by the subtile sophister Duns and lately renewed nowe in our dayes with an eloquent stile muche finesse of wytte But what can craftye inuencion subtiltie in sophismes eloqueÌce or fynesse of wytte preuayle against the vnfallible worde of God What nede we to striue and coÌtend what thing we breake for Paul sayeth speaking vndoubtedly of the Lordes table The bread sayeth he which we breake is it not the partaking or feloweship of the Lordes bodye Whervpon it foloweth that after the thaÌkes geuyng it is bread which we breake And how ofteÌ in the Actes of y e apostles is the Lordes supper signified by breaking of bread They did perseuer sayeth S. Luke in the Apostles doctrin coÌmunion breakiÌg of bread And they brake bread in euery house And again iÌ an other place whaÌ they were come together to break bread c. s. Paul which setteth furth most fully in his wryting bothe the doctrine ye right vse of y e Lordes supper y e sacrameÌtal eating driÌking of Christes body blood calleth it fyue times bread bread bread bread bread The sacramental bread is the mysticall body and so it is called in scripture ⪠1. Cor. 10. as it is called the natural body of Christ. But Christes mystical body is the congregacion of christianes Now nomaÌ was euer so fonde as to saye that that sacrameÌtal bread is transubstanciated and chaunged in to the substaunce of the congregacioÌ Wherfore no man should likewise thinke or saye y t y e bread is traÌsubstaÌciated chauÌged in to y e natural substaunce of Christes humayne nature But my mynde is not here to wryt what maye be gathered out of scriptures for this purpose but only to note here briefly those which seme vnto me to be the most playne places Therfore contented to haue spoken thus muche of the sacrameÌtal bread I will now speake a litel of y e Lordes cuppe And this shalbe my thrid argumeÌt grouÌded vpoÌ Christes owne wordes The natural substaunce of the sacramental wyne remayneth still and is y e material substauÌce of the sacrament of y e blood of Christ Therfore it is like wise so in y e Sacramental bread I know that he that is of a coÌtrary opinion wil denye the former parte of myne Argument But I wil proue it thus by the playne wordes of Christ him self bothe in Mathewe and in Marke Christes wordes are these after the wordes said vpoÌ the cup. I saie vnto you saieth Christ I wil not driÌke heÌcefurthe of this frute of the vyne tree vntil I shall drinke that newe in my fathers kingdome Here note how Christ calleth playnlie his cuppe the frute of the vyne tree But the frute of the vyne tree is very natural wyne Wherfore the natural substaunce of the wyne dothe remayne still in the Sacrament of Christes blood And here in speaking of y e Lordes cup it cometh vnto my remembraunce y e vanitie of Innocentius his saÌtastical inuencion which by Paules wordes I did confute before here did promise somwhat more to speake that is this If the transubstanciacion be made by this worde Blessed in Marke sayed vpon the bread as Innocentius that pope did saye Than surely seing that worde is not sayed of Christ nother in any of the euangelistes nor in S. Paule vpon the cuppe Ther is no transubstanciacion of the wyne at al. For wher the cause dothe faile ther can not folowe the effecte But the sacramental bread the sacramental wyne doo bothe remayne in their natural substaunce alike and if the one be not chaunged as of the sacramental wyne it appeareth euideÌtly than ther is no such transubstanciacion in nother of them bothe All that put affirme this chaunge of y e substaunce of bread wyne in to the substaunce of Christes bodye and blood called Transubstanciacion doo also say this chaunge to be made by a certain forme of prescripte wordes and non other But what they be that make the chaunge either of the one or of the other vndoubtedly eueÌ they that doo write most fynely in these our dayes almost confesse playnlye that they can not tell For although they graunt to certayn of the olde autors as Crysostome and Ambrose that these wordes This is my body are the wordes of consecracion of the sacrament of the body yet saye they these wordes maye well be so called bicause they doo assure vs of the consecracion therof whether it be done before these wordes be spoken or no. But as for this their doubt concerning the sacrament of the bodye I let it passe Let vs now considre the wordes which perteyne to the cuppe This is furst euideÌt y t as Matthewe muche agreeth w t Marke likewise Luke with Paule much agreeth herin in forme of wordes so in the same the forme of wordes in Matthewe and Marke is diuerse froÌ that which is in Luke Paule y e olde autors doo most rehearse y e forme of wordes in Matthewe Marke bicause I wene they semed to theÌ most cleare But here I wold knowe whether it is credible or no that Luke and Paule whan they celebrated the Lordes supper w t their congregaciones that they did not vse the same forme of wordes at the Lordes table which they wrote Luke in his gospel and Paule in his epistle Of Luke bicause he was a phisicion whether some will graunt that he might be a priest or no and was hable to receaue y e ordre of priesthoode which they saye is geuen by vertue of these wordes sayed by the bishop Take thou autoritie to sacrifice for the quycke and the dead I can not tell but if they shoulde be so strayt vpon Luke either for his crafte or elles for lacke of suche power geuen him by vertue of thaforesaid wordes than I wene bothe Petre and Paule are in daungier to be deposed of their priesthoode for the crafte either of fyshing which was Petres or making of teÌtes which was Paules were more vile than the the science of phisike And as for those sacramental wordes of the ordre of Priesthoode to haue autoritie to sacrifice bothe for y e quyck and the dead I wene Petre Paule yf they were bothe alyue were not hable to proue that euer Christ gaue them such autoritie or euer saied any suche wordes vnto them But I will let Luke goo and bicause Paule speaketh more for hym self I will rehearse his wordes That sayeth Paule which I receaued of the Lorde I gaue vnto you For the Lorde Iesus c. And so he setteth furth the hole institucioÌ right vse of the Lordes supper Now seing that Paule here sayeth that which he receaued of the Lorde he hade geuen them and that which he hath receaued and geuen them before by worde of mouthe now he rehearseth wryteth the same in his epistle is it credible that Paule wolde neuer vse this forme of wordes vpon the Lordes cuppe which
