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
A08891	The fal of Babel By the confusion of tongues directly proving against the Papists of this, and former ages; that a view of their writings, and bookes being taken; cannot be discerned by any man living, what they would say, or how be vnderstoode, in the question of the sacrifice of the masse, the reall presence or transubstantiation, but in explaning their mindes they fall vpon such termes, as the Protestants vse and allow. Further in the question of the Popes supremacy is shevved, how they abuse an authority of the auncient father St. Cyprian, a canon of the I Niceene counsell, and the ecclesiastical historie of Socrates, and Sozomen. And lastly is set downe a briefe of the sucession of Popes in the sea of Rome for these 1600 yeeres togither; ... By Iohn Panke.	Panke, John.	1608 (1608)	STC 19171; ESTC S102341	167,339	204

disable the whol masse as though it were lesse worth that Christ should offer himselfe were it but by the hand of a minister The third of Bellarmines reasons is drawen froÌ„ the will of Christ For saith he although Christ could obtaine by one oblation of this vnbloody sacrifice offered ether by himselfe or by his minister whatsoeuer he would for whomsoeuer yet would he nether aske nor obtaine of God any thing but that by euery oblation in the masse there should be applyed a certaine fruit of his passion All the application in the Gospell nowe of Christs sacrifice commoÌ„ both to Preist and people is that of the Apostle Let vs drawe neere with a true hart in assurance of faith Heb. 10. v. 22. Bellar. de miss l. 1. c. 25. f 748. H 9.17,20 The Lord supper or Eucharist is this testament or seal of Godes promise exhibited to vs. The matter testamentary or which is testified is the sacâ—ifice of Christs death as Christ saith this cup is the new testameÌ„t in my blood Missa non est noua testameÌ„ti Christi institutio sed est repetitio illius eius dem Ib c 25. f. 740. Neque vnquam repetitur ib. c. 4. l. 2. fol. 776. ether for remission of sinnes or obtaining other benefites which in this life we want Thus haue wee the ful of Bellarmines reasons to proue that the value and strength of the sacrifice of the masse is finite wheras hee confesseth the sacrifice of the Crosse was infinite so that by his owne grant the difference betweene them is as between finite infinite which is disproportioÌ„ enough whervpon wee may safly conclude the Masse is not the sacrifice of Christ And thus hath Bellarmine like an other Hercules cleÌ„sed Augeus stable of a number of filth For would he would bringe not three but three skore reasons to proue that the sacrifice of the Masse is inferiour to that on the Crosse hee should willingly be heard I wil follow Bellarmine in on note more about his masse and so giue an ende to this part Wee obiect the confirmation of a Testament dependeth on the death of the Testator therfore the confirming of Christs testament dependeth on his death Or thus Where a sacrifice is the testament is confirmed but where a testament is there is death therfore the masse is a new testament yea there are so many testaments as there be masses Christ must so ofteÌ„ die as there be masses to ratifie establish them Bellarmine answereth that the masse is not a new feting forth of the testament of Christ or is not a new testament but a repetition of his owne which he did confirmed by his death so a little before hee called the masse an iteration of the oblation of Christ Thus is Bellarmine content to make his masse a repetition and iteration of Christs sacrifice which a while after hee will not allow For as before is rehearsed out of him speaking of the sacrifice of the crosse he saith it is only one caÌ„not be repeated So saith Gardiner very confidently That Christs sacrifice was and is perfect without necessitie of iteration If Bellarmine will stand to this that his masse is but a repetition and iteration of Christs testament it may very wel bee demanded where the Rhemists wil finde their masse or sacrifice done daily vnbloodily Annot. Heb. c. 10. v. 11. that was once downe bloodily made by the same Preist Christ Iesus though by his ministers hands not many hosts as those of the old law were but the very selfe same in number euen Christs owne body that was crucified Tub. I haue obserued you with attention in your discourse wherin you haue shewed the diuersities of handlinge one and the same thinge It seemeth they cannot