrid with the other with iudgment it may esely be seen that these wordes hoc est corpus meum mak no more for the transubstanciacy on of the bread and the wynne Then in noua fert animus Mutatas dicere formas corpora prouith Verbum caro factum est habitabit in nobis For if the bread and the wynne be not really and substancially the corporall and naturall body of Christ this word est Prouith nothing at all and when they interpretat these wordes Hoc est corpus meum An say that under the form of bread is the body of Christ I will not admyt that interpretacion For asmouch as it hath no good ground nether in the scripture nether in the auncient doctors as I shall declare here aâ—ter But because they accuse other men for the use of à trope I would not that they offend in the same Irequire them to byde stille in the letter And to leaue these gloses under the forme of bread With the bread in the bread or under the bread Christ usyd none of these termes nor yet the holy fathers But playnly sayd This ys my body that ys broken for youe and. Where as Christ sayse this is they say under this forme hereys à uery playne trope and figuratiue loquucion Men seyth that they admyt metonomian and say under the forme of breade is the trew bodye of Christ Thowgh it be asfalse as godis trew that they say Adome thyng without senses is no harbor nor duelling place for Christes precious body nor for the spryt of god But the penitent soroufull hart of the Christiane by fayth logyth this goostlye and spirituall gestes The soule of man creatyd unto the similitude of god By fayth is made the temple of god To liue in all uertew and godly conuersacion ffolowing the stappes of Christ and to exalt the trewth of his afflyctid and persequutid church till ye cum Let these that defend this alteracion of bread do that them selfes whych they require of other and interpretat the wordes of Christ with out ony trope And then they may the better accuse other men that use atrope Incase they suppose there troppe and maner of speach under the form of brcade may better be made godd by the maner and fraunse of the scripture then this trope that we use to call à sacrament by the name of the thing that is signifiet by the sacrament The supper of the lord the lordes body present at the contemplacy on of fayth in spryt spiritually and not corporally For asmouch as I trust I haue sufficiently declarid that the papestes dooth use atrope I would they shuld name there trope and proue it tobe trew by the scripture that may warrant there trope to be good they may not confirme there saynges with an old wyues tale and say that the holy fathers belyuid so For the contrary wilbe prouid that thauncynt fathers belyuid as Christ tawght For booth they and euery man must be iudgid by the scripture Now likwyce to the other part of the sacrament If the will refer this pronowne hoc only unto the signe ad rem simbolicam Behold Luk Paule and thow shalt fee playnely that nether Christ callyd the winne that the Apostelles drank his blud nether the prist if he beliue Luke and Paule shuld not say that under the forme of winne is Christes bludd But under the forme of the cuppe or chalyce is the blud of Christ For Christis wordes be these Hoc poculum est nouum testamentum in meo sanguine Why dooth the prist speak of the form of winne when Christ speake of the cuppe and not of the winne If there be no trope to be admyttyd in the wordes of the supper I will not admit this figure continens pro contento let them proue
by hand the corporall body of oure moost blessyd sauioure Iesus Christ For incase Paule had mentony exhibition dystribution or deliueraunce of Christes bodie He would haue declaryd his mynd aâ—ter an other sort And haue sayede we ar one body and that for the distribucion and delyueraynce of Christes body and not haue sayed we ar one body and that by the participacion of one bread These wordes shewith playnely that Paule ment nothing of yeuing or distributing of Christes body But â—awght the Corin that souch as dyd eat of this holy sacrament according to thinstitucion of Christe were pertakers of the spirituall graces and communion of Christes body and blud representyd by the breade and as Christ was not really ner corporally present in those sacramentes and sacrifice of thisraelites that signifiyd Christ to cum But by fayth in effect they receauid the thing ment and representyd by the sacrifices So like wice we thowgh that gloriouse body of Christe be in heauen that this holy and moost honorable sacrament representyth yet when with trew penitence we receaue the externall sacrament faith receauithe theffect of that precious body