apparailed ⪠maye represent a kyng or a prince in a playe Alas let men leaue lyeng and speake the truthe euery one not only to his neighbour but also of his neighbour for we are membres one of an other sayeth saint Paule The controuersie no doubt which at this daye troubleth the churche wherin any meane learned man either olde or newe dothe stande in is not whether the holy Sacrament of the body and blood of Christ is no better than a piece of coÌmoÌ bread or no or whether the Lordes table is no more to be regarded thaÌ the table of any earthy man or no or whether it is but a bare signe or figure of Christ and nothing elles or no. For all doo graunt that S. Paules wordes doo require that the bread which we breake is the partaking of the body of Christ and also doo graunt hym that eateth of that bread or drinketh of y e cuppe vnworthily to be giltie of the Lordes death and to eate and drinke his owne damnacion bicause he estemeth not the Lordes body All doo graunt that these wordes of S. Paule whan he sayeth If we eate it auantageth vs nothing or if we eate not we want nothiÌg therby are not spoken of the Lordes table but of other common meates Thus thaÌ hitherto yet we al agree But now let vs see wherin the dissensioÌ dothe stande The vnderstaÌding of it wherin it chiefli staÌdeth is a steppe to the true searching furthe of the truth For who can seke well a remedie if he knowe not before y e disease It is nother to be denyed nor dissembled that in the mater of this SacrameÌt ther be diuerse poyntes wherin men counted to be learned can not agree As whether ther be any Transubstanciation of the bread or no any corporal carnall presence of Christes substauÌce or no Whether adoracion due onlye vnto God is to be done vnto the Sacrament or no and whether Christes bodye be ther offred in dede vnto y e heaueÌly father by y e priest or no and whether y e euil man receaueth the naturall bodye of Christ or no. Yet neuerthelesse as in a man diseased in dyuerse partes commonlye the originall cause of suche diuerse diseases which is spredde abroade in the body doo come from one chefe membre as from the stomacke or from the head euen so all fyue aforesayed doo chiefly heng vpon this one question which is what is the mater of the Sacrament whether is it the naturall substaunce of bread or the natural substaunce of Christes owne body The truthe of this questioÌ truly tryed out and agreed vpon no doubt shal ceasse the coÌtrouersie in al y e rest For if it be Christes owne natural body borne of the virgine than assuredly seing that all learned men in Englande so farre as I knowe bothe newe olde grauÌt there to be but one substaunce than I saye they must nedes graunt Transubstanciacion that is a chauÌge of y e substaunce of bread into the substaunce of Christes bodye ThaÌ also they must nedes graunt the carnall and corporal presence of Christes bodye Than must the SacrameÌt be adored with y e honour due to Christ him selfe for the vnitie of the two natures in one persone Than yf y e priest do offre the Sacrament he dothe offre in dede Christ him selfe And finally the murtherour the aduouterour or wicked maÌ receauing the SacrameÌt must nedes than receaue also the natural substauÌce of Christes owne blessed bodye bothe fleshe and blood Nowe on y e other syde yf after the truthe shalbe truly tryed out it shalbe founde that the substauÌce of bread is the naturall substaunce of the Sacrament although for the chaunge of the vse office and dignitie of y e bread the bread in dede sacramentally is chaunged into the bodye of Christ as the water in Baptisme is sacrameÌtally chauÌged into the fountayne of regeneration yet the natural substaunce therof remayneth all one as was before yf I say the true solucion of that former question whervpon al these controuersies do heng be that the naturall substaunce of bread is the material substaunce in the Sacrament of Christes blessed body than must it nedes folowe of the former proposicion confessed of all that be named to be learned so farre as I do knowe in Englande which is that ther is but one material substaunce in the Sacrament of the bodye and one only lykewise in the Sacrament of the blood that ther is no suche thing in dede and in truthe as they call Transubstanciacion for the substaunce of bread remayneth stil in the Sacrament of the bodye than also the natural substauÌce of Christes humane nature which he toke of the virgine Mary is in heaueÌ where it reigneth nowe in glorie and not here inclosed vnder the forme of bread than that godly honour which is only due vnto God y e creatour may not be done vnto the creature without idolatrie and sacrilege is not to be done vnto the holy Sacrament Than also the wicked I meane the impeniteÌt murtherour aduouterour or suche like do not receaue the natural substauÌce of y e blessed body blood of Christ. Finally thaÌ dothe it folowe y e Christes blessed body blood which was once only offred shedde vpoÌ the crosse being auaileable for the sinnes of al the hole worlde is offred vp nomore in'the natural substauÌce therof nother by y e priest nor any other thing But here before we go any further to searche in this mater to wade as it were to search trye out as we may y e truthe hereof in the scripture it shall do wel by the way to knowe whether they that thus make answere solucion vnto the former principal questioÌ do take awaye symplie and absolutly the presence of Christes body blood from the Sacrament ordayned by Christ and duely ministred according to his holy ordinaunce and institucioÌ of the same Undoubtedly they doo denye that vtterlye either so to saye or so to meane Hereof yf any man do or will doubt the bookes which are writteÌ already in this mater of them that thus doo answere will make the mater playne Now than wil you say what kynd of presence do they graunt what do they denye Bryefly they denie the presence of Christes body in the naturall substaunce of his humane assumpt nature and graunt the presence of the same by grace that is they affirme and saye that the substauÌce of the naturall body and blood of Christ is onlye remaynyng in heaueÌ and so shalbe vnto the later daye whan he shall come agayne in glorie accompanied with the AuÌgelles of heauen to iudge bothe the quicke and the deade And that the same natural substauÌce of the very bodye blood of Christ bycause it is vnited vnto the diuine nature in Christ y e secoÌde person of the Trinitie Therfore it hathe not onlye lyfe in it selfe but is also hable to geue dothe geue lyfe vnto so
as he sayeth he receaued of the Lorde that he hade geuen them before and now rehearseth in his Epistle I trust no man is so farre from all reasoÌ but he wil grauÌt me that this is not likely so to be Now than if you graunt me that Paule did vse the forme of wordes which he writeth Let vs than rehearse and considre Paules wordes which he sayeth Christ spake thus vpon y e cup. This cup is the new testameÌt in my blood this do as often as ye shal drinke it in the remembraunce of me Here I wold knowe whether that Christes wordes spokeÌ vpoÌ the cuppe were not as mightye in worke and as effectuall in significacion to all intentes constructiones and purposes as our ParliameÌt men doo speake as they were spoken vpon the bread If this be graunted which thing I thinke no man can denye than further I reasoÌ thus But the worde is in the wordes spoken vpoÌ the Lordes bread dothe mightily signifie saye they the chaunge of the substaunce of that which goeth before it in to y e substauÌce of y t which foloweth after y t is of the substaunce of bread in to the substaunce of Christes bodye whan Christ sayeth This is my bodye Now than if Christes wordes which are spoken vpon the cuppe which Paule here rehearseth