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
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
in his sacra celebrare mysteria hinc fieri quaedam extranea catholice Apostolice traditioni coÌ„traria Sed siquidem domos simpliciter aliqui habere putant oportere in sacris suis orationis 〈…〉 uidelicet gratia nullo celebraÌ„do penitus horam quae sacri sunt mysteriâ— id eis permittimus This godly Emperoure Raygnid Anno domini 500. whereby it aperith it was not the maner of those days to celebrat the supper no where but in the congtegacion openlye as the paesah was commaundyd to be don neuer part of the lamme browght unto the syck man But â—tyn in there congregations as ye rede Exo. 12. Num. 9. where as Eusebiâ—s lib. 6. cap. 34. Ecclesiastes wrytith of one or too to whom the bread was ministrid in there priuate houses It was doune upon à singuler consideracion The persones that receauid this sacrament in there priuate houses were before excommunicatyd by thauctorite of godes word and before there reconsiliacion fell into this danger of deathe by sickenys the deaken was commaundyd to minister the bread unto them that in the reseauing therof they might declare there trew penitence unto the churche and dye in the promeses of god that desirith not the death of sinnerse In the tyme of Cypriane it was usid to yeue the bread of the supper unto chyldren if it were yeuen them as à sacrament it was yle But I cannâ—â— belyue it graunt it were I will not folow Cypriane but the institucion of Christ I know that he was but aman and had his faultes as ye may se by his opinion where he would souch as were Christenyd of herytikes to be rebaptisid We shuld not yet by this auctorite leaue thexample of the Aposteles Except it be in souch places where as the commune ministery of the churche is corruptyd and the sacrament usid contrary unto the institucion of Christe there euery man may in his priuate chambre with his Christiane and faythfull brothers commuâ—icat according unto thorder of the scripture As we sâ—â—ct 2 20. how the Apostoles dyd when the Pharises and pristes of the temple contemnid Christ and his ministery as well of the sacramentes as of the preaching of the gospell where as the faithfulles may receaue openly the sacrameÌ„t it sufficith them it is not nede to to haue it browght unto the syckmannes bedd For the doing therof hath don hurt in the church of god causid many times the pore sick man to put his hope and confidens in thexternall â—act and receauing of the sacrament and thowght himselfe neuer sufficiently preparyd to death but when he had recâ—auid this externall signe And thus was thabuse of the blessid sacrament Men say it is nether commaundyd nether for byddin by the scripture that the sick shuld use the sacrament in there priuate houses The wordes of Paule Ego accepi à domino c. with the textes à fore rehersid shewyth not only how the supper shuld be celebratyd but also where it shuld be celebratyd Sufficiat nobis tradicio Apostolica Let us conform oure selfes unto them as nere as we may Would to the lord that there were no more ceremonâ—es in the doing of this sacramoÌ„t or ony other in the churche then the scripture makyth mencioÌ„ of then blessid and fortunat were the pore ignorâ—t people that now by te and gnaw the bitter bark and neuer tastythe the swetnis conteynid with in this externall signes and no meruell there curates be as wyse as they the blind leadith the blind into ignorancie souch godly preacheres hathe there mother the holy church apoyntyd to haue the charge of those soules that Christ redemid with his preciouâ— blude Person and uicar patrone and byshope shaâ—â—e wayle doutles this horrible sinne to deceaue the people of god of his moost holy worde were the yeuerse of beneâ—ices so god unto there â—enentes or pore people of the paryses as they be unto there dogges and horses it were well for noman yeuith his dogg to kâ—pe but unto hym that hath skyle how to diet hym and to kepe hym in breath to mayntayne his course To saue hym he wax not mange his horse unto hym that best can skyle to hand ill him as well in the stable as in the â—eld Euery thing in the worold is better prouidyd for then the soule of man God matiners for the shyppe Polityk men for the commue wealth an Expert phisicions for the body à pleasaunt coke for the mouth A well practysid capitayne for the wart none in ony affers concerning