tell themselues what they woulde say if you haue laid downe their wordes rightly without falsification For in this of the masse they teach the offering vp of the sonne of God to his father which assertion had need because it is a matter of the greatest waight to be strongly confirmed by holy scripture They teach a true sacrifice a perfect reall but when they come to confirme that which first they lay downe they speake of the formes of bread and wine destroying the truth of Christs naturall body They make it bloody and vnbloody They knowe not howe farre the Preist worketh in it nor whether they were best to say it is the same that Christ did Articles subscribed vnto by the Church of EnglaÌ„d art 31. Redemption act 20.28 Rom. 5.6 Gal. 3.13 1. Cor. 6.28 1. Pet 1,18 Propitiation Act. 10.43 RoÌ„ 3.25 Heb. 9.12.28 1. Iohn 2.2 1. Ioh 4.10 Satisfaction Io. 1.29 1 Pet. 3.18 1 Io. 1.7 Gardiner Saunders Hardinge Their discourses herein are me thinketh vnprofitable and vncomfortable Rom. Vnprofitable and vncomfortable said you you neuer iudged righter in all your life For where the offeringe of Christ once made on the crosse is that perfect redemptioÌ„ propitiation and satisfaction for all the sinnes of the whole world both original actual there being noe other sacrifice for sinn but that alone they in stead of that brought in sacrifices of Masses wherein they offer Christ for the quick dead to haue remission of paine guilt haue handled the proof as before is set downe wherby you may obserue the boldnes impudencie of them in defence liking of their cause who are not any whit a hashed to bid the readers sift try and examine waigh without partiallity their reasons and arguments and then to iudge which who soeuer doth shal assuredly finde noe sincere dealing on their parts but shifts cauills and base trigiuersations a sufficient proofe wherof is gone before and more shal now presently followe in continuing their seueral declarations of the maner of the real presence of Christ in the sacrament which I hindred before in discoursing so largly of their sacrifice which I did reserue to this place because we are to examine the force of every word in the institution of the Lords supper and their manner of contriuing them for their purpose The senteÌ„ce of holy scripture by which they wold proue both their sacrifices reall presence in this The reall presence of Christ in the sacrament Mat. 26.26,27 Marc. 14.22 Luc. 22.19 1. Cor. 11.23.24 When they were eating Jesus when he had taken the bread and giuen thankes hee brake it gaue it to the disciples said take yee eate yee this is my body And when he had taken the cup giuen thankes he gaue it them saying drinke yee all of it for this is my blood of the new testament that is shed for manie for the remission of sinnes By this narration of the Euangelist you see both what Christ did and said at his last supper He tooke he blessed he brake he gaue and said Take eate this is my body Doe this in remembraÌ„ce of me Now I aske you this question what

leife in that sacrament Rom. Why what perceaued they by my wordes of that sacrament Tub. They take you to hold not Catholiklie of it neither as our Lord and sauiour jesus Christ did first institute it nor as the ancient times of 1500 yeares by Fathers counsels and Doctors did and therfore they wished mee to make a stand and pause before I ioined with you therin For you teach that they who receaue it at your hands receaue only a peece of bread One of Hardings slanders and a draught of wine not worth anie thing and so call it a sacrament of the Lords institution wheras he gaue his bodie his reall substantiall bodie so his disciples did eate him reallie and substantiallie and dranke his verie blood and to beleiue this is healthful holy religious and they that receaue it so receaue it as Christ instituted it and they who doe otherwise Rhem. I. Cor. 11. fol. 453. in fine paginae Magnus nuga tor magno co natu magnas nobis nugas parit receaue noe sacrament but prophane bread as they called it This they did saie of you then touching the difference betweene them and you in that question and that in all other things al antiquitie consent of al ages were for them nothing for you Rom I doubt not but they are verie bitterly eloqueÌ„t against vs when opportunitie is offered of a fit audience their tongues pens are miserablie valiant But me thinketh Tuberius you are remember that both Christ himselfe al ages and all Doctors counsells