be of the same might and power bothe in working and signifieng Than must this worde is whan Christ sayeth This cuppe is the newe testament c. turne the substauÌce of the cuppe in to the substaunce of the newe testament And if thow wilt saye that this worde is nother maketh nor signifieth any suche chaunge of the cuppe although it be saide of Christ that this cuppe is the newe testament yet Christ ment no suche chaunge as that Mary Sir euen so saye I whaÌ Christ sayde of the bread which he toke and after thankes geuen brake and gaue them sayeng Take eate this is my body he ment no more any suche chaunge of the substauÌce of bread in to the substauÌce of his naturall bodye than he ment of the chaunge and Transubstanciacion of the cuppe in to the substaunce of the newe testament And if thow wilt saye that the worde cuppe here in Christes wordes dothe not signifie the cuppe it self but the wyne or thiÌg conteyned in the cuppe by a figure called Metonimia for y e Christes wordes ment and so must nedes be takeÌ thow sayest very well But I praye the by the waye here note two thinges Furst that this worde is hathe no suche streynght or significacion in the Lordes wordes to make or to signifie any transubstantiacion SecoÌdly that the Lordes wordes wherby he instituted the sacrameÌt of his blood he vseth a figuratyne speache Now vayne than is it that some so earnestly doo saye as if were an infallible rule that in doctrine in the institucion of the sacramentes Christ vsed no figures but all his wordes are to be strayned to their propre significacioÌs whaÌ as here what so euer thou sayest was in y e cuppe nother y t nor the cup it selfe taking euery worde in his propre significacioÌ was y e new testameÌt but in vnderstanding that which was in the cuppe by the cuppe y t is a figuratiue speache yea also thou cannest not verifie or truly saye of that whether thou sayest it was wyne or Christes blood to be the newe testament without a figure also Thus in one sentence spoken of Christ in the institucion of the sacrament of his blood the figure must helpe vs twyse So vntrue is it that some doo wryte that Christ vseth no figure in the doctrine of faythe nor in the institucion of his Sacramentes But some saye yf we shal thus admitte figures in doctrine than shall all the articles of our fayth by figures and allegories shortlye be transformed and vnlosed I saye it is lyke fault eueÌ the same to deny y e figure where y e place so requireth to be vnderstanden as vaynely to make it a figuratiue speache which is to be vnderstaÌden in his propre significacion The rules wherby y e speche is knowen whan it is figuratiue wherby it is none S. Augustine in his boke De doctrina christiana geueth diuerse learned lessons very necessarie to be knowen of y e studentes in Goddes worde Of the which one I will rehearse which is thys If sayeth he the scripture dothe seme to commauÌde a thing which is wicked or vngodlye or to forbidde a thing that charitie dothe require than knowe thou sayeth he that the speche is figuratiue And for exaÌple he bringeth the sayeng of Christ in y e .6 chap. of S. Io. Except ye eate the fleshe of the soÌne of maÌ drinke his blood ye can not haue lyfe in you it semeth to coÌmaunde a wicked or an vngodly thing Wherfore it is a figuratiue speche coÌmauÌding to haue coÌmunioÌ felowship w t Christes passioÌ deuoutly holsomlye to laye vp in memorie that his fleshe was crucified and wounded for vs. And here I can not but maruel at some men surely of muche excelleÌt fynesse of wyt of great eloqueÌce that are not ashamed to wryte say y t this aforesaid sayeng of Christ is after S. Austin a figuratiue speche in dede howbeit not vnto the learned but to the vnlearned Here let any man that but indifferently vnderstandeth the latine tongue read the place in S. Austen if he perceaue not clearly S Augustines wordes mynde to be coÌtrary let me abyde therof the rebuke This lessoÌ of S. Augustine I haue therfore the rather set furthe bicause it teacheth vs to vnderstaÌde that place in IohnÌ figuratyuely Euen so surely the same lesson with the example of S. Augustines exposiciones therof teacheth vs not only by the same to vnderstande Christes wordes in the institucion of the Sacrament bothe of his body and of his blood figuratyuely but also the very true meanyng and vnderstanding of the same For if to commaunde to eate the fleshe of the sonne of man and to drinke his blood semeth to commaunde an inconuenieÌce and an vngodlynesse and is euen so in dede if it be vnderstandeÌ as the wordes doo staÌde in their propre significacion and therfore must be vnderstanden figuratyuely spiritually as S. Augustine dothe godly and learnedly interprete them Than surely Christ commaunding in his last supper to eate his body and to drinke his blood semed to coÌmaunde in sounde of wordes as great and euen the same inconuenience and vngodlinesse as did his wordes in the .6 chap. of S. IohnÌ and therfore must euen by the same reason be lykewise vnderstanden and expounded figuratyuely spiritually as S. Augustine did the other Wherunto that exposicion of S. Augustine may seme to be the more mere for that Christ in his supper to the commaundement of eating and drinking of his body blood addeth Doo this in the remeÌbraunce of me Which wordes surely were the keye that opened
reuealed the spirituall and godly exposicion vnto S. Augustine But I haue taried longer in setting furthe y e forme of Christes wordes vpon the Lordes cuppe written by Paule and Luke than I did inteÌde to do And yet in speaking of the forme of Christes wordes spoken vpon his cuppe cometh now to my remebrauÌce the forme of wordes vsed in the latine Masse vpon the Lordes cuppe Wherof I doo not a litell maruaile what shoulde be the cause seing the latine Masse agreeth with the euangelistes and Paule in the forme of wordes sayed vpon the bread why in the wordes sayed vpon the Lordes cuppe it diffreth from them all yea and addeth to the wordes of Christ spoken vpon the cuppe these wordes Misterium fidei that is the mysterie of faith which ar not redde to be attributed vnto the sacrament of Christes blood nother in the euangelistes nor in Paule nor so farre as I knowe in any other place of holy scripture yea and if it maye haue som good exposicion yet why it should not be aswell added vnto the wordes of Christ vpon his breade as vpon his cuppe surely I doo not see y e mysterie And bicause I see in the vse of the latine masse the sacrament of y e blood abused whan it is denyed vnto the laye people cleane contrary vnto Goddes most certain worde for why I doo beseche the should the sacrameÌt of Christes blood be denyed vnto the lay christiaÌ more thaÌ to y e priest Did not Christ sheade his blood aswell for y e laye godly maÌ as for y e godly priest If thow wilt saye yeas that he did so But yet y e sacrameÌt of the blood is not to be receaued without the offring vp sacrificeing therof vnto God the father bothe for the quicke and for the dead and no man maye make oblacion of Christes blood vnto God but a priest and therfore the priest alone that but in his Masse only maye