Linguistic DNA - Concept Modelling Demonstrator

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
blood_n	drink_v	eat_v	see_v	5,566	4	3.8208	3	false

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

which to passe it was nedefull that the son of god shuld become man shuld be borne in our miseryes shuld suffer so many trobles shuld be of wicked men persecuted delyuered taken beaton mocked spytefully handled whipt Iudged hy thuniust crucified deade and that he shuld goo downe to the grettest lowlines And here he sayth that with the asshes is made the redempcyon of sinnes How can the godly aÌ„d Christen eares heare this Looke vp on this yow that goo to the mass Looke vp on it yowr selues Reade what I tell yow is in the masse boke Thei that vnderstand the latyn haue not consydred it Thoter knowe not what is sayd because the hole is sayd in a tong not vnderstand of the vnlerned And thei may blaspheme and say what they will at their pleasure And be thes things to be born to close vp our redempcyon within thasshes of woode the which only Christ hath brougth to passe with his hlood and death That of the candels which is done on candelmes day in the first prayer it desyreth that god wold by the calling vp on of his most holy name and by thintreatyes of the blessed Mary allweys virgyn and by the prayers of all sayntes blesse and make holy thos caÌ„dels for mans vse aÌ„d helth of bodyes and of sowles whether it be vp on the land or in the waters And where fynd we in the hole scripture that any bodyly creature fasshoned by meÌ„ as the caÌ„dels aÌ„d the weekis be shuld haue this vse to geue the helt of sowles The helth of sowles is the forgeuenes of sinnes and the holy making Thes so gret and godly things are done by thonly fauor of god and by Christ Esay 53.61 1. Pet. 2. Luk. 4. Esa 61. and are not wrought with wax candells Yea this prayer speaketh against it selff because in th end it sayth that we be redemed with the precyos blood of the son of god And before he sayth that thes caÌ„dles be for mens vse and for helth of sowles that is to say for remissyon of synÌ„es And how caÌ„ thes ij things stand to gether that is to say that we be redemed with the precyos blood of the sonn of god which is most trewe and that the candels shuld be the helth of our sowles that is tho say the forgeuenes of synnes Seing that forgeuenes of synÌ„es is redempcyon it selff as Paul witnesseth in many places Surely iff the caÌ„dels forgyue synnes than they worck our redeÌ„pcyon Roma 3. Ephes 1. collo 1. But Christ only hath wrought our redempcyon and hath not wrought it with candels I knowe well that the wranglyng and supersticyous parsons will not want answers and glosts Notwithstanding let euery faithful and godly man wey and iudge whether the candels caÌ„ work such effectis or no. whan the candels be blessed and the holy water cast on theÌ„ and that they be censyd certeÌ„ verses are song Affter they goo on processioÌ„ and they sing iij. songes of praise which they call Anthemes And one of theÌ„ which is the second sayth Adorna thalamuÌ„ tuum Syon suscipe regem Christum amplectere mariaÌ„ quae est coelestis porta ipsa enim portat regem gloriae And here this AnteÌ„ confessith that mari is the heueÌ„ly gate And though I shall say somwhat here to defeÌ„d gods honor