doe make for them against vs ordinary abilitie cannot comprehend this in so short time much like vnto a sillie gentlewoman with whom of late I talked also who being not aboue one quarter of a yeare from her freinds returned home with arguments as strong as yours in defence of her new obtained religion shee could talke what a good booke the Rhemists bible was she could saie the Scriptures were written in Greeke and Latine For the Rhemists testameÌ„t For Hebrew Greeke I saie not that they did teach her so simply but simply she remeÌ„bred what they said Laur. Vaux bachelot of divinity in his catechisme ca. 3. taketh awaye the 2 commaÌ„demeÌ„t of grauen images insted of that teacheth them Greeke Written in latin by Gasper Loarte doctor of divinitie translate dinto english fol. 76. would haue vs beleiue contrary to that which the gospel expresseth and therfore people shold praie in latine naie she could distinguish betweene an Idoll and an Image obseruing that the second commandement was onlie directed against Grauen Idolls as she tearmed them and not against Grauen Images And yet nether before shee went nor now can she read english to such a method vvas she brought to too quickly to knowe what she said I doubt not but she had bin so instructed but not by M. Vaux for he to make sure worke hath taken that commandement wholy out of his catechisme as remouing a block as belike staÌ„deth not in their waie which noe wise man will euer bestowe anie labour about recompencing his breuitie in that point in telling the vse of certaine Greeke words Latria Hyperdulia Dulia where a learner is taught to worshipp anie creature in heauen or earth and commit as he thinketh noe I dolatry but noe otherwise then if a grand theife should teach a puny to steale by precept and when hee had committed the fact that is had stolen in deed saie it were not the deed and so leaue him to the gallowes Or if it had bin her luck to haue bin schooled by him that composed the instructioÌ„s and advertisements how to meditate the misteries of the Rosary hee would haue taught her a more compendious waie to haue defended it by or anie other point then by a distinction which is although the commandement forbid vs the worshipping of anie Image yet wel for our parts maie beleiue and doe otherwise For so hee saith plainlie in an other question though not of that waight yet of that clearnes where speaking al in honor of our blessed Virgin Mary doth not sticke to sale that our Lorde redeemer did presentlie after hee was risen vp visit his most holie mother vvhom we maie vvel beleiue to haue bin the first albeit in the Gospel there be noe mentioÌ„ made therof For saith he if as the Evangelist reporteth our Lord did Luc. 24. after he was risen vp appeare to S. Peter that had earst denied him whie should not wee beleiue that hee appeared first to his blessed mother that neuer denied him Here is a plaine lesson a graunt that the Scripture teacheth so and so yet vvee maie beleiue otherwise Thus as their affections lead them either to the things or persoÌ„s wherof they speak so doe they in their conceipts bend the course of their arguments Other amongst them ad those of the greatest doe referre this appearing of our Lord to Saint Peter De rom pont lib. 1. c. 20. fine for S. Peter aboue al the disciples reckoning it amongst his prerogatiues as Bellarmine whoe affirmeth that Christ rising appeared to S. Peter first of al his disciples confirming it by S. Lukes Gospel and the witnesse of S Ambrose who saith that of the men Christ appeared to Peter for before saith he Christ had appeared to Mary Magdalene and that he further confirmeth out of S. Paule howe that Christ rising the third daie was seene of Cephas and then of the Eleuen 1. Cor. 15. Abdias Apost hist l. 6. fol. 188. Hard. cont Iuell art 1. fo 25. Ei primum omnium vt Mariae Magdalenae Petro apparere voluit Reyn. confer with Hart c. 8. diu 2. Sutc. cont Bel. de rom pont l. 2. c. 6. Rhem. Marc. 16. v. 1. Mat. c. 28.1 afterward of more then 500. brethren and after to S Iames. On the other side Abdias described to be an ancient writer first Bishop of BabyloÌ„ who was the Apostles scholler and saw our sauiour in flesh and was present at the passion and martirdome of S. Andrewe and S. Mathewe speaking in the honor of S. Iames doth saie that our Lord woulde appeare to him first of all as he did to Mary Magdalene and to Peter vvhich indignitie of these men against the Gospel graclesse exposing it vnto the worlde as vertue is not only taxed by our learned writers as being dealt iniuriously withal but their owne Rhemists both confesse according to the truth of the text that Christ appeared to Mary Magdalene Mary of Iames Salome called by S. Mathew the other Mary and acknowledge it by their note That she first before al other they next saw him after his resurrectioÌ„ But the Rhemists seeing the Scripture hath giueÌ„ this prerogatiue of appearing from Peter to the woemen will stretch hard but euen touching that some what in it shal be his prerogatiue for when the weomen are bidden to telis to the Disciples to Peter they