the body shall be admittid unto ony office but apt and coÌ„uenient persones the best that may be gote in the church of Christ it is no mater passyd of who bare office thowghe he know nomore what appertayth to the charge that is committid unto hym then the lest of his paryâ—he They take great payne to uisit the sick and to ministre the sacramentes it were better they neuer came anere the sick with the sacrament except they knew better what à sacrameÌ„t ment and could shew them godes promises Which ar not only sealyd but also openlye declarid unto the church by the sacramentes And to make more open that the masse is no ceremonie nor the bread there usid no sacrament of gâ—des I will declare it unto the Christiane reder by the scripture that teachith us what the sacrament is and how it must be usid That the Christiane reader by reason of thabuse contemne not the thing it selfe Thowgh the abuse of sacrameÌ„tes is coÌ„demnid yet must we not contemne the sacrament thowgh thabuse of prayer be nowghte yet prayer as god commaundythe is good thowgh winne make men drouke yet noman sayth winne is nowght â—emoue then thabuse of euery thing that is godd and let the thing remayne style This is the diffinicion of the lordes supper It is à ceremonie institutyd by Christ to confirme and manifest oure societie and coÌ„munion in his body and blud untill he he cumme to iudgment Euery word in this diffinicion is in the scripture that it is à ceremony institutyd by Christ Matt. Mark Luâ— and Paule testifieth that it confirmith the coniumction and societe of Christ and his church these wordes of Paule prouith Quoniam unus panis unum corpus multi sumus Nam omnes ex eodem pane participamus â— Cor. 10. and that it shalbe donne till thend of the worold Paule prouith â— Cor. 11. Mortem domini annuncia bitis donec uenerit Now the maner how it was institâ—tid and how it must be usid in the churche It is wroten by Matt. Mar. Luc. and Paule in the places aford reher sid And Paule by name sayth coÌ„uenientibus uobis c. would the supper of the lord to be à ceremony of à puplik and commune assembâ—ance and would in this assemblance the gospell to be preachyd god to be callyd upon in the remembrance and â—ayth of Iesus Christ with yeuing god thanges that he would saue us by the death
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 the hole undrestond the part to say the soule of man Confer not the wordes of Moses Deut. 31. with the other places of the scripture Pono ante te bonum uitam benedictionem maledictionem elige uitam ut uiuas c. and then were the pelagians doctrine trew Chiliaste by these wordes of Christ I will not drink of this wynne from heusforth tyll I drinke it new in my fathers Kingdome sayd that weshuld eat and drink affter this liefe in heauen Sabelliam sayd that god the father suffrid in the ffres he aswell as Christ and toke occacion by these wordes and like Ego pater unuÌ„sumus Ego in patre pater in me Hebionitae sayd Christe was only man and not god as the lewis at this present dooth By these wordes Deus meus deus meus ut quid dereliquistime Heluidius by the wordes of the scripture yle taken conceuid awrong opinion of the blessyd uirgine Marie And sayd she was mother of more chyldren then oneâ— Sainct Augustine lib. 21. de ciuitate dei cap. 25. â—â—ytith of asort of heretykes that sayd who so euer ons receauid the sacrament of Christes supper could neuer be damnid and defendyd there opinion with these wordes Ego sâ—m panis uiuus qui de coelo descendi si quis comederit ex hoc pane uiuet in aeternuÌ„ Arius and marcyon with many grear lernid men deâ—endyd moost detestable heresies by the mystaking of the scripture therfore no fayth owght to be yeuin unto the interpretour that rather intendyth to stablyshe an Error and false opinion then to confer place with place that no contradiction be found in the scripture ner ony uiolacion of oure catholicke faythe Saynct Augustine lib. 3. de doctrina Christiana teachith agodly waye to understond the scripture he that will ffolow his counsell shall not lightly erre in Expounding the scripture he shewith there when the wordes may be taken and when they may not be taken without atrope But the more to be Lamen tyd souche is now the condicion of all men deceauid in religion for the moost part they will raÌ„ther run still the wrong rase they haue begon then godly to return unto the truith they will not