aÌ„d christis let no maÌ„ meruell I speake to thos that haue no knowlege of the holi scripture For I aÌ„ sure that thei which haue wil not meruel There is no dowt but the most blessid mother was aÌ„d is blessed aboue all wemeÌ„ aÌ„d is in that gretnes aÌ„d worthines that caÌ„ not be estemed because she is Christes mother And yet for all that we ought not to geue hir thos praises that be not fitt for hir and that beloÌ„g only to christ For so thin king to honor hir we dishonor hir aÌ„d do hir most greatest wrong aÌ„d iff she were nere vs aÌ„d hard vs whaÌ„ we geue hir such titles that is to say gate of heaueÌ„ mother of merci whaÌ„ we call hir our hope our aduocate and such like titles which be loÌ„g to christ oÌ„ly or to god she wold spitt in our facis aÌ„d wold not suffer that the honor of god aÌ„d of christ the which she aÌ„d all tho her saintes doo more esteme with owt coÌ„parison than theit own shuld be geueÌ„ to plaine creatures were thei neuer so excellent Onli Christ is our liffe and hope Io. 1.6.11.14 Collossen 3. 1. Timot. 2. Iohann 10 1. Iohan. 2. Actor 4 the gate of heaueÌ„ our aduocate fowntane king aÌ„d father of mercy Thes names be namis for god aÌ„d Christ To be the gate of heaueÌ„ aÌ„d to be the aduocate beloÌ„geth to Christ god and man but the other belong to god and to Christ as god So that they thaÌ„ coÌ„mitt a gret error that to honor the saintes aÌ„d chefely the blessed mother doo sing thes AnteÌ„s as the Salue regina the Aue maris stella and as many other as geue godly honor to plaine creatures Fom hens it comith that the deuocion to christ and god is lost and it comith to passe that where we shuld call vp on god and Christ aÌ„d ronÌ„e to theÌ„ in our nede we ronÌ„e to meÌ„ aÌ„d we place theÌ„ in our redemer aÌ„d makers place The blessing of the boughes in the first praier affter the preface of the same blessing destreth that thos that shall take of thos boughes that thei may be vnto them a defence both of sowle and aÌ„d body a remedy of our safetie through Christ our lord The fourth praier which beginnith Deus qui per oliuae ramum desireth that god wold blesse and make holy thos boughes of the olife aÌ„d of other trees so that thei may be profitable for sowle helth to all the peple Surely thes be very great effectis that is to say to be a protection of sowle and body and to be a remedy or to be profitable for our sowle helth God doth noth vse thes meanes to defend our sowles and to saue vs. We haue not in any place of the scripture aÌ„y of thes things Paul thapostel to the colossians Coloss 2. saith that in Christ we be furnisshed that is to say that as concerning the things perteining to the sowle helth we haue no nother but Christ god excepted For in Christ and by Christ we haue all things whether we speake of forgeuenes of sinnes of Iustificacion of repentans of holy making or of sowl helth We haue all thes things in Christ and bi Christ and not by the boughes of oliue palme or of any other thing And beside it is a gret supersticion to be content to beleue that the boughes of oliues palmes or other treis shuld by reason of thos blessings made with thos words crossis and other ceremonies that are made take any powr to bring to passe such aÌ„d so great effectis We find not that the Prophetis thapostels or Christ himselff