into his blood the showes of bread wine only remaining which conuersion the catholike Church doth aptly call Transubstantiation let him be accursed Can. 8. gaine if anie man saie That Christ is exhibited or set forth in the Eucharist to the intent to bee eaten spiritually not also sacramentally really let him be accursed Not to speake heare how blasphemous contrary this their doctrine is to the holy institution of Christ at his last supper the verie manner of their handling seting downe their opinions is by their leaues erronious yet not vnder stood by their owne Doctors For first it must follow of their words if the whol substaÌ„ce of the bread be turned into Christs body then is the body of Christ made of bread as is verified in the decrees which saith The bodie of Christ his blood by the power of the holy ghost is made of the substance De Cons dist 2. can vtrum sub figura of bread and wine Then will it follow that it is not that bodie which was made of the flesh blood of the virgin Mary Hard. cont Iu. art 12. fol. 168 D. Harding seeing this impietie of making our sauiour Christ haue two contrary bodies both avoideth his own authorities ouerthroweth his Transubstantiation for thus he saith Where the bodie blood of Christ is said to be made of bread wine beware thou vnlearned maÌ„ thou thinke not them therof to bee made as though they were newly created of the matter of bread and wine nether that they be made of bread wine as of a matter but that where bread wine were before This is noe traÌ„substantiation after consecration there is the verie bodie blood of Christ borne of the verie substance of the Virgin Mary To say where bread was before there is the bodie of Christ as M. Harding saith is a departing or annibilation of the bread a comming of it as it were to nothing not a transubstantiation a turning of the substance of the bread into the substance of the bodie of Christ as the Trent fathers define Againe if bread be made the body of Christ or is the bodie of Christ as they are willing to grant why shoulde it not be said to be made of bread as of a matter If it bee made of the substance of bread why not made of bread as of a matter Againe They themselues teach vs Lumb l. 4. dis 1. b. Alan de sac in gener l. 1. c. 2. Dureus cont Whit. rat 2 fol 103. Hard. cont Iuell art 8. f. 144. b. Tonstal l. 1. fol 33. Allen de Euch sacra l. 1. c. 3. fol 217 Bellar. de euch sac l. 2. c. 9. fol. 151. ex Iren l. 4 cont haer c. 34 that a sacrament is a signe of an holy thinge or a visible signe of an invisible grace so that on two things doth a sacrament consist by both our coÌ„sents Now least there should be anie strife what those two things are they teach moreouer that the on is earthly the other heauenly so they al teach our of Ireneus that ancient father who saith this being not commoÌ„ bread but the Eucharist after consecration consisting of two things earthly heauenly what that earthly thing is al men may vnderstaÌ„d that wel to be verie bread the substance of bread except he bee driuen to say as al they doe in those places quoted that by the earthly thing named by Ireneus is ment not the substance of bread but the accidents that is the tast colour waight show sauour fashion of bread What earthly thinge the tast colour shew waight and sauour of bread can bee I appeale to anie indifferent iudge So that to say as the Trent fathers saie that noe substance remaineth after consecration Transubstantiation ouerthroweth the nature of a sacrament They keepe it in the one and destroy it in the other Tons l. 1. f. 30. 