receaue the sacrament of the blood And call you this Maisters Misterium fidei Alas alas I feare me this is before God Misterium iniquitatis the misterie of iniquitie suche as S. Paule speaketh of in his epistle to the Thessalonians The Lorde be mercifull vnto vs and blesse vs lighten his countenaunce vpon vs and be mercifull vnto vs. That we may knowe thy waye vpon earthe and among all people thy saluacion This kynde of oblacion standeth vponTransubstanciacion his cousyn germayne and they doo growe bothe vpoÌ one grouÌde The lord wede it out of his vineyard shortly if it be his blessed wil pleasure y e bitter roote To speake of this oblacioÌ how muche is it iniurious vnto Christes passion How it can not but with highe blasphemye and haynous arrogauncie intolerable pryde be claimed of any man other than of Christ hym self how much and how playnly it repugneth vnto the manifest wordes the true sense and meaning of holy scripture in many places especially in the epistle to the Hebrues the mater is so long and other haue written in it at large that my mynde is nowe not to intreate therof any further For onlye in this my scribling I intende to search out and set furth by the scriptures according to Goddes gracious gifte of my poore knowlage whether the true sense and meaniÌg of Christes wordes in y e institucioÌ of his holy supper do requyre any TraÌsubstaÌciacioÌ as they cal it or that the very substauÌce of bread and wyne doo remayne still in the Lordes supper and be the material substaunce of the holy Sacrament of Christ our saueours blessed body and blood Yet ther remayneth one vayne Quidditie of Duns in this mater y t which bicause some that write now doo seme to like it so well that they haue strypped him out of Dunces dustye and darke termes and pricked hym and paynted hym in freshe colours of an eloquent stile may therfore deceaue the more except the errour be warely eschued Duns sayeth in these wordes of Christ This is my body this pronowne demonstratyue meanyng the worde this if ye will knowe what it dothe shewe or demonstrate whether y e bread that Christ toke or no he answereth no but only one thing in substaunce it poynteth wherof the nature or name it dothe not tell but leaueth that to be determyned and tolde by that which foloweth y e worde is that is by Praedicatum as the logician dothe speake and therfore he calleth this pronowne demonstratiue This Indiuiduum Vagum that is a waÌdring propre name wherby we maye poynt out and shewe any one thing in substaunce what thing so euer it be That this ymaginacion is vayne and vntruly applyed vnto these wordes of Christ This is my body it may appeare plainly in y e wordes of Luke and Paule sayed vpon the cuppe coÌferred with y e forme of wordes spokeÌ vpoÌ y e cuppe in Mathewe and Marke For as vpoÌ the bread it is sayed of al This is my body so of Matthewe and Marke it is sayed of the cuppe This is my blood Than if in the wordes This is my body the worde this be as Duns calleth it a waÌdring name to appoynt and shewe furthe any one thing wherof the name and nature it dothe not tell so must it be likewyse in those wordes of Matthewe and Marke vpon the Lordes cuppe This is my blood But in the wordes of Matthewe and Marke it signifieth and poynteth out y e same that it dothe in the Lordes wordes vpon the cuppe in Luke and Paule wher it is sayd This cuppe is the newe testament in my blood c. Therfore in Matthewe Marke the ênowne demonstratyue this dothe not wandre to poynt only one thing in substaunce not shewing what it is but telleth it plainlie what it is no lesse in Mathewe and Marke vnto the eie than is done in Luke and Paule by puttiÌg to this worde cuppe bothe vnto the eie and vnto the eare For taking the cuppe and demoÌstrating or shewing it vnto his disciples by this ênowne demonstratiue this and sayeng vnto them Drinke ye all of this it was than al one to say This is my blood as to saye This cuppe is my blood meanyng by the cuppe as the nature of the speche dothe require the thing conteyned in the cuppe So likewise without all doubt whan Christ hade taken bread geuen thankes and broken it and giuing it to his disciples sayed Take and so demonstrating and shewing that bread which he hade in his handes to saye than This is my body to haue saied This bread is my body As it were all one if a man lacking a knyfe goiÌg to his oisters wold say vnto an other whoÌ he sawe to haue two kniues Sir I praye you lende me the one of your knyues Were it not now all one to answer hym Sir holde I will lende you this to eate your meate but not to open oysters withall and holde I will lende you this knyfe to eate your
shall not euer haue me with you For as coÌcernyng the preseÌce of his fleshe the churche hade hym but a fewe dayes now it holdeth hym by faithe though it see hym not Thus muche S. Augustine speaketh repeting one thing so often and al to declare and teache how we should vnderstande the maner of Christes being here with vs which is by his grace by his prouidence by his diuine nature and how he is absent by his natural body which was borne of the virgin Mary died and roose for vs is ascended in to heauen and ther sitteth as is in the articles of our faithe on the right hande of God thence from non other place sayeth S. Augustine he shall com on the later daye to iudge y e quycke the dead At y e which daye the righteous shall than lifte vp their heades and the light of Goddes truthe shall so shyne that falshead and errours shalbe put in to perpetual confusion righteousnesse shal haue the vpperhande and truthe that daye shal beare awaye y e victorie al thenemies therof quyte ouerthrowne to be troden vnder foote for euermore O Lorde Lorde I beseche the hasten this daye than shalt thow be glorified with the glorie due vnto thy holy name and vnto thy diuine maiestie and we shal syng vnto thee in al ioye and felicitie laude and praise for euer more Amen Here now wold I make an ende For me thinkes S. Augustine is in this mater so full and playne and of that autoritie that it should not nede after this his declaracion being so firmely grounded vpon Goddes worde and so well agreing with the other auncient autors to bring in for the coÌfirmacion of this mater any moo and yet I sayed I wolde allege three of the latin churche to testifie the truthe in this cause Now therfore y e last of all shalbe Gelasius which was a bishop of Rome but one that was bishop of that sea before y e wicked vsurpacion and tyrannye therof spredde burst out abrode in to all the worlde For this man was before Bonifacius yea and Gregorie the furst in whose dayes bothe corruption of doctrine and tirannical vsurpacion did chiefly growe and hade the vpperhande Gelasius in an epistle of the twoo natures of Christ Contra Eutichen writeth thus The sacramentes of the body and blood of Christ which we receaue are godly thinges wherby and by the same we are made partakers of the diuine nature and yet neuerthelesse the substaunce or nature of the bread wyne dothe not departe nor go awaye Note these wordes I beseche you and considre whether any thing can be more playnly spoken than