representyd by the sacrameÌ„t This is Paules doctrine he ment of no delyuerayncener exhibicion of that body ascendid into heauens there is no place of the scripture shewith the nature of Christes supper better then this place of Paule whos purpose was onlye to destroy this error among the Corinthions that was repugnant to trew religion souche as had proffessyd one god thowght yet they myght eat an drinke wit inâ—idâ—lis of of souche meates as was offryd unto Idoles Paule denith it and sayth noman can be the membre of too contrarie churches I would souch as god hathe yeuen knoleg unto what is trew and what is false would lâ—kewice remembre these wordes better and refrayne from the doing of souch thinges as there awne conscience is persuadyd to be yle they be to fauorable unto them selâ—es agreat dele and extenuat godes Ire ad displeasure agaynst Idolatriâ— to mouche They will not be able to make good there act at the cumming of the great iudge to iudgment To saue à litle mucke and inconstant treasure of this worold and to offend the maiestie of the lyuing god that hath pore to loost booth body and soule in eternall fier Better it were to ffolow the commaundement of Paule Charissimi fugite idolatriam Vobis prudentibus loquor God hath yeâ—en unto many men this prudence to know that the masse is yle yet as yle as it is they let nether to say it nor to hyre it which is uery Idolatrie and shalbe cruelly reuengid with out they amend Thenature of man by the infection of originall sinne is so corruptyd and the hart so oppressid with contrarie moâ—ions and uiolent resistaynce unto uertew that men neuer consent so willingly and sted fastly unto the knolege of uertew as they shuld do Rom. 1. Sâ—d uâ—ritatem dei in iniustitia detinent This knolege that men hath of god is deteynid with iniustice as prisoner captiue it can bare no rule in the soule for the impetie of iniustice which repugnith this trew knolege The man is drawyne with his awne lustes and loue of the worold unto the contempt of god and consentith not unto his trew knolege nethere unto the law that for biddith all dishonestie and Idolatrie This auersion and malicious obstinacie of the will must be dayly mortified or els it will work thyne eternall displeasure and make the the euela sting ennymie of god Lament abuse of knolege and that thow coÌ„sentist not as well and assone to the iugmeÌ„t of reason and folow it in the principles practyue as speculatiue Nomam douttith of this principle too and too to be foure ffoure and foure eight With all other geometricall and physicall principles Men dooth not only acknolege them tobe trew but coÌ„sentith unto the same knolege The other shuld be likewice as manifest and as sone consentyd unto as these To say thole naturalle diuersite of all thinges honest and dishonest and this light in mannis reason the philorophers call noticiam priâ—ciporum And man shuld consent unto these principles and knolege of them scilicet deo obediendum esse Adulterium est uitandum Honesta pacta sunt seruanda quod tibi noÌ„ uis fieri alteri ne facias thes I say shuld be assone consentyd unto as to consent quod bis quatuor sunt octo The knolege remanyth of these thynges but the assent is infirm by reason of contumacie and rebellion of thart Of all enymies an Ennymie most to be feryd whom Paule describit with these wordes sensus carnis inimicitia est contra deum ann horrible description of mannes natures that it is the perpetuall ennymie of god and will not be subiect unto the law of god this infirmyte makith that men be ner hot nor could caÌ„not tell which part to take in there chambre to professe god where as none can bare record but amusse nor none edified by his knolege Abrode in the worold where as god shuld be spoken of they know hym not but as wisse and discreat men Will do then as the moost part of people doothe And would all were well thowgh not long of them for they will Kepe silence for euer rather then to speake as they know yea and with there exemple stablyshe the thing that they know is nowgh If god be god wy ar people for fere so ashamyd to confesse if he be not god let hym go God abhorrith souch as be nor hot ner cold If Christes bodye be in heauen wherfore is ony man so hardye to resort unto the place where as the pristes of Baall make apeace of bread booth god aman and teachith people to honer it why dooth they not consent unto there knolege and folow it he that is partaker of the sacrifice in the aulter is Partaker of the religion ment by the sacrifice and those that be pertakers of like signes and sacramentes be declaryd there by to be the membres of one church Wear unit