repent lest they shuld seme to haue erryd souche is the state and condicion of oure miserable nature Where as there lackyth probacion of the thing that shuld be prouid they tary in the letter yle undrestond and turnith them selfes ad peticionem principij Aske how the proue and why they make an alteracion of the bread and what place of the scripture prouith there proposicion They fle unto the text Hoc est corpus meum And for the probacion of the proposicion they aleige the proposicion itselfe Hoc est corpus meum is the proposicion where upon all this disputacion and contencion dependith They must proue by other places of the scripture that those wordes alter the substannce of the breade what union is betwen the body of Christ and the bread And how this union is made and where the scripture prouith The sone of gode â—o com into the worold to be bread and how he commyth and what profeit his body made of breade bringyth unto the worold and whether ony of the prophetes euer prophesid of souch acumming of godes sonne into the worold Shâ—w the scriptere that prouith this proposicion hoc est corpus meum To haue souch asen seas ye say that the conscience of those that ye would haue bâ—lyue this your doctrine may repose here selfe in â—rewth and uerite of godes word Or else noman wilbe lyue youre doctrine If Paule had no better fensid this generall proposicion to the Romaynes Arbitramurigiâ—ur hominem iustificari per fidem absque operibus legis Then stile to haue repetid the proposicioÌ„ There would nether lew nether gentyle belyuid his word But he confiâ—mith the proposicion and disputith the mater so pro and contra that he confutith all thargumentes that seme to repugne his purpose These men that would haue the bread to be turnid into god an man Hath none other word but still lik the cocke crye hoc est corpus meum and will hyre none other lay but this is my body so may aman aster the same sorth proue our lady to be Ioan the Euangelist mother And say allwayes what so euer text of the scripture be browghte agaynst him as Christ sayd Ioan. 19. Ecce mater tua say what ye lyst the â—e wordes be trew Christ spake them they be playne they neade no interpretacion if ony man aske à reason and confirmacion of the proposicion He may say still Ecce mater tua ye must mak no reason how it may beâ—â—t sufficit to haue the word of god the manifest text reason shall not melle with the mater it is amater of fayth And aâ—ter this sort aman may like wyce proue Ioanne the baptiste to be the person of Elias is not this ameruelous maner of resoning When they be askyd to proue the proposicion they repet the proposicion that is disputable and so false as they takeit that thextreame contrary is trew As the scripture prouith and callith the signis of the moost Diuine and sacrate supper of the lord bread and wynne 1. Cor. 10. 11. Who so euer eatyth of this bread unworthily shalbe culpable of the bodi of Christ These wordes be more playne to proue the bread to remayne aster the wordes as they call them of the consecracion then hoc est corpus meuÌ„ ar to mak à metamorphosin of the breade Now if it be the deuillis sophistrie as my lord callyth it to belyue with the auctorite of the scripture withe the iudgment of reason and by the consent and agrement of the senses that bread is breade and that god chay gith not the iust trew and uery body of his immaculat and glorious sonne in so lytle arome as too ynches of bread Then is the scripture the deuilles sophistrie whych teachyth to belyue that Christes body is in heauen and bread in the sacrament Act. 1. 3. Mat 16. 1. Cor. 10. 11. This doctrine only hurtyth not the faythe of man But also dishonorith the dignite of mannes creacion where as it was yeuen him to be lord of all the other creatures that god made Gen. 2. and more to auayle in reason Now by the malice of man this order of god is peruertyd and that that the byrdes of thayrâ— bestes of thearth and fishes of the water know to be à creature manne makyth it his god and prouithe hymselfe there by to be inferiour unto all other creatures Which is no smale offâ—nce the ymayge of god in man not to know as mouch in asensible peace of breade as the bestes unto whom god gaue onlye the iudgment of senses unto Then hath they an other defence for this wrong opinion of the sacrament they say it is don by miracle that the body of Christ is praesent doutles if I sawe the body