48. b. ex caÌ„ conc Nicen. considera divinaÌ„ vim quae in aquis latet Step. Gardin fol. 8 b. but the real and substantial bodie of Christ is to ouerthrowe the nature of a sacrament and to take awaie the earthly part of it instead of exhibiting the Grace of Christ putteth the Person of Christ God man in the roomth But see how they retaine the true nature definition of a sacrament in the one destroy it in the other They saie there remaineth the nature and substance of water the invisible grace of the spirit the holy Ghost commeth down halloweth the water there we coÌ„sider the diuine spirit which lieth hid in the water there wee consider our baptisme not with the eies of our flesh but with the eies of our soules And as in the sacrament of Christs most precious bodie and blood we receaue Christs verie flesh drinke his verie blood to coÌ„tinue augmeÌ„t the life receaued so in baptisme we receaue the spirit of Christ for the renuing of our life's And therfore in the same forme of words Christ spake to Nichodemus of baptisme In both sacraments Christ is exhibiteth himselfe vnto vs. Andra. Ortho. expl l. 3. f. 239. that he spake of the eating of his body drinking of his blood in both sacraments giueth dispenseth exhibiteth indeed those celestiall guifts in sensible elements In both sacraments the blood of Christ is included the sprinkling of our bodies with the water of Baptisme is nothing but that the soule be washed rinced with the blood of Christ If all this bee verified of the sacrament of Baptisme if Christ can giue exhibite himselfe as he doth indeed vnto vs without anie transubstantiation retaining the substance of the element of water we cannot but say so of the sacrament of the supper Lumb l. 4. dist 9. a Torren l. 3. c. 6. parag 3. fine vide tale a liquid apud Aug. tom 7. de peccat merit remiss l. 3. c. 4 that there we maie feed on Christs flesh drink his blood without anie transubstantiation of the bread wine Nay in more plainer maner they tell vs that Saint Augustine doubteth not to say of infants other faithfull people Nulli est aliquatenus ambigendum Noe man may in anie wise doubt but that euerie faithful man is then made partaker of the body blood of Christ when in baptisme he is made a member of Christ that he is not without the fellowship of that bread the cup although before hee eate of that bread and drinke of that cup he depart this world beeing in the vnity of Christs bodie for he is not made frustrate of the communion and benefit of that sacrament whiles hee findeth that thinge which is signified by the sacrament If infants and other faithfull people may be made partakers of the body and blood of Christ in the sacrament of Baptisme I demand of our Trent fathers why we may not be

made partakers of his flesh and blood of the sacrament of the aultar without any transubstantiatioÌ„ of the bread into the body of Christ Vt ante can 8. sacramentally really are a tearmes contrary yet coÌ„founded More ouer they hold that Christ is eaten there sacramentally really which two tearmes as they vtter them are very opposit for if there be nothing to be eaten but the reall substaÌ„tiall body of Christ what is eaten sacramentally Wee affirme that Christ is there sacramentally is eaten sacramentally by his spirit present by his grace as hee is in the sacrament of baptisme that is properly sacramentall Againe speaking of the vse and profite of that sacrament Cap. 8. de vsu admirabilis hu ius sacramenti 1. Sacramentally they say there be three sorts of Receiuers some that receaue it only sacramentally as sinners others spiritually in desire by a liuely faith thirdly those that receaue it sacramentally spiritually both together Which three waies may bee taken for sound Orthodoxall 2. Spiritually who cannot for the time communicate if we could cause them to tell vs what they meane by sacramentally If by sacramentally they mean really fleshly and substantially as at the first they treated of his presence there 3. Sacramentally spiritually who doe coÌ„municate as they ought Ioh. 6.54.56 Sacramentally Spiritually so say the Protestants how doe they make good that sinners and wicked persons doe eate his verie flesh and drinke his verie blood as they saie they doe since the worde of life it selfe that mouth which neuer spake guile hath said He that eateth my flesh drinketh my blood hath eternall life I will raise him vp at the last daie And hee that eateth my flesh and drinketh my blood dwelleth in me I in him And by the third waie described that those eate him sacramentally spiritually who doe duly prepare themselues puting on the wedding garmeÌ„t doe come vnto that holy table doth breed an other scruple how sacramentally can stand with spiritually