And there he telleth the significacions of thos Agnus deies the which affter ward be distributed or delt to the peple by the pope him selff on the satterday in Aâ—â€¦bis that is to say the first saterday affter caster And in th end describing the vertu of thes Agnus deies he saith that thei by the vertu of their consecracion and blessing defend the byleuers froÌ„ lightning aÌ„d teÌ„pest But sureli the pope hath done a great wrong to his Agnus deiies that hauing himselff auctoritie aÌ„d powr to giue to things all thos â—â€¦tewis that him listeth as he hath geueÌ„ uÌ„to Asshes powr to work redeÌ„pcioÌ„ of sinÌ„es aÌ„d to the holy water salted the which euery prest caÌ„ blesse the vertu to driue a waie deuels aÌ„d to saue meÌ„ chefely to that water of the holisabbath which is caried from how 's to hous and hath geueÌ„ so meruelos vertuis so so many other things as we may see in this chapter of the blessings he hath done a gret wroÌ„g to his Agnus dei which no maÌ„ can blesse but himselff that he hath not geueÌ„ theÌ„ the vertu of the herbe Agnus casiê° of the which Dioâ—â€¦corides aÌ„d Galene doo write seing the prestis the friers the monkes aÌ„d the noÌ„nys aÌ„d vniuersaly all the ecclesiastical state haue so moch nede off it For all haue vowed chastitie and mariage is forbidden them It were moch more to the purpos to geue them this vertu and so to take a way so great an abhomination from the world as sendeth the stink of it euen to heauen than that vertu to serue against lightning and tempest O benommed and blind world whaÌ„ wilt thow beginne to open thine eies to remember thy selff and to see how myserably thow art bowght and sold And by whom By them that professe to haue the in charge It is the right iudgement of god For whan fables are preched euery man bileueth them But let gods word christds doctrine and truth come and be preachet it is not only as a perelous error despised but rather fersely persecuted THE FOVRTH PART The fourth aÌ„d last part foloweth the which is of the abuses and of the abhomynacions of the masse and hath vi chapters THe first is that the mass doth not satisfie for them nor applie such things to man THE I. CHAPTER ALthough we haue in the former partis touched many abuses and errors of the mass neuertheles we intend in this last specially to treate of certen partycular and great abusis As for example that the mass shuld forgeue sinnes that it shuld satisfie for them or els that it shuld applie to vs such forgiuenes or satisfaction and that it shuld be a sacrifice for the liuing and for the deade Than next also that the same masse is mans inuention and not gods made by many And to be short we will speake of many other abuses which partly are touched aÌ„d of many wheroff yet ther is no mencion made And first we will proue that the mass forgeueth not sinnes satisfieth not god for them nor applieth not to vs the forgeuenes and satisfactioÌ„ made by Christ And to say the contrary is a very gret error and abuse And I proue it affter this sort For thos that affirme the mass to worke thes effectis either thei will and meane it of all the mass that is to say of all thos words that are said and ceremonies that are done from the beginning to the end and of all that made heape of wordes and gestures or els thei meane of the sacrament of the body and of the blood only the which is chefely considred in the mass Iff thei meane it of the whole masse it is false For by saing of wordes and by doing of ceremonies sinnes are not forgeuen Seing that iff a man shuld say the whole bible ouer which are gods wordes from the beginning to the ending an hondreth times thei could not forgeue him his sinnes How than shall sinnes be forgeuen or satisfaction made for them by saing masse which is mans inuencion as we will proue in the third chapter It is plaine that sinnes are not forgeuen by saing of wordes nor doing of ceremonies bycause that Iustificacion els shuld be by workes which is contrary to Paule Who dowâ—â€¦eth that the speaking and vttring of wordes shuld be our worke Yea who is that wicked man that can not doo this say many Psalmes praiers lessons and doo ceremonies Roma 3.4.5.8 Gallat 2.3.4.5 Coloss 2. The deuell him selff can say many wordes that be holy and of god Paul thapostel as we haue in so many places of his epistles to the Romans to the Galathians and the colossians saith that no man is Iustified that is to say no mans sinnes are forgeuen him by the workes of the lawe commanded by god And he meaneth of those lawe whether it be of the commandementis which is the morall lawe or els of the ceremoniall lawe And will we say that sinnes be forgeuen by reading or speaking of wordes or els by doing of cerimonies not commanded by god but diuised by men This can not be Iff thei will say that thei meane not of all the mass but only of the sacrament the which hath this vertu and strength to forgeue sinnes and to satisfie god for them or els to applie Christes redemption to them for whom the masse chanceth to be said This is not trewe neither but is veri fals For the office of the sacraÌ„ents is not to worke thes effectis but it is to be token theÌ„ and to bring theÌ„ to mind and to assure vs of them For iff the sacrament shuld haue this vertu it shuld haue it chefely towardes them that worthily shuld receiue and take the sacrament but it hath it not to wardes thos same wherfor it hath it not towardes no nother That no sacrament not only that of the lords supper shuld haue this office I wil make it plaine and proue it For the worthy receiuing of the sacrameÌ„t whether it be of thankes geuing or of baptime presupposeth forgiuenes of sinnes and Iustificacion than neither the one nor the other doth it It is plaine that none ought to take what so euer Sacrament yow will iff he be of age except he doo trewe repentance and haue trewe faith But he that doth trewe repentance and hath trewe faith Actor 10. his sinnes are forgeuen him and he is Iustified as we haue in thactes of thapostles Peter saith speaking in Cornelius the hunderders how 's in Caesarea To this saith he that is to sai to Christ for he spake of him all the Prophetes beare witnes that euery one that byleueth in him receiueth forgeuenes of sinnes by his name And Paule also saith Actor 13. knowe ye o men and brethern that by this and he spake of Christ the forgeuenes of sinnes is declared to yow and by him that is to say by Christ euery one that byleueth is iustified from all thos things from the which yow could not be Iustified

is clere that it was not made by one man nor at ones but at diuers times And the order of the times is moch lesse kept that is to say that that which the more awncieÌ„t haue appointed shuld be now first in the canon but it is cleane contrary For AlexaÌ„der the .1 was before all theÌ„ aÌ„d yet the qui pridie quam pateretur which AlexaÌ„der him selff appointed is put in the vi place And the te igitur the which as thei say gelasius made who folowed AlexaÌ„der a loÌ„g time goth before all thother partis of the canoÌ„ Gregory as the ratioÌ„all of diuine offices affirmeth added the preface before the pater noster that is to say the Oremus praeceptis salutaribus moÌ„iti aÌ„d also that the pater noster shuld be said as he affirmeth in the register saing that it shuld be an vnfit thing that the praier of scolasticus of which we haue made mentioÌ„ before that is to say the canoÌ„ shuld be said and christes praier that is to say the pater noster shuld be vnsaid Sergius the pope did first appoint that the Agnus dei shuld be thrise soÌ„g ouer And to be short affter their own Iudgement Christ hath instituted of this masse nothing except the sacrameÌ„t All the rest was added by diuers meÌ„ aÌ„d at diuers times Looke vpon platina in the life of sixtus the 1. bishop of rome And the ratioÌ„all of diuine offices in the fourth booke aÌ„d polidorus Virgilius of vrbine in the .x. chapter of the .1 booke de inueÌ„torbus reruÌ„ all the which say that christ did say no part of this masse except the words of the coÌ„secration But it is worthy of noting that the defenders of the masse sai that the masse is gods institution for the sacrament is the chefe of the same masse and that it is trewe that the masse was augmeÌ„ted aÌ„d increased bi diuers meÌ„ and at diuers times yet for all that thei sai that the masse for becaus of the chefe part is gods institution And thos additions be for furnisshing of it neuertheles the substance which is the sacrameÌ„t was made bi christ And it semith to me that thei wold sai of the masse as of a great riuer As for example of the poo the which at the head The poo is a great Riuer in Italie as Thamis is in England where it beginneth is very lytle and is no better than a lytle spring but becaus there comyth in to it many other ryuers therfor it becomyth affterward great neuerthelesse it kepith the name of Poo So is it of the masse But this talk is nothing worth Our questyon is not now of the name that all that gathering is called masse and the same sacrament shuld be also called Masse as it is called Poo not only the spring where it beginnyth but all thos ryuers gathered to gether in one great ryuer which affter is all to gether called Poo We speake here of the whole masse and we say that all the masse that is to say all that myxture of wordes aÌ„d of so mani ceremonyes was not instituted by Christ but by many Popys and that Christ made no more of the whole masse but the sacrament only And seing that we haue putt the similitude of the masse and of the Poo we will say that allthough that all that composition or gathering to gether of ryuers in to one great riuer shuld be called Poo not withstanding we shall neuer sai that all that gret and large ryuer shuld growe owt of that litle spring but we will say that it groweth of diuers ryuers that is to say the gret Poo And that all the Poo doth not growe of the lytle spring but only a lytle part of it So all the masse came not from Christ but only that lytle part of the consecracion Yea according to their own opinioÌ„ the rest was added by plaine men It is playne that taking also this word Masse for the sacrament that thei make it was neuer ordeyned by Christ nor vsed by his apostles For the sacrameÌ„t that Christ ordeined and the Apostles vsed was of a nother sort moch differing and diuers from theirs First the consecracion was made after a nother sort Becaus Christ said the words of the consecracion a lowd and dyd pronownce them plainely that all vnderstode Thei say them sofftly that none heareth them but he that saith the masse And how can it be a sacrament to them that vnderstond not nor heare not the wordes seing a thing can not be a sacrament except the wordes be hard and vnderstand Furthermore Christ said not thos wordes with mind to change the substance of the breade and wine in to his body and blood as thei think but to appoint th one and thother to be signes in his rememberans as his wordes doo shewe So that seing thei haue not the same meaning that Christ had nor will not doo the same that Christ did but a nother thing we must nedes say that such a sacrament is not Christes sacrament but a thing fownd owt by them selues made affter their own maner and not according to Christes institution Furthermore the sacrament which Christ did institute was instituted to th entent that it shuld be a spirituall supper delt to many and he gaue it to all Thei doo it not affter this sort but the prest only taketh that his sacrament and giueth it not to other nor this thing is no communion becaus a communion is whan many doo partake of one thing and not whan one alone vseth it So that seing thei doo not as Christ did or rather as he commanded that it shuld be done their is no trewe sacrameÌ„t as also we haue proued in the second chapter of this part Nor it was not instituted by Christ but by mans inuencion Let them than vnderstand this their masse either for all the hole gathering froÌ„ the Introibo to the Ite missa est or els for the sacrament only becaus it is no trewe sacrament I say that it is not gods ordinance but mans And being mans ordinans yet thei make it a sacrifice and a woshipping of god against his expresse commandment who will not be honored with the inuention of men as allredy we haue so offten sayd There remaineth now to see from whens this name of Masse had the beginning Certen say as Master William Durant in the proheme of the iiij part of his reason geuing of gods seruice that this Name Masse is some time a nowne collectiue some time a nowne proper A Nowne collectiue is Ã word that gatherith many into one A Nowne proper speakith but of one only whaÌ„ it is a collectiue that is to say whan it importeth all the whole gathering from the entring to the end that is to say Ite missa est he saith that it is as moch to say as sent or committed ouer Becaus the faithfull peple by the mistery of the priest the which doth Christes