these wordes be agaynst the errour of traÌsubstanciacion which is the grouÌde and bitter roote wherupon spring all the horrible errours before rehearsed Wherfore seing that y e falshead dothe appeare so manifestly and by so many wayes so playnly so clearlye and so fully that no maÌ nedeth to be deceaued but he that will not see or will not vnderstande Let vs all that doo loue the truthe embrace it forsake the falsehead For he that loueth the truthe is of God and the lacke of the loue therof is the cause why God suffreth men to fall in to errours and to perishe therin yea and as S. Paule sayeth why he seÌdeth vnto them illusiones y t they beleue lies vnto their owne condemnacion bicause sayeth he they loued not the truthe This truthe no doubt is Goddes worde For Christ hym selfe sayeth vnto his father Thy worde is truthe The loue and light wher of almightie God our heauenly father geue vs lyghten it in our heartes by his holy spirite through Iesus Christ our Lorde Amen Vincit Veritas The. blessed martirs prayer Note Math. 2â Mar. 14. Luce. 22. â Cor. 11. Note what it is to lye The slauÌderous lies of the papistes wherin the controuersy consisteth Answer to the chief question ArgumeÌt Maâ ⪠Antho. const Gardiner Act. 2.20 The. 2. reason The. 3. ArgumeÌt The papistes affirme they wotte not what Gardiner to the 48. obiection Petre and Paule had no such priesthode as the papistes haue Note well the Papistes errour confuted Aug. De Doc. christiana li. 3. ca. 16. Gardiner in his answers to the 161. 22â obiection Note The Lordes cuppe as the priestes say 2. Thess. 2. Prayer Psal. 67. The masse sacrifice iniurious to Christes passioÌ Hebr. 9.10 Gardiner in the answer to the. 15. obiection Gard. to the. 13. obiection God makers agree not among them selues Gardiner a Neutral or Iacke of bothe Sydes Gard. to the. 84 obiection Godmakers agree against the truthe Note The consent of the olde autors Origene Eccl. Hist. Li. 6. ca. 3 The papistes obiection against Origene An other obiection Gard. to the. 166 ⪠Gard. in the same place Li. 3. ca. â6 Chrisosto In opere imperfecto ho. 11. in Matth. Gardi to the â98 obiection Gard. in the same place Gard. to the 201. obiection Theodores Dial â D. More man in the conuocacion house Distinc. ca 4. Statuimus Tertullian ⪠Gard. to the .16 obiection Augustine Question ⪠57. Cap. 13. Contra Maximinum li. ca. 2â Gelasius Io. 17.
many as be or shalbe partakers therof that is y t to all y t do beleue on his name which are not borne of blood as S. Io. sayeth or of y e wil of y e fleshe or of y e wil of maÌ but are borne of God though the selfe same substaunce abyde styll in heauen and they for the tyme of their pilgrimage dwel here vpon earthe By grace I saye that is by the gyfte of thys lyfe mencioned in Iohn and the propreties of the same mete for our pilgrimage here vpon earth the same bodye of Christ is here preseÌt with vs. Euen as for example we saye y e same Sunne which in substauÌce neuer remoueth his place out of the heauens is yet present here by his beames light and naturall influence where it shyneth vpon the earthe For Goddes worde and his Sacramentes be as it were the beames of Christ which is Sol iusticiae the SuÌne of ryghteousnes Thus haste thou hearde of what sorte or secte so euer thou be wherin dothe stande the principall state and chiefe point of all the controuersies which do êprely perteyne vnto the nature of this SacrameÌt As for the vse therof I graunt ther be many other thinges wherof here I haue spoken nothyng at all And now least thou iustly mightest complayne and say that I haue in opening of this mater done nothyng elles but digged a pitte and haue not shut it vp again or broken a gap haue not made it vp agayne or opened y e boke haue not closed it agayne or elles to cal me what thou lustest as neutrall dissembler or what so euer elles thy lust learnyng shall serue to thee to name me worse Therfore here now I wil by Goddes grace not only shortly but so clearely ⪠playnly as I caÌ make y e to know whether or y e aforesaid two answeres to y e former principal state chief poiÌt dothe lyke me best yea and also I will holde al those accursed which in this mater y t now so troubleth y e churche of Christ haue of God receaued the keye of knowlage yet goo about to shutte vp y e doores so y t they theÌ selues wil not entre in nor suffre other that wolde And as for myne owne parte I coÌsydre bothe of late what charge cure of soule hathe ben coÌmitted vnto me wherof God knoweth howe sone I shalbe called to geue accoÌpte also now in this worlde what perile dauÌger of y e lawes coÌcernyng my life I am now in at this pÌseÌt tyme. What folye where it thaÌ for me now to disseÌble w t God of whoÌ assuredly I loke hope by Christ to haue euerlastiÌg life Seing y t suche charge dauÌger bothe before God maÌ doo compasse me in rouÌde about on euery syde therfore God willing I will frankely frely vttre my mynde though my body be captyue yet my toÌgue my pen as long as I maye shall frely set furthe that which vndoubtedly I am persuaded to be y e truthe of Goddes worde And yet I wil do it vnder this protestacion call me protestauÌt who iusteth I passe not therof My protestacion shalbe thus that my mynde is euer shalbe God willing to set furthe syncerely the true sense and meanyng to the best of my vnderstanding of Goddes most holy worde not to decline from the same either for feare of worldly daunger or elles for hope of gayne I doo proteste also due obedience submission of my iudgement in this my wryting and in all other myne affaires vnto those of Christes church which be truly learned in Goddes holy worde gathered in Christes name and guided by his spirite After this protestacion I doo playnly affirme and saye y t the seconde answer made vnto the chief question and principal poynt I am persuaded to be the very true meanyng and sense of Goddes holy worde that is that the naturall substaunce of bread and wyne is the true material substaunce of the holy sacrament of the blessed body blood of our saueour Christ and the places of scripture whervpon this my faithe is grouÌded be these bothe coÌcerning y e sacrameÌt of y e body also of y e blood Furst let vs repete the begynnyng of the institucioÌ of the Lordes supper wherin al y e three euaÌgelistes and S. Paule almost in wordes doo agree sayeng that Iesus toke bread gaue thaÌkes brake and gaue it to the disciples sayeng Take eate this is my body Here it appeareth playnly that Christ calleth very bread his body For that which he toke was very bread In this all meÌ doo agree And that which he toke after he hade geuen thankes he brake and that which he toke and brake he gaue to his disciples that which he toke brake and gaue to his disciples he sayed hym self of it This is my bodye So it appeareth playnlie that Christ called very bread his body But very breade caÌnot be his body in very substauÌce therof therfore it must nedes haue an other meaniÌg Which meanyng appeareth playnly what it is by the next sentence that foloweth imediatlye bothe in Luke in Paule And y t is this Doo this in remeÌbrauÌce of me Whervpon it