vnderstanding by sacramentally Really substantially may staÌ„d to gether but spiritually cannot as they did before really fleshly substaÌ„tially those two tearmes being also vsed of the Protestants who say the wicked doe eate sacrameÌ„tally only that is the sacrament of his body and bloud the godly sacramentally spiritually that is bread and wine with the hand mouth the body blood by faith and noe otherwise which are the right vse of the words sacramentally spiritually Againe I may demand of them why they doe not describe the presence of Christ to be spiritual sacramental aswel as describe him so to be eaten they saie he is eaten by on of those three waies of al men in generall good bad and to al men good bad they describe him preseÌ„t really truly substantially body soule diuinitie and al yet eaten only sacrementally spiritually now it is not possible to be thought but that the spirituall eating of Christ in the sacrament excludeth the corporall as his spiritual presence wil his corporall or substantiall nether can noe one meat be fit both for the body and soule as al men knowe And therfore if they will dissent from vs not from themselues also they must dispute either of a corporall eating of the flesh of Christ De manducati one corporis domini sit ne illa vera antropica sensibilis an insensibilis modo corporeo an spirituali l. 4. chron fol. 790 Fallacia alia aliaÌ„ trudit Ter. in And. act 4. scen 4. De sac euc l. 1 c. 11. fol. 92. c. 14. fol. 117. l. 2. c. 8. fol. 163 or of a spiritual only as Genebrard confesseth was brought in about Bertrams time almost 800. yeares since not to a corporall to adde a spiritual of one the same thinge nor confound the tearmes of sacramentall spirituall reall Againe it is alwaies seene one absurditie draweth on an other I demand how their tearme of receauing spiritually doth agree with Bellarmine whoe saith that the body of Christ is verily properly eaten in the Eucharist by our body sent froÌ„ the mouth into the stomake that the body of Christ entreth in at the mouth of the communicants and is verily receaued by the mouth of the body small spirituall receauing is there by the instruments of the mouth belly Faith must haue other food if it were so it should not be said Crede manducasti beleiue thou hast eaten but lay hold with thy hand thou art safe The next in authoritie to the Trent Fathers is the Romish Cathechisme gathered by their decree Catec Rom. p. 1. art 6. c. 7. fol 57. The right seÌ„ce of the article ouerthroweth Transubstantiation published by Pius quintus the Pope The catechisme intreating of that article of our beleife He ascended into heauen and suteth one the right hand of god the father almightie doe say the right sense of that article is that the faithful without al doubt ought to be leiue that Christ the mysterie of our redemption being perfected and finished vt homo est in coelum corpore animÃ¢ ascendisse as he is man is ascended in body and soule into heauen For as hee is God hee was neuer from thence Vt qui diuinitate sua loca ominia coÌ„pleat The causes why hee asceÌ„ded ib. fol. 59. The benefits of his ascention ibid. fol. 61 filling al places with his diuinitie And speaking of the causes whie Christ our sauiour would ascend vp into heauen one is beecause by ascending say they hee would bringe to passe that wee should mount vp thither in minde and affection and amongst many benefits which come vnto men by his ascention into heauen they reckon this a great one quod amorem nostrum ad coelum rapuit ac diuino spiritu inflammauit that it draweth our mindes and loue to heauen inflameth them with a diuine spirit for it is truly said There our harte is Marc. 6. where our treasure is surly if Christ our Lord were conuersant in earth omnis nostra cogitation in ipso hominis aspectu consuetudine defixa esset al our cogitations would be placed in the looking maner of him we shold behold him only as man becaus he had don so great things for vs But ascending into heauen it maketh our loue heauenly and causeth that whom wee think of being absent him we worship and loue as God which doctrine of theirs being very sound and Catholike cannot chuse but ouerthrowe their owne opinion of TransubstantiatioÌ„ Catec p. 2. c. 4. fol. 181. which bringeth the same body of Christ that same that was borne of the Virgin which is ascended and sitetth now euer shal at the right hand of his father in heauen to bee transubstantiated into bread to bee contained in the sacrament