the which Christ hath coÌ„manded shuld be preached to euery creature What els be thes wordes but that Christ hath geuoÌ„ his body and his blood for our raÌ„som aÌ„d forgeuenes of our sinnes Seing this thing is of necessitie that it shuld be preached to euery ChristiaÌ„ nor he is not a ChristiaÌ„ that doth not bileue why doo thei not say it with a lowd voice as in the old time it was wont to be Here thei find certen scusis and among other thei say that such wordes ought to be said in secret to th entent that the high holy wordes shuld not become vile And that it is red how in old time whan the canon was said with a lowd voice as it were all did vnderstand thos wordes and did openly sing them in the streates aÌ„d in the waies Wherupon certen shepardes singing thos wordes and hauing laid the breade vp on a certen stone at the vttering of the wordes the bred was turned in to flessh and for this caus the fire came from heauen that killed them for the which thing the holy fathers haue ordeined that vp on paine of cursing such wordes in the masse shuld be said in secret and with the holy garmentis This master William Durant saith in his racional of diuine offices Soo what fowndacions thes be I will not say fables of saing the wordes of the sacrameÌ„t in secret Iff thes wordes for this caus ought to be said in secret to th enteÌ„t that the high holy wordes shuld not become vile than it were nedefull to say the holy gospell in secret aÌ„d not to preach it openly with a lowd voice For what wordes be more high holy than thos of the holy gospell Furthermore the holy fathers that haue ordeined this iff it be trewe in dede that thei did ordeine it why did thei not rather command that the holy wordes shuld be pronownced with reuerens withowt making them say them in secret The which wordes among all the rest that are said in the masse euerâ—â€¦ ChristeÌ„man ought singularly to vnderstand Ought not euery Christian to knowe that Christ hath geuin his body and his blood for our ransom And that for remembrans of so gret a mistery Christ hath ordeined this sacrament And what els doo the wordes of the consecracioÌ„ say exeept this in substance I could here iff I wold say many things but what nedeth it to heape wordes in so plaine a matter It is withowt dowt a gret abuse to vtter thos wordes in secret The wordes of the sacrament ought to be hard of all withowt the which it is no sacrament neither the bread nor the wine nor any other thing iff that the significacion of it be not knowen nor that can not be knowen but by the same wordes of the sacrament Let vs goo on further A nother abuse is that Christes death is not shewed to them that be present contrary to saint Paul the which saith that in the vse of the sacrament the lords death ought to be shewed saing in his 1. to the Corinthians As offten as yow shall eate this bread and drink the cupp 1. Cor. 11. ye shall shewe the lordes death vntill he come that is to say yow shall preach it It is clere that in the masse the lords death is not shewed nor preached to the peple And what speake I of the daily and priuate masses It is not shewed neither in the time of the communioÌ„ whaÌ„ thei reach furth the host to the coÌ„municaÌ„ts where thei ought to teach the pore peple of the significacioÌ„ aÌ„d of the importance of the sacrameÌ„t Thei sai nothing to theÌ„ except whether he bileue that Christ be in that host or no. As though Christ had instituted the sacrameÌ„t to th entent that it shuld be bileued that he were in that host so gret and so large as he was vp on the wood of the crosse and not for remeÌ„brans of his death Yet Christ him selff said doe this in my remembrans and said not bileue ye that I am hid den in this bread so gret and so large as presently yow see me This was not Christes meaning for so moch as he wold haue said it Wherfor thaÌ„ is not Christes death shewed in the masse Surely this is a manifest abuse The fourth abuse is that the prest aloÌ„ne doth take that his sacrament I call iâ—â€¦hâ—â€¦s becaus in dede it is no sacrament and he geuith no part of it to any other But this is no communion for a communion is whan many do communicate or take part of one selff thing This maner of taking this sacrament is against Christ who hath instituted it to th entent that it shuld be taken in communion and not priuately and against sent Paul in the forsaid place â—â€¦ Cor. 11. who rebuketh the chorinthes becaus thei did not take the sacrament together and with coÌ„pany nor thei did not tary one for a nother And iff he so sharply rebuked them becaus thei did not tary one for a nother allthough that all shuld take the sacrament how wold he haue suffered that one only shuld haue taken it Thei doo also against the wordes which thei speake in the coÌ„secration For before thes wordes that thei say Hoc enim est corpus meum there be thes that is to say accipite manducate ex hoc omnes that is to say take yow and eate you all of this bread Why than doo thei not geue it to all or to many as Christ commanded according to their own opinion Parauenture thei will say that Christ spake thes wordes for thapostles and not for any other But this is not reasonably spoken for so moch as Christ taught them withthes wordes that he spake how thei shuld doo and minister this sacrament Iff he shuld haue spoken thes wordes for the Apostles only the Apostles them selues shuld neuer haue knowen how to haue ministred the sacrament to others but only to them seluis Furthermore in old time this is certen that there was no priuate masse said that is to say that one only shuld take the sacrament that is the priest that celebrateth but allweis there was a communion vsed In token of this the grekis did neuer receiue the priuate masse doing better in this part than the latines and keping Christis institucion and the apostolyke vse A nother abuse is that thei make it auayle for euery thing Thei applye it for the raine for the fayre wether against tempest warr derth pestylens and against all sortys of diseases for the holsomnes of the ayre for plenty peace helth of body for waifaryng men for wiues and husbandes against enemyes for the liuyng for the deade and for what thing is not the masse sayd In prayse of our lady of the angels of the sayntes for repentant for thos that geue allmes for theÌ„ that sayle for the Imprisoned for the remaining in a place for to call for wisdom It is said against persecutors for ani maner of troble for the