semeth vnto me to euident that Christ did take bread called it his bodye for that he wolde therby institute a perpetual remeÌbraunce of his body specially of y e singular benefite of our redempcion which he wolde than procure and purchace vnto vs by his body vpon the crosse But bread reteynyng still his owne very natural substaunce maye be thus by grace and in a sacrameÌtal significacioÌ his body wheras elles the very bread which he toke brake and gaue them could not be in any wise his natural body For that were confusion of substaunces and therfore the very wordes of Christ ioyned with the next sentence folowing bothe enforceth vs to confesse the very bread to remayne still and also openeth vnto vs how that bread may be and is thus by his diuine power his body which was geueÌ for vs. But here I remembre I haue red in some writours of the contrarie opinion which doo denye that y t which Christ did take he brake For saye they after his taking he blessed it as Marke doth speake And by his blessing he chaunged the natural substaunce of the breade in to the natural substaunce of his bodye and so although he toke the bread and blessed it yet bicause in blessing he chaunged the substaunce of it he brake not the bread which than was not ther but only the forme therof Unto this obiection I haue two playne answers bothe grounded vpoÌ Goddes worde The one I will here rehearse the other answer I will differre vntil I speake of the SacrameÌt of the blood Myne answer here is takeÌ out of y e plaine wordes of S. Paul which dothe manifestlye confounde this fantastical inuencion furst inueÌted I wene of Pope Innocentius after confirmed
meat but not to open oysters This similitude serueth but for this purpose to declare y e nature of speche withall wher as the thing that is demonstrated and shewed is euidently perceaued and openly knowen to the eie But O good Loord what a wonderfull thing is it to see how som meÌ doo labour to teache what is demonstrated and shewed by the pronowne demonstratyue this in Christes wordes whan he sayeth This is my body This is my blood how they labour I saye to teache what that this was than in dede whaÌ Christ spake in the begynnyng of the sentence the worde this before he hade pronounced the rest of the wordes that folowed in the same sentence so that their doctrine maye agree with their Transubstanciacion which in dede is the very fouÌdacion wherin al their erroneous doctrine dothe stande And here the Transubstanciatours doo not agree amoÌg them selues no more than they doo in the wordes which wrought the Transubstanciacion whan Christ did furst institute his Sacrament Wherin Innocentius a bishop of Rome of the later dayes and Duns as was noted before doo attribute the worke vnto the worde Benedixit Blessed but the rest for the most parte to Hoc est corpus meum This is my body c. Duns therfore w t his secte bicause he putteth the chauÌge before must nedes saye y t this whan Christ spake it in the begynnyng of the sentence was in dede Christes body For in the chaunge the substaunce of bread did departe and the chaunge was now done in Benedixit sayeth he that went before and therfore after hym and his that this was than in dede Christes body though y e worde did not importe so much but only one thing in substaunce which substaunce after Duns the bread being gone must nedes be the substaunce of Christes body But they that put their TraÌsubstanciacion to be wrought by these wordes of Christ This is my body and doo saye that whan the hole sentence was finished than this chauÌge was perfected and not before they caÌnot saye but yet Christes this in the begynnyng of the sentence before the other wordes were fully pronounced was bread in dede But as yet y e chaunge was not done so long the bread must nedes remayne and so long w t the vniuersal coÌsent of al transubstauÌciatours the naturall substaunce of Christes body can not come and therfore must their this of necessite demoÌstrate shewe the substaunce which was as yet in the pronouÌceing of the furst worde this byChrist but bread But how can they make and verifie Christes wordes to be true demonstrating the substaunce which in the demonstracion is but bread and saye therof This is my body y t is as they saye the natural substaunce of Christes body except they wold saye that y e verbe is signifieth is made or is chaunged in to And so thaÌ if the same verbe is be of y e same effecte in Christes wordes spoken vpoÌ the cuppe and rehearsed by Luke Paule the cuppe or the wyne in the cuppe must be made or turned in to the newe testameÌt as was declared before Ther be som among the Transubstanciatours which walke so wylylie and so warely betwene these two aforesaid opiniones allowing them bothe and holding playnly nother of them bothe that me thynkes they may be called Neutralles Ambodexters or rather suche as can shifte on bothe sydes They plaie on bothe partes For with the later they do allowe the doctrine of the last sillable which is that transubstanciacion is done by myracle in an instaunt at y e sounde of the last sillable um in this sentence Hoc est corpus meum And they doo alowe also Duns his fantastical imaginacioÌ of Indiuiduum vagum that demoÌstrateth as he teacheth in Christes wordes one thing in substaunce than being after his mynde the substaunce of the body of Christ. A maruailous thing how any maÌ can agree with bothe these two they being so coÌtrarie the one to the other For the one sayeth the worde this demonstrateth the substauÌce of bread and the other sayeth no not so the bread is gone and it demonstrateth a substaunce which is Christes body Tushe sayeth this thrid man ye vnderstaÌde nothing at al. They agree wel ynough in the chief poynt which is the grounde of al that is bothe do agree and beare witnesse that ther is transubstanciacion They do agree in dede in that conclusion I graunt But their processe and doctrine therof do eueÌ aswel agree together as did y e false witnesse before Annas and Caiphas agaiÌst Christ or the two wicked iudges against SusaÌna For against Christ the false witnesses did agre no doubt to speake all against hym And the wicked iudges were bothe agreed to condemne poore Susanna but in examinacion of their witnesses they dissented so farre that all was founde false y t they went about both y t wher in they agreed also those thinges which they brought for their proues Thus muche haue I spoken in searching out a solucion for this principal questioÌ which was what is the material substaunce of the holy Sacrament in the Lordes supper Now least I shoulde seme to set by myne owne conceate more than is mete or lesse to regarde the doctrine of the olde ecclesiastical wrytours than is conuenient for a man of my poore learning and simple wytte for to doo And bicause also I am in dede persuaded y t the olde ecclesiasticall wrytours vnderstode the true meanyng of Christ in this mater and haue bothe so truly and so playnly set it furthe in certayn places of their wrytinges that no maÌ which will vouchesafe to reade them and without preiudice of a corrupte iudgement wil indifferently weighe theÌ coÌstrue their myndes non other wise than they declare them selues to haue ment I am persuaded I saye that in reading of them thus no man can be ignoraunt in this mater but he that will shutte vp his owne eies and blyndfelde hym selfe Whan I speake of ecclesiastical wrytours I meane of suche as were before the wicked vsurpacioÌ of the sea of Rome was groweÌ so vnmeasurably great that not only with tyrannical power but also with corrupte doctrine it beganne to subuerte Christes gospel to turne the state that Christ his apostles set in y e church vpside downe For the causes aforesaid I wil rehearse certayn of their sayenges and yet bicause I take them but for wytnesses and expouÌders of this doctrine and not as the autors of the same and also for that now I wil not be tedious I will rehearse but fewe y t is three olde writours of the Greke churche and other three of the Latine churche which doo seme vnto me to be in this mater most playne The Greke autors are Origene Chrisostome and Theodoret. The Latyne are Tertulliane S. Augustine and Gelasius I knowe ther can be nothing spoken so playnly but y e craftye witte furnished with eloquence can
man drinke his blood c. This lettre dothe kill Yf in that place the lettre dothe kil wherin is coÌmauÌded the eating of Christes fleshe than surelye in those wordes of Christe wherin Christ coÌmaundeth vs to eate his body the literal sense therof likewise dothe kill For it is no lesse crime but euen the same and all one in the literal sense to eate Christes bodye to eate Christes fleshe Wherfore if the one doo kil except it be vnderstanden figuratiuely and spiritually than the other surely dothe kill likewise But that to eate Christes fleshe dothe kil so vnderstanden Origene affirmeth playnly in his wordes aboue rehearsed Wherfore it can not be iustly denyed but to eate Christes body literally vnderstanden must nedes after hym kill likewise The answer that is made to this place of Origen of the papistes is so folishe that it bewrayeth it self without any further confutacion It is the same that they make to a place of S. Augustine in his boke De doctrina Christiana Wher as Saint Augustine speaketh in effecte y e same thing that Origene dothe here The papistes answer is this To y e carnal maÌ y e literal sense is hurtful but not so to the spiritual As though to vnderstande that in his propre sense which ought to be taken figuratiuely were to the carnall man a daungerous perile but to the spiritual man non at all Now to Chrisostome whom I bring for the seconde wrytour in the greke churche He speaking agaynst y e vnholy vsing of maÌnes body which after S. Paule ought to be kept pure and holy as the very teÌple of the holy goost sayeth thus If it be a fault sayeth he to translate the holyed vesselles in the which is conteyned not the true body of Christ but the mysterie of the body to priuate vses how muche more offence is it to abuse and defile the vesselles of our body These be the wordes of Chrisostome But I trowe that here many fowle shiftes are deuised to defeate this place The autor sayeth one is suspected I answer But in this place neuer fault was fouÌde with hym vnto these our dayes And whether this autor was IohnÌ Chrisostome him self the Archebishop of Constantinopole or no that is not the mater For of all it is graunted that he was a writour of that age and a man of great learnyng so that it is manifest that this which he wryteth was the receaued opinioÌ of learned men in his dayes Or elles vndoubtedly in suche a mater his sayeng shoulde haue beÌ impugned of som y t wrote in his tyme or nere vnto the same Naye sayeth an other if this solucioÌ will not serue we maye saye that Chrisostome did not speake of the vesselles of the Lordes cuppe or such as were than vsed at the Lordes table but of the vesselles vsed in the temple in the olde lawe This answer will serue no more than the other For here Chrisostome speaketh of suche vesselles wherin was y e which was called the body of Christ although it was not y e true body sayeth he of Christ but the mystery of Christes bodye Now of the vessels of the olde lawe the wrytours doo vse no suche maner of phrase for their sacrifices were not called Christes body For than Christ was not but in shadowes and figures and not by the Sacrament of his body reuealed Erasmus which was a maÌ that coulde vnderstande the wordes and sense of the wrytour although he wolde not be sene to speake agaynst this errour of transubstanciacion bicause he durst not yet in his tyme declareth playnely that this sayeng of this wrytour is non otherwise to be vnderstanden Yet can I sayeth the thirde papist fynde out a fyne subtil solucion for this place graunt all that yet is sayed bothe allowing here the wrytour also that he ment of the vessels of the Lordes table For sayeth he the body of Christ is not conteyned in them at the Lordes table as in a place but as in a mysterie Is not this a prety shifte and a mystical solucion But by the same solucion than Christes body is not in the Lordes table nor in the priestes handes nor in the pixe and so is he here no where For they will not saye that he is either here or ther as in a place This answer pleaseth so well the maker that he hym self after he had played with it a litel while and shewed the fynesse of his wytte eloquence therin is content to geue it ouer say but it is not to be thought that Chrisostome wolde speake after this fynesse or subtiltie and therfore he returneth agayn vnto the seconde answer for his shoore Ancor which is sufficieÌtly confuted before An other shorte place of Chrisostome I will rehearse which if any indiffereÌcy maye be hearde in playne termes setteth furth the truth of this mater Before y e bread saieth Chrisostome Ad CesariuÌ MonachuÌ be halowed we cal it bread but y e grace of God sanctifieng it by the meanes of the priest it is deliuered now froÌ the name of bread and estemeth worthy to be called Christes body although the nature of bread tarye in it still These be Chrisostomes wordes wherin I praye you what can be sayed or thought more playne against this errour of transubstanciacioÌ than to declare that the bread abydeth so still And yet to this so playn a place som are not ashamed thus shamefully to elude it sayeng we graunt y e nature of bread remayneth still thus for that it maye be sene felt and tasted and yet the corporal substaunce of y e bread therfore is gone least two bodies should be confused together Christe should be thought impanate What contrarietie and falshead is in this answer the symple man maie easily perceaue Is not this a playne contrarietie to graunt that the natur of bread remayneth so still y t it maye be sene felt and tasted yet to saye the corporal substaunce is gone to auoide absurditie of Christes impanacion And what manifest falshead is this to saye or meane that if the bread should remayne still than must folowe the inconuenience of impanacioÌ As though the very bread could not be a sacrament of Christes body as water is of baptisme except Christ should vnyte the nature of bread to his nature in vnitie of persone and make of the bread God Now let vs heare Theodoretus which is the last of the thre Greke autors He wryteth in his dialoge Contra Eutichen thus He that calleth his natural body corne and bread and also named hym self a vyne tree euen he the same hathe honoured the Symboles that is the sacramental signes with the names of his body and blood not chaungeing in dede the nature it self but adding grace vnto the nature what can be more playnly sayed than this that this olde wrytour sayeth that although the Sacramentes beare the name of the body and blood of Christ
