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 reasō but he wil graūt 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 testamēt 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 spokē vpō the cuppe were not as mightye in worke and as effectuall in significacion to all intentes constructiones and purposes as our Parliamēt 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 reasō thus But the worde is in the wordes spoken vpō the Lordes bread dothe mightily signifie saye they the chaunge of the substaunce of that which goeth before it in to y e substaūce 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 substaūce 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 whā 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 substaūce of bread in to the substaūce 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 thīg conteyned in the cuppe by a figure called Metonimia for y e Christes wordes ment and so must nedes be takē 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 Secōdly that the Lordes wordes wherby he instituted the sacramēt 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 significaciōs whā 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 significaciō was y e new testamēt 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 euē 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 vnderstāden 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 commaūde 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 exāple he bringeth the sayeng of Christ in y e .6 chap. of S. Io. Except ye eate the fleshe of the sōne of mā drinke his blood ye can not haue lyfe in you it semeth to cōmaunde a wicked or an vngodly thing Wherfore it is a figuratiue speche cōmaūding to haue cōmuniō felowship w t Christes passiō 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 excellēt fynesse of wyt of great eloquēce 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 cōtrary let me abyde therof the rebuke This lessō of S. Augustine I haue therfore the rather set furthe bicause it teacheth vs to vnderstāde that place in Iohn̄ 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 inconueniēce and an vngodlynesse and is euen so in dede if it be vnderstandē as the wordes doo stāde 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 cōmaunde in sounde of wordes as great and euen the same inconuenience and vngodlinesse as did his wordes in the .6 chap. of S. Iohn̄ 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 remēbraunce 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 inteÌ„de to do And yet in speaking of the forme of Christes wordes spoken vpon his cuppe cometh now to my remebrauÌ„ce 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 sacrameÌ„t 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 sacrameÌ„t 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 grouÌ„de 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 meaniÌ„g of Christes wordes in y e institucioÌ„ of his holy supper do requyre any TraÌ„substaÌ„ciacioÌ„ as they cal it or that the very substauÌ„ce 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 waÌ„dring 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 coÌ„ferred 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 waÌ„dring 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 ê“nowne 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 puttiÌ„g to this worde cuppe bothe vnto the eie and vnto the eare For taking the cuppe and demoÌ„strating or shewing it vnto his disciples by this ê“nowne 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 goiÌ„g 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
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 mē 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 whā 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 foūdacion wherin al their erroneous doctrine dothe stande And here the Transubstanciatours doo not agree amōg 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 chaūge 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 Trāsubstanciacion to be wrought by these wordes of Christ This is my body and doo saye that whan the hole sentence was finished than this chaūge was perfected and not before they cānot 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 cōsent of al transubstaūciatours the naturall substaunce of Christes body can not come and therfore must their this of necessite demōstrate shewe the substaunce which was as yet in the pronoūceing 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 thā if the same verbe is be of y e same effecte in Christes wordes spoken vpō the cuppe and rehearsed by Luke Paule the cuppe or the wyne in the cuppe must be made or turned in to the newe testamēt 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 imaginaciō of Indiuiduum vagum that demōstrateth 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 mā can agree with bothe these two they being so cōtrarie the one to the other For the one sayeth the worde this demonstrateth the substaūce 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 vnderstāde 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 euē aswel agree together as did y e false witnesse before Annas and Caiphas agaīst Christ or the two wicked iudges against Susāna 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 questiō 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 mā which will vouchesafe to reade them and without preiudice of a corrupte iudgement wil indifferently weighe thē cōstrue 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 vsurpaciō of the sea of Rome was growē 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 expoūders 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