gentiles he vsed their meates he kept company with them to haue occasion to conuert theÌ„ to Christ. And thes things were no sinn but in thos things wherein he shuld haue offeÌ„ded God he wold neuer haue applied him selff vnto them And that this is trewe Consider that we reade not that euer he did honor the Idols or els went to ther sacrifices And why soo Becaus he shuld haue offended God So we knowing that the Masse is an abhominacion we ought not by any maner of meanes to goo to it but rather to dye than to goo thether becaus it is against God and Christes honor as we haue proued To that other scuse which saith that God beholdeth the hartis and considereth to what end a thing is done and so that a man doo not consent with his hart to the abuses that be committed in the Masse it is no sinn to goo to it I answere that if this reason auailed the martyrs as I haue sayd before might haue worshipped the Idols withowt sinn and we with a good consciens may denye Christ For allthough that the martyrs shuld haue worshipped the Idols thei wold neuer haue worshipped theÌ„ with the hart but only owtwardly and vnwillingly And we may denye Christ with the mowth but not with the hart And what incoÌ„ueniencis be thes Christ wil not only that we shuld byleue in him but wil that we also shuld confesse him with the mowth aÌ„d with the owtward dedes for els we shall not be trew ChristiaÌ„s Math. 10. but we shall be denyed of him as he sayth in S. Mathew He that shall acknowlege me before men I wil acknowlege him before my father which is in heauen Luck 12. And in Luke he sayth before the angels of God And he that shall denye me before meÌ„ I will denye him before my father which is in heaueÌ„ And thapostle Paul saith to the Romans Roma 10. With the hart men byleue to Iustice but with the mowth is made the confession to safetye God wil for 2. respectis haue of vs the owtward confession that is to say that we shuld make plaine to men our faith and religion as well with wordes as with dedes First for his own glory because that he is honored and glorified whan the trewe religion is openly vtterid Than further also for the benifite of our neighbor to th entent that by such confession he might folow the trewe knowlege of God and holy religion And to proue this trewe tell me affter what sort is the Christian religion increased except first by the preaching of the holy gospell and than by the blood of martyrs The ydolaters saw the poore Christians constant in acknowleging Christes name thei sawe them persecuted taken imprisoned ponisshed and miserably murdred and sayd to them selues surely this peple could neuer haue bene so constant with so great and stowt mindes nor thei wold neuer haue suffred so great tormentis and so sharp death iff thei had not bene certen that affter this present life there be laid vp for them most great rewards And iff this their religion had not bene trewe And affter this sort thei were conuertid to Christ and Christes religion increased that is to say the nomber of byleuers Further I say that trewe faith is not withowt the profession not only of wordes but of dedes and workes Hebr. 11. Paul saith to the Hebrewes that by faith the saintes haue wrought iustice and some of them by faith were racked tormented and beaton some were stoned some cutt in pecis sawed killed with the sword and diuers wayes exercised 2. Iohn 5. And Iohn in the 1. saith that our faith is the victory that ouercommith the world He that hath the trewe faith confesseth it and sheweth it with dedes Therfor to be short I answer to that reason and I say that it is trewe that God looketh vp on the hartis and iff the hart had not consentid there shuld not haue bene any sinne but here in this case the hart consenteth vnto it for iff the man had not agreid to goo to the Masse he wold not haue gone thether but he goith becaus he agreith to goo although he goo thether vnwillingly The hart had not consented iff the man had bene caried thether by force or drawen thether with roopes or chaynes And in such case he had not fawted But this chanceth not to thos that goo to the Masse becaus thei be not forced to goo thether but thei goo thether willingly although with a certen lothsomnes And we must knowe that all that which is done vnwillingly is not done by force for so moch as many things be done with grefe and vnwillingly and yet thei be done with the consent of the mind As for example the taking of a bitter medicine the causing of some sick parte of the body to be cutt of thes things shuld not be done iff the man were not content and did not agree to theÌ„ That saing that is to say that whan a man hath not a wicked but a good intent Roma 3. and doth that which he doth to help his neighbor is not to the purpos becaus we must not doo euell that good may come of it To the other reason or rather scuse the which saith that thei that goo to the Masse iff thei haue the knowlege of the gospell thei doo not allowe the abuses nor thos addicions that be there but only that which Christ made that is to say the Sacrament of his body and blood For thos addicions doo not take away the substans of the Sacrament I answer first that that Sacrament as we haue said before is not Christes trewe Sacrament but although that it were a trewe Sacrament it were not therfor conuenient to goo thether seing there is in the same so many falsedes so many errors and abuses which defile and staine the clearnes of Christes institucion Nor it is not ynough to say we doo allowe nothing but that which Christ did and not any other becaus that this allowing is only knowen to them selfes and not to other who whan thei see that one goeth to the Masse doo thinck that he allowith the whole and thei be confirmed in their error iff thei be wicked iff thei be not wicked thei haue occasion of offence and remayne offended And although that none were offended nor confirmed in wickednes yet vnderstonding that the Masse is a bottom and a rolle of blasphemyes how shuld the eares of the faithfull behable to heare and their eyes suffer to see so great an abhominacion the which so many wayes doth robb God and Christ of their honor yea that speaketh euell of them To the examples alleaged of Ioseph of the citie of Arimathea and of Nicodemus Iust and holy men the which for feare of the Iewes did dissemble I answer first that there is a great differens betwene thes 2. and thos that goo to the Masse For although for feare thei did not open