and knyt to gather made one by one sprit of â—ewyth wyh shuld we breake this knot by external ceremonyes we ar not made by eating of Christes bodye corporally nether the scripture teachith of no souch union betwen him and his churche But by the sprit of god receauid by saythe as thow mayst well perceaue how god the father and his sonne our sauiour hath yeuing this office and defense unto the holy sprit lik god with them Remembre thy creade Credo in spiritum sanctum sanctam ecclesiam catholicam Sanctorum communionem and thynk that it is by the yeuing of godes sprit into our hartes for the moost mercifull deathe of Christ that makith this communion of saynctes which is the churche of Christ and thus all redy coniunyd with god we receaue the holy meat of his blessyd body in sprit by fayth not to make the union betwen god and us but confirm
not be hard only for to know god but also to ffolow god in his commaundementes Beati immaculati in uia qui ambulant in lege domini Psalm 110. Beatus qui in lege eius meditatur die ac nocte Psal 1. thus with an holy sermon Christ preparyd the hartes of his disciples unto the holy supper and not with saing of masse He exortid them to pacience And to coÌ„temne the worold thone to loue the other and thone to bare 〈◊〉 thinfirmites of thoter rede the coÌ„fortable sermon of Christ from the 13. of Ioan. to the 17. and then I make thy conscience good Christiane reader iudge which is the best wayes to prepare the wrechyd and sin full man unto the supper of the lord And which of booth is to be preferryd à sermon as Christe usid and his aposteles Or those uile ceremonies that the byshoâ—es hathe browght into the churche euery man baryth 〈◊〉 other in hand that he louithe Christ and doothe ackâ—â—lege him to be wyser then man It apperith not for if tâ—ey belyuid as they say they would not leaue his holy testament seatyd with his precions bludd and folow the supersticion and idolatrie that the testament coÌ„dem nithe This holye sermon shuld prepare the hartes of souche as purposid to communicat with the precious body and bludd of Christ lest they receauid this holy sacrament unworthyly to say with out penitence and the fere of god For althowgh sinne of his awne nature be detestable and condemnyd by god They that without repentaynce receauith this sacrament aggreuat and doble there sinne be cause without condigne honor and reuerence contemptouslye receaue the body of Christ After this preparacion unto the sacrameÌ„t Consider the ceremony it selfe without all mennis addicions only prescribid in the word of god and thow shalt perceaue the action and doing of the supper preche unto thy senses fayth and penitence Christ toke bread gaue thankes unto god brake it and gaue it to his disciples sayng take ye eat ye this is my body that is yeuen for youe Mat. 26. Luc. 22. Mar. 14. 1. Cor. 11. The eris of the Christiane hyrith that the body of Christ was yeuen and his bludd shed for his sinnes These wordes and the breaking of the bread betwene him and his Christiane brother dooth certifie him that the yre of god was greatagaynst sinne that would not other wyce be satisfied then by the death of Christ his only sonne No godly hart can iudge sinne to be lightyle that was purchyd with so meruclous à death and inestimable pryce The calamites of manne be great and his misereis wunderfull as we dayly se Sickenis pouertie exile bauishemeÌ„t warr not only in the fild with oure Ennymiesâ— But also at home with all uertew and honesty discord debathe contencion and stryffe betwen them that shuld be in moost peax and concord Yea dayly war in euery mannys conscience betwyne uice ad uerteue Loost of goddes And loost of ffrendes the greatyst loost of all loostes to be robbid of the trew word of god All these be sacramentes and signes of godes displeasure and yre agaynst sinne And we arr troblyd and afflictid with the se miserys to admonishe us of godes iudgment and augre for sinne But the testimomye of all testimonies of this great and inspekable yre is the sonne of god sweting tyres of blud contending with the iustice of god and fighting agaynst the deuill ad sinne only gote the uictory by deathe He that is not mouid nor ferd with this thowghtes of godes ire and the death of Christ in eating and receauing the sacrament undrestondith not what the sacrament meanith Now except Christ shuld cum downe from heauen and dy agayn before oure faces his death cannot be more lyu ely expressid then it is in the scripture he knew what ways it might best be kept in remembraunce that suffrid the death in his awne body and shewid the manner of this ceremony himselfe and byd them do