bothe in setting furthe the true doctrine of Christes religion also in the defence of the same against heretikes This autor as he hathe written most pleynteously in other maters of our faithe so likewise in this argument he hathe written at large in many of his workes so playnly against this errour of transustanciacion y t the papistes loue least to heare of hym of al other wrytours partly for his autoritie partly bicause he openeth the mater more fully than any other doth Therfore I will rehearse mo places of him thaÌ hertofore I haue done of the other And furst what can be more playne than that which he wryteth vpon the 89. psalme speakiÌg of the sacrament of the Lordes body and blood and rehearsing as it were Christes wordes to his disciples after this maner It is not this body which ye doo see that ye shall eate nother shall ye drynke this blood which the souldyours y t crucifie me shall spill or sheade I doo commende vnto you a mysterie or a sacrameÌt which spiritually vnderstanded shall geue you life Now if Christ hade no moo natural and corporal bodies but that one which they thaÌ presently bothe hearde sawe nor other natural blood but that which was in the same body and the which the souldiours did afterwarde cruelly shede vpon the crosse and nother this body nor this blood was by this declaracion of S. Augustine either to be eaten or dronken but the mysterie therof spiritually to be vnderstanded than I conclude if this sayeng and exposicion of S. Augustine be true that y e mysterie which the disciples should eate was not the natural body of Christ but a mysterie of the same spiritually to be vnderstaÌded For as S. Augustine sayeth in his 20. boke Contra Faustum ca. 21. Christes fleshe and blood was in the olde testament promysed by similitudes and signes of their sacrifices and was exhibited in dede and in truthe vpon y e crosse but the same is celebrated by a sacrament of remembraunce vpoÌ y e aultare And in his boke De fide ad Petrum ca. 19. he sayeth that in these sacrifices meanyng of the olde lawe it is figuratiuely signified what was than to be geuen but in this sacrifice it is euidently signified what is allready geuen vnderstaÌding in the sacrifice vpon the aultare the remembraunce and thaÌkes geuing for the fleshe which he offred for vs for the blood which he shedde for vs vpon the crosse as in the same place and euidently ther it maye appeare An other euident and cleare place wherin it appeareth that by the sacramentall bread which Christ called his body he ment a figure of his body As vpon the .3 Psalme wher S. Augustine speaketh this in playne termes Christ did admytte Iudas vnto the feast in the which he commeÌded vnto his disciples the figure of his bodye This was Christes last supper before his passion wherin he did ordayne the sacrament of his body as all learned men doo agree S. Augustine also in his 23. epistle to Bonifacius teacheth how sacramentes doo beare the names of y e thinges wherof they be sacramentes bothe in Baptisme and in the Lordes table euen as we call euery good frydaye the daye of Christes passioÌ and euery Easter daye the daye of Christes resurrection whan in very dede ther was but one daye wherin he suffred and but one daye wherin he rose And why doo we than call them so which are not so in dede but bicause they are in like tyme and course of the yeare as those dayes were wherin those thinges wer done Was Christ sayeth S. AugustiÌ offred any more but once And he offred him self And yet in a sacrament or represeÌtacioÌ not only euery soleÌne feast of Easter but also euery day to y e people he is offred so y t he dothe not lye y t sayeth He is euery daye offred For if SacrameÌtes hade not soÌ similitudes or likenesse of those thinges wherof they be SacrameÌtes they could in no wise be sacrameÌtes for their similitudes and likenesse commonly they haue the names of the thinges wherof they be sacrameÌtes Therfore as after a certayn maner of speche y e sacrameÌt of Christes body is Christes body the sacrament of Christes blood is Christes blood so likewise the Sacrament of faithe is faithe After this maner of speche as S. Augustine teacheth in his questiones Super Leuiticum CoÌtra AdamantinuÌ it is sayed in scripture that .vii eares of corne be seuen yeares seuen kyen be vii yeares y e rocke was Christ blood is y e soule the which last sayeng sayeth S. Augustine in his boke Contra Adimantinum is vnderstanded to be spoken in a signe or figure For the Lord himself did not sticke to saye This is my body whan he gaue the signe of his body For we must not considre in sacrameÌtes sayeth S. Augustine in an other place What they be but what they doo signifie for they be signes of thinges being one thing in them selues and yet signifieng an other thing For the heauenly bread sayeth he speaking of the sacramental bread by some maner of speache is called Christes body whan in very dede it is the Sacrament of his body c. What can be more playne or more clearly spoken than are these places of S. Augustine before rehearsed if men were not obstinately bent to mayntene an vntruthe to receaue nothing what so euer dothe set it furthe Yet one place more of S. Augustine will I allege which is very cleare to this purpose that Christes natural body is in heauen and not here corporally in the Sacrament and so let him departe In his .50 treatise which he wryteth vpon IohnÌ he teacheth playnly and clearly how Christ being bothe God and man is bothe here after a certayn maner and yet in heauen and not here in his natural body and substaunce which he toke of the blessed virgin Mary speaking thus of Christ and sayeng By his diuine Maiestie by his prouidence and by his vnspeakeable inuisible grace y t is fulfilled which he spake Beholde I am with you vnto the ende of the worlde But as concernyng his fleshe which he toke in his incarnacion as touching that which was borne of the virgine as concernyng that which was apprehended by the Iewes crucified vpon a tree and taken downe from the crosse lapped in lynen clothes and buryed and rose agayn and appeared after his resurrection as concernyng that fleshe he sayed ye shall not euer haue me with you Why so For as coÌcernyng his fleshe he was conuersauÌt with his disciples .xl. Dayes and they accompanyeng seing and not folowiÌg hym he weÌt vp in to heauen is not here By y e preseÌce of his diuine maiestie he did not departe as concernyng y e preseÌce of his diuine maiestie w c haue Christ euer w t vs but as concernyng y e presence of his fleshe he sayed truly to his disciples Ye