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

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

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

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

is red in the lyfe of Saint Gregorie that the consecrated bread maruelouslye chaunged into a mans finger It is red that that the brute beastes did knele doune at the presence of the thankes geuinge And somtyme there apered a childe when the host was listed vp What shall be sayde to these great myracles sewerlye if Christ were not in the sacrament god wold neauer haue wrought these great signes This reason is nothinge worth and it is like the reason that they make that defended purgatorie with saing that there was heard certaine lamentable voices of the soules of the dead which desired help of there parents or frends that they wold cause to be sayd masses and chefely those masses that be called Saint Gregories and as sone as they were sayd those voyces were heard no more It is told also in the lyfe of a certeyne seinct but in dede a fryars saincte that he saw ones a valley full of soules the which desired help and that seinct was moued to pytye of those poore soules I leaue to you to thinke how many those soules ought to be that filled that valleye when he had sayd I cannot tell how many masses because I do not well remember the storye he returned to se the vally and he found them no more there because they were delyuered out of purgatorye I do much maruell that all the soules in purgatorye went not thether into that vally that thei all might haue bene deliuered by that sainctes Masses Ergo there is a purgatorye What will the lutheranes that denye purgatorye say here what will they saie Thei that you call lutherans will sai that you be a blynde sorte of superstitious I will not sai ignoraunt Idiots of gods causes and that you haue no faith in Christe thinkinge that the materiall fier can do that to the soules that onely Christ hath done with his pretious bluod that is to saye to purge them and perfectly to satiffie gods iustice for all the sinnes of the beleuers And they will saye that you deserue to be begyled and mocked by the deuell that leadeth you to think that the soules of the dead do lament and desire masses and ye perceaue not that he is the same wicked spirite the which fayneth himself to be the soules of the dead and desireth help and caryeth aboute youre brayne and maketh you beleue that glow wormes be lanternes The soules of the dead go not a solasinge here aÌ„d there as Chrisostome vpon S. Mathew saith very well but thei abyde in there places apointed vnto theÌ„ those soules of the faithfull and godlye abyde with Christ the other abyde in there place lokinge for there finall condemnation Euen so I saye of these maner myracles thoughe thei weare in dede that thei be none other but illusions and disceyts of sathan for to geue credit to the Masse and to beinge to passe that we should not beleue sewerly in Christe And god by his iust iudgement doth suffer these disceyts because we will not receaue the knowledge of the troth nor beleue the holy gospell And for this most great sinne he will that we shall beleue lyes and be deceaued Nor sewerly we deserue none other but to receaue and allow Antichristes myracles as sainct paule sayth to the Thessalonicenses 2. Thess 2. seing that we will not stand to gods worde The holy scripture and gods worde ought without any doubt to be in much more credit with vs then as many such myracles the which in dede be all lyes yea then as many myracles althoughe they be true as can be wrought in the world The whiche worde of god doth affirme and say that Christ Iesus is in heauen Mar. 16. Luc. 24. and that from thence he shall come to Iudge the lyuing and dead and there he shall abyde Act. 3. as peter sayth in the Acts of the Apostels vntill the tyme of the restitution of all thinges and it maketh vs likewise to vnderstand that the sacramentes be signes and be not the thinges signified let vs take hede and geue credit to these thinges that be clere and plaine If we will not be disceaued and not to the opinioÌ„s and phantasies of meÌ„ which be not founde in the scripture but be clerely against them the fourthe reason They make another reason the which I wold haue sayd nothinge of because it is allready answered yet for so much as they bringein with the same certeine examples or similitudes to geue a coloure to their opinion of the which we haue not yet spoken we will saie of them a few words to the greather and more plentifull clerenes of the truthe They saye that god can bringe it to passe that is to saie that whole Christ great aÌ„d thick as he was on the Crosse should be in the sacrameÌ„t and that he should be whole in euery parte of the same as the soule is whole in the whole bodye and whole in euery parte of the bodye and that he should be as man in many places in heuen on earth vpon all altares and in euery other place where the sacrament of thanks geuinge is He can turne one body into another as shall seme good and lik him because he is almighty then he can make that the bread shal be turned into his bodye and the wyne into his bluod Seing he could create the world of nothinge he can much easelyer chaunge one thinge into another They geue eyample of Moyses rodd the which was turned into a serpent and then the serpent was turned againe into the rod likewise the waters of Egypt were turned into bluod Concerninge the being of whole Christ in the sacrament as great and thick as he is in heauen they geue the similitude of the heauen which we see the which being so great is not withstandinge whole in oure litle eye Likewise oure whole face apereth in a glasse that is much lesse then the face is yea the whole man is seen in a litle glasse Concerning the being of whole Christ in euery parte of the sacrament they gyue the similitude of oure soule as we haue already sayd the which is whole in the whole and whole in euery parte of the body Oure face also is whole in the whole glasse and whole in euery parte of the glasse after this sorte that is to saye that if the glasse should be broken in many partes oure whole face wold apere in euery one of them Concerning Christes bodely beinge in many places that is to say in heauen on the earth and in euery place where the sacrament is they geue the similitude of a man the which should haue about him many glasses in euery one of these glasses the forme of a man will apere Likwise if one speak in the presence of many persons his voice is but one and yet it is whole in dyuers mens eares If nature bringe this to passe that is to saye that one thinge may be in dyuers places much more Christ who