Verily I saye vnto you I wil drinke no more of the frute of the vyne vntil that daye that I drinke that newe in the kingdome of God Here Matthewe and Marke do agree not only in y e mater but also almost fully in the forme of wordes In Matthewe gaue thākes Marke hathe one worde Blessed which signifieth in this place all one And where Matthewe sayeth Drynke ye all of this Marke sayeth they al dranke of it And wher Matthewe sayeth of this frute of y e vyne Marke leaueth out y e worde this and sayeth of y e frute of the vyne Now let vs see likewise what agrement in forme of wordes is betwene S. Luke and S. Paule Luke wryteth thus He toke bread gaue thākes brake it and gaue it to them sayēg This is my body which is geuē for you This doo in the remembraunce of me Likewise also whan they hade supped he toke the cupp sayeng This cuppe is the newe testament in my blood which is shedde for you Saint Paule setteth furthe y e Lordes supper thus The Lorde Iesus the same night in the which he was betrayed toke bread and gaue thankes brake and sayed Take eate this is my body which is broken for you This doo in remembraunce of me After the same maner he toke the cuppe whan supper was done sayeng This cuppe is the newe testament in my blood This doo as often as ye shall drinke it in the remēbraūce of me For as often as ye shall eate this bread drinke this cuppe ye shal shewe y e Lordes death vntil he come Here wher Luke sayeth which is geuen Paule sayeth which is broken And as Luke addeth to the wordes of Paule spoken of the cuppe which is shedde for you so likewise Paule addeth to the wordes therof This doo as often as you shall drinke it in the remembraunce of me The rest that foloweth in S. Paule bothe ther and in y e 10. chap. perteyneth vnto the right vse and doctrine of the Lordes supper Thus the Euangelistes S. Paule haue rehearced the wordes worke of Christ wherby he did institute ordayne this holy sacramēt of his body blood to be a perpetuall remēbraūce vnto his cōmyng again of him self I saye y t is of his body geuē for vs of his blood shedde for y e remission of synnes But this remēbraunce which is thus ordayned as y e autor therof is Christ bothe God and man so by the almightie power of God it farre passeth all kyndes of remembraunces that any other man is able to make eyther of hym selfe or of any other thing For who so euer receaueth this holy Sacramēt thus ordayned in remēbraūce of Christ he receaueth ther with either deathe or life In this I trust we doo all agree For S. Paule sayeth of y e godly receauours in y e 10. chap. of his furst epistle vnto the Corinthiās The cuppe of blessing which we blesse is it not the partaking or feloweship of Christes blood And also he sayeth The bread which we breake meaneth at the Lordes table is it not the partaking or feloweship of Christes bodye Now the partakīg of Christes body and of his blood vnto the faithfull and godly is the partaking or feloweship of life immortalitie And agayn of the badde and vngodly receauours S. Paule as playnly sayeth thus He that eateth of this bread eand drynketh of this cuppe vnworthily is giltie of the body and blood of y e Lorde O how necessary thā it is if we loue life wolde eschue deathe to trye and examine our selues before we eate of this bread and drynke of this cuppe for elles assuredly he that eateth and drynketh therof vnworthily eateth drynketh his owne damnacion bicause he estemeth not the Lordes body y t is he reuerenceth not the Lordes bodye w t y e honour that is due vnto him And that which was sayd that w t the recept of the holy Sacrament of the blessed body and blood of Christ is receaued of euery one good badde either life or deathe it is not mēt that they which are dead before God maie hereby receaue life or the lyuing before God can hereby receaue deathe For as non is mete to receaue natural fode wherby y e natural life is nourished except he be borne liue before so no man cā fede by the recept of this holy sacrament of the fode of eternal life except he be regenerated borne of God before And on the other syde no man here receaueth damnacion which is not dead before Thus hitherto without all doubt God is my witnesse I saye so farre as I doo knowe ther is no controuersie among them that be learned in the churche of Englande concerning the mater of this sacrament but all doo agree whether they be newe or olde and to speake playne and as som of them doo odiously call either other whether they be protestauntes papistes Pharisees or gospellers And as al doo agree hitherto in y e aforesayed doctrine so al do deteste abhorre cōdēne y e wicked heresie of y e Messalonianes which other wise be called Euticheres which said y t y e holy Sacramēt cā nother do good nor harme Al do al so cōdēne those wicked Anabaptistes which put no difference betwene the Lordes table and the lordes meate their owne And bicause charitie wolde that we should if it be possible and so farre as we maye with the sauegarde of good cōscience mayntenaunce of the truthe agree with all men therfore me thinkes it is not charitably done to burthen any man either newe or olde as they cal them further than such doo declare them selues to dissent from that we are persuaded to be truthe or