the same in the memorie of him Christ preachid à sermon brake the bread and delyuerid the cupp unto the hole congregation Matt. 26. Mar. 14. Luc. 22. so did Paule 1. Cor. 11. and then gaue thaukes unto god and aydid the poure 1. Cor. 16. and this was the memori of Christes death and unto this hole accioÌ„ and ceremoni of the supp must these wordes be referrid hâ—c quotiescunque feceritis in mei memoriam facietis And not to the liffting upp of the chalice ouer the pristes hea de as it is usid in the masse Christ commaundyd this ceremonie to break the bread among the hole congregacion that by the doyng therof the might return unto trew repeÌ„taynce and thinke when they break the bread and drink of that holy drinke that as they breake the bread and drink of the cuppe so it was there sinne and there fathers that causid Christ to dye This ceremony is godly and thus dooth the scripture permit to interpretat the doing of the supper and not to breake the bread secreatly with per eundem dominuÌ„ nostrum Christum filium â—uum c. as they do in the masse What neade hath the prist to break his cake at all if he mind not to depart of it to his neyghboure he might eat it hole as well it is but an Apyshe contrefeting of Christ to make good the thing that is nowght Because Christ and Paule diuidid the bread unto the hole churche as Acommunion they will diuid it in there priuate masses thowgh it be yle don yet hath it à certaine shew unto the unlernid of uer tewe Is not Christ well ffolowyd godd Christiane reader of these menâ—yes hardely there masse and breaking of breade as like unto the blessid communion of Christes bodi and prâ—cious blud as uice is unto uertewe and false supersticion unto trew religion The masse is no ceremony of Christes supper But à uery prophanacion of Christes supper ffor this is à trew and certayne rule all wayes to be had in remembrannce No ceremonie hathe the nature and strenghe of à sacrament when it is not usid as the word of god teachythe but contrarie unto the word of god and to an other end then the word of god assignithe it The â—ewis and the turkes dooth use at this daye circumsicion yet is it no sacrament This ceremonie pleasithe not god but it is a wickid supersticion damnid by god and don coÌ„trary unto the word of god Lykwice the masse where as one receauith the bread and winne the baring about of the hoste in prosessionâ— Keping of it in the box Doutles it is not à sacrament of Christes moost holy body but à prophanacion of his holy supper For of Christes ceremonie it was sayd Accipite maÌ„ducate take ye and ete ye it agreyth nothing with à sacrament that they do They haue not asmouch as one place of the scripture that speaky the of à priuate masse baring it about in prosession or Keping it in
Marc speaking of the bread Acceptum inquit distributuÌ„ discipulis corpus â—uum illum fecit c. quo modo corpus suum fecit si panis non est corpus sed figâ—ra corporis eius panem fecit corpus id est sui corporis representationem consecrauit So doothe Cypriane Epistola ad Cecilium say of the chalice Non potest uideri sanguis eius quo redempti uiuificat sumus esse in calice quando uinuÌ„ desit calici quo Christi sanguis ostenditur the wyne is put into the chalice to represent the blud of Christ So in his sermon de oratione dominica say the that this supper is à mysticall and sacramentall eâ—ting and drinking of Christrs body by faythe and not carnally as this opinion of transubstaÌ„ciation would haue it Mentis non dentis sacramenta sunt pabula in quit August Saynctâ— Hiero in Epist ad Rusticum Nihil diciuâ— Exuperio Tolose episcopo ait ut qui uasis ecclesiâ—e praeciosis in pauperuÌ„ alimoniam distractis corpus Christi in canistro uimineo sanguinem portare in uitro Also li. 2. contra â—ouinianum quaestione secunda ad Hedibiam He doothe as Christ did as the Aposteles dyd as the scripture doothe call the sacrament of Christes body the body it selfe And so we read in sainct Am brose id quod panis erat ante coÌ„secrationem corpus esse Christi post consecrationem the bread was callyd the thing that the bread representid Because men shuld with the more reuerence and owsten use this holy sacrament But what his censure and iudgment was of the signe it may he knowyn in his commentaries upon the ffyrst Epistole to the Cor. capite 11. where he say the that the supper is the signe of the thyng and not the thyng it selfe he cally the the cuppe the figure of the blud and not the blud it selfe the bookes de sacramentis that be namyd to be his be not his`as those too reasones may well persuade the doctrine of them agreythe not withe the doctrine of his other