haÌ„d of god vnderstand you the thinges aboue and not the earthly thinges And shose men do the contrary for they drawe vs doune alow and to the earth sainge that Christ in the litle closeth and in the litle holes when we should haue oure conuersation aboue and in heauen and that we might saye with paule Oure conuersation is in heauen from whence we loke for oure lord Iesus Christ who shall chaunge oure wretched bodyes and shall make them lyke to his glorious bodye We think yea we be certayne that thus farr we haue playnely proued and shewed manye wayes that Christ Iesus is not bodelye in the sacrament of thankes geuinge or the lords supper as paule calleth it and that there is muche lesse made in the same anye substantiall turninge of the bread and the wyne into his body and bluod And we haue made it apere that the opinions whiche affirme such thinges be false aÌ„d erroneous There remayneth now in the end to see who were the auctoures of those strainge and phantasticall Imaginations and wherby they were moued to fynde them oute seinge they be withoute all reason and contrarye to Christes mynd and the whole holy scripture I haue not yet heatherto bene hable to know whan this opinion of the reall and bodely being of Iesus Christe in the sacrament did beginne It apereth that aboute the yere of oure lorde 877. or about the tyme of pope Iohn the eight or a litle before men began to dispute about that matter Iohn scotus an Englishe man not he that was called sottell but another more auntieÌ„t and wery worthye in lerninge who florished in fraunce vnder Charles surnamed balde made a boke against this new opinion of the sacrament whose Iudgement shortly after Beringarius of the couÌ„trye of Turonne and deacon of Aungee followed a maÌ„ of singular lerninge aÌ„d of holy lyfe who dealt all his goods to the poure and lyued by the labour of his haÌ„des as Platina writeth in the lyfe of Pope Iohn the fiftenth But one lanfranck of pauia bishop of Canterbery in England so much preuayled with his auctoritie with Pope Leo the nynth and so much persuaded him that in the councell of vercels he caused the sayd Ihon scotusses boke and berengarionses opinion who followed him to be condemned And it was ordeined in that councell that men ought to beleue not onely Christes presence in the sacrament but the turning of the bread and the wyne into his body and bluod And this was as Mat. palmerius and Iohn lucidus Samothenus in the amendements of the tymes saye in the yere of the lord 1052. so that it is now iust 500. yeares sence this new opinion of the turninge of the substaÌ„ces of the bread and the wyne into Christes bodye and bluod was first determined Beringarius opinion of the sacrament the which was condeÌ„ned as lanfraÌ„ck setteth it out in his booke made against him is this The sacrifice of the church is mad of 2. things of the seeable and of the vnseeable that is to say of the sacrament and of the thing of the sacrament The which thing not withstanding that is to say the body of Christ if it were before mens eyes it should be seeable but it is lifted vntill the tymes of the restitutioÌ„s of all thinges vp into heauen and sitting on the right hand of the father can not be called back from heauen as thapostell peter wryteth be cause that the parson of Christ hath his being of god and of man but the sacrament of the lords table is made of bread and of wyne the which things consecrated be not turned but abyde in their substances hauing lykelynes with those things whereof thei be a sacrameÌ„t This true and godly opynyon of Beringarius the which as we haue sayd before â—â€¦s the opinion of the old church and is taken out of the holy scripture was condemned in the forsayd councell of veâ—â€¦selles And afterward a nother tyme in Rome by pope Nicholas the second who compelled Beringarius to recant and make a beastly and shamefull confession contrary to his own true confession Beringarius recantation is put in the decree of consecration the .ij. distinction capite Ego beringarius where he confesseth and affirmeth that he beleueth with the church of Rome that the bread and the wyne which be set on thaltare be not onely a sacrament but also they be the true body and bluod of our lord Iesus Christ and that he is not only in the sacrameÌ„t but also in trowth sensually handled with the priestes handes and is brokeÌ„ in peces aÌ„d with the teeth of the faithfull is gnawed in to morsels Doo ye think that this was a godly confession that they compelled this holy man Beringarius to make the which confesseth that Christ is in deede sensibly handeled that is to say towched and broken with the priestes handes and than after This host was such one as beleued all things that he is knawed in to morsels with the teeth of the faythfull Me thinketh that this confession is like vnto that bost of Bachanus that beleued to moch as it is said The gloser of the decree to whom such a maner of confession semed strange and crewel saw this well ynough and therfor he sayth if thow dowst not after a safe sort vnderstaÌ„d Beringarius words thou shalt fall into a greatter heresy than that which he had The master of the sentences in the fourth the .xij. distinction myndyâ—â€¦g to glose the words of the same confession sayth that the same to be sensibly handled may be referred both to th one and thother that is to say to the body and to the sacrament of the body But the same to be broken in peeces and to be knawed into morsels can not be said but of the sacrament only A good glose that speaketh contrary to the text This glose hath .ij. faultes First it speaketh against the auctor that is to say against the master of the sentences him self who geueth it because he will that Christ shuld be in the sacrament vndyuydably whole in the whole and whole in euery part of the sacrament If it be soo how can he be towched and handled with the priestes handes For somoch as that the thing which is handled is felt with the haÌ„des and if it be felt it must nedes be hote or cold moist or drie hard or soft rough or smoth who did euer touch Christes body syns it ascended into heauen and dyd euer feele it whether it were whote could or of what qualytie it should be If the master of the sentences had said that the withcommes of the bread and the wyne be handled with handes he had sayd true according to his opynion because that the greatnes of the bread and the withcommes of it may be felt with handes but the withcommes of Christes body can not be felt Therfor Christes body can not be handled with the priestes handes Further if Christs body in the sacrament may be handled

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

Selected quad for the lemma: blood_n

Text snippets containing the quad