pretende therto to be controuersies wher as non suche are in dede and so to multiplye the debate the which the more it dothe encreace the further it dothe departe from the vnitie that the true christian should desyre And agayn this is true that truthe nother nedeth nor wilbe maynteyned with lies It is also a true prouerbe that it is euen synne to lye vpō the deuil for though by thy lye thow doest synne neuer so muche to speake agaynst the deuil yet in y t thou lyest in dede thow workest the deuilles worke thow doest him seruice and takest the deuilles parte Now whether than they doo godly and charitably which either by their pen in writing or by their wordes in preaching doo beare the symple people in hāde that those which thus doo teache beleue doo goo about to make the holy Sacrament ordayned by Christ him self a thing no better than a piece of common bread or that doo saye that suche doo make the holy Sacrament of the blesed body and blood of Christ nothing elles but a bare signe or a figure to represent Christ non otherwise than the Iuye bushe dothe represent the wyne in a tauerne or as a vile persone gorgiouslye
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 cōmō bread or no or whether the Lordes table is no more to be regarded thā 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 nothīg therby are not spoken of the Lordes table but of other common meates Thus thā hitherto yet we al agree But now let vs see wherin the dissensiō dothe stande The vnderstāding of it wherin it chiefli stādeth 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 Sacramēt 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 substaūce 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 heauēly 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 questiō truly tryed out and agreed vpon no doubt shal ceasse the cōtrouersie 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 graūt there to be but one substaunce than I saye they must nedes graunt Transubstanciacion that is a chaūge of y e substaunce of bread into the substaunce of Christes bodye Thā also they must nedes graunt the carnall and corporal presence of Christes bodye Than must the Sacramēt 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 mā receauing the Sacramēt must nedes than receaue also the natural substaūce 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 substaūce 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 sacramētally chaūged 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 substaūce of Christes humane nature which he toke of the virgine Mary is in heauē 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 impenitēt murtherour aduouterour or suche like do not receaue the natural substaūce of y e blessed body blood of Christ. Finally thā dothe it folowe y e Christes blessed body blood which was once only offred shedde vpō the crosse being auaileable for the sinnes of al the hole worlde is offred vp nomore in'the natural substaūce 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 questiō 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 instituciō 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 writtē 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 substaūce of the naturall body and blood of Christ is onlye remaynyng in heauē and so shalbe vnto the later daye whan he shall come agayne in glorie accompanied with the Aūgelles of heauen to iudge bothe the quicke and the deade And that the same natural substaūce of the very bodye blood of Christ bycause it is vnited vnto the diuine nature in Christ y e secōde person of the Trinitie Therfore it hathe not onlye lyfe in it selfe but is also hable to geue dothe geue lyfe vnto so
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 eloquēce or fynesse of wytte preuayle against the vnfallible worde of God What nede we to striue and cōtend 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 thākes geuyng it is bread which we breake And how oftē 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 cōmunion breakīg of bread And they brake bread in euery house And again ī an other place whā 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 sacramētal eating drīking 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 nomā was euer so fonde as to saye that that sacramētal bread is transubstanciated and chaunged in to the substaunce of the congregaciō Wherfore no man should likewise thinke or saye y t y e bread is trāsubstāciated chaūged 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 sacramētal bread I will now speake a litel of y e Lordes cuppe And this shalbe my thrid argumēt groūded vpō Christes owne wordes The natural substaunce of the sacramental wyne remayneth still and is y e material substaūce 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 cōtrary 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 vpō the cup. I saie vnto you saieth Christ I wil not drīke hēcefurthe 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 sātastical 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 euidētly 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 euē 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 euidēt 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 frō 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 thē 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 tētes 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 instituciō 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