workes nether withe the wrytynges of his scoler and disciple saynct Augustine Rede his 10. book de humanitate Christi assumpta in LucaÌ„ Ergo non supra terram nec in terra nec secundum carnem te querere debemus si uolumus inuenire nunc enim secuÌ„dum carnem non nouimus Christum Denique Stephanus non supra terram quesiuit qui stantem ad dextram Dei uidit Maria autem quae querebat in terra tangere non potuit Stephanus tetigit quia quesiuit in coelo thys doothe Hilarius godly declare in the 137. Psalme where so euer this later age could take occacyon of ony holy Doctors wrytyng by the lest word of the worold they wrestyd the word ffrom the Doctors meaning to stablyshe there opinioÌ„ of traÌ„substancion of bread euery doctor of antiquite makythe agaynst it and yet the will not leaw there miserable blyndnis I would repet more places of the doctors But it nedithe not those that hathe wroten ageynst this falsched before me in Latyn and in Englyshe better lernyd then I hathe gatheryd so many places to gather that it suffycythe euery hart that is not weddyd unto his opinyon Red saynct August in 6. capiter of Ioan. and in the 98. Psalmes Expondyng these wordes nisi manducaueritis carnem filij hominis in the person of Christ saythe this Spiritualiter inquit intelligite quae loquutus sum Non hoc corpus estis manducaturi quod uidetis bibituri illum sanguinem queÌ„ fusuri sunt qui me crucifigent â–ª Sacramentum aliquod uobis commendaui spiritualiter intellectum uiuificat caro non prodest quicquam c. Would to god the worold could understond this kind of eating Souche as would proue Christes body to be here upon therthe ha the nothing but wordes of there awne inuencion withe out the scripture where with the deceaue the unlernid it is sone doÌ„ne to make godd athing impossibleby wordes and à swete oracion to souche as be ignoraunt of the mater that is spoken of as Cicero Nihil tam incredibile quod non dicendo fiat probabile nihil tam horridum quod non splendescat oratione tanquam excolatur as it may well be seene in this mater of the sacrameÌ„t where as people by wordes ar constraynid to honor apeace of bred for god Then my lord would mak godd the wyckyd masse by diuersice of termes instirucion and tradicion And saythe that Paule delyuerid unto the Corinth by tradlcion the use of the lordes supper And wouâ—d make the deuillyshe masse to be the tradicioÌ„ of the Apo steles because Paule saythe Caetera cum uenero disponam And of these wordes my lord would infer that all this Romishe rites and usayges of massing were the tradicioÌ„ of the Aposteles but the place seruith nothing to pue my lordespurpose It is no nede to go by coniectures asmy lord doothe to interpretat Paules wordes the meane nothing of the supper ffor Paule saythe conâ—erning the use therof he deliuerid unto them the thing he receauid of the lord In the whiche wordes ar too thinges to benotid ffyrst as concerning the use of sacramentes in the churche it shuld be none other wice tawght nor ministrid â—nto the people than god commaundithe And that only god is thauctor of euery sacrament and hathe prescribid how they shuld be usid The second is that the Corinth were before in all thinges aright instrucâ—d according unto the institucion of Christ in the use of the â—acrameÌ„t But in other thinges Paule desirid the church of Corinth to be reformid therfore he sayd Caetera cum uenero disponam theophilact is of my part But the use of the sacrament was playnly Absolutely and moost holyly tawght and usid before in there churche As these wordes ffull of emphasis and uertew declarithe Ego accepi à domino quod tradidi uobis I wounder what mouithe my lord to say Paulement these wordes of the supper and would make Paule and the scripture auctor of souche abhominacion as the masse is that now is usid Those that redithe the histories and wrytinges of our elders knowith what byshopes of late dayes made this masse The Apostoles and primatiue churche did celebrad the lordes moost holy supper without pompe and all this rable of stinking ceremonys moost simplely My lord shuld not be offendid with those that would the supper to be usid simplely He shuld remembre that the lord himselfe and his Aposteles usid it so with the prayer of Christ Pater noster As Hieronâ— and Gregory testifithe thone li. 3. contra pelagianos Thother li. Epistolarum 8. Epist 7. The historys be playne what the byshopes of Rome hathe donne in this mater How and by whom these ceremonys hathe byn augmentid The uer be prolambano that paule usithe signifieth as budeus sayth in commentarijs linguae Graecae per manus traditum accâ—pio ut successor facit qui prouinciam