hee commanded his disciples to eate in somuch that in the deliuerie of the cup he said Drinke yee all of this for this is my body In vaine therfore after the coÌ„mandement of drinking had hee added the word for Two bloods one in the veines of his body the other in the chalice if the blood which hee then shewed had bin beleiued to haue bin then only in the vaines of his body not exhibited giueÌ„ to haue bin drunke In this last sentence of the 4. thinges in the supper which Christ did that is his taking blessing breaking giuing Saunders seemeth to allow 3. of them to appertaine to the bread taking blessiag Deinde cum Christus subiunxit hoc facite non soluÌ„ praecepit vt id ageremus quod illepaneÌ„ accipiendo be nedicendo fraÌ„ gendo distribuendo egit vetum etiam vt opus quoddam relinque remus in mensa domini post nostras actiones finitas fol. 634. Saunders com meth to the distributing of bread then must they needes eate bread Ibid fol. 637. The substance which I shew what substaÌ„ce This is my body that is behold my body where are the wordes which make the chang Ibid fol. 639. This is my body worketh the Change Note breaking but not his giuing their cating yet in the next leafe he commeth som what nearer for hee confeseth that Christ did not only commande that we should doe that which hee did by taking the bread by blessing the bread by breaking the bread and by distributing the bread but that wee should leaue a certaine worke done at the table of the Lord after we haue finished all So commeth hee now to the distributing or giuing of bread what should they eate but what hee distributed which was euen bread After this findinge the ill conclusions of some of his owne speeches where hee referreth the word this to the body there presently made he doth deny that they resolue the sentence thus hoc corpus meum ost corpus meum this body is my body but thus the substaÌ„ce which I shew is the substaÌ„ce of my body as if it should be said Behold the substance of my body or Behold my body vnder these accidents of this bread Why mince you so finely with substantia quam demonstro the substance which I shew what substaÌ„ce is that if the bread theÌ„ Christ spake of the bread which once you affirmed if the body then the speech must needes bee maugre al gaine saiers This body is my body which nowe you denie Take your foote out of which fetter you will our of both you cannot Againe where he resolueth or expoundeth the words of Christ this is my body as if hee should haue said behold the substance of my body or behold my body vnder these accidents I demande where are the words of Transubstantiation or that turned or made the bread the body of Christ For according to Saunders opinion here these wordes this is my body are but demonstratiue as if hee should haue said Behold the substance of my body then of necessitie the wordes that made it so must goe before But where nether they nor he can tell But to my seeming he falleth vpon his old Bias againe which he did before where he saith Itaque olla verba Hoc est corpus meum therfore those worde this is my body being directed to the bread taken blessed doc change the substance of bread into the body of Christ If they bee directed to the bread the speech must be this bread is my body This bread is my body how can they bee directed to the bread else And if it remaine bread till those wordes of this is my body come what neede they feare to say he gaue bread for those words coÌ„e last of al yea after giuing eating He tooke saith he at first Ibid fol. 645. Accepit eniâ—â€¦ ab initio non quideÌ„ corpus suum sed paneÌ„ velut materiaÌ„ elementum c. Saunders Ibid. fol 658. 659. He breaketh bread theÌ„ the reall body is not there not his body but bread as it were a matter element whervnto his worde was to bee ioined that it might be made a sacrament did he not speake of the bread then when he said this is my body Furthermore going about to proue that the body blood of Christ are in the eucharist although it bee neither eaten nor drunken he beginneth with S. Paule who saith 1. Cor. 10. The cup of blessing which we blesse is it not a partaking of the blood of Christ and the bread which we breake is it not the participation of the body of Christ and inferreth we break the bread before we deliuer it or giue it to be eateÌ„ For the breaking is both to reuiue the memory of the passion wherin the flesh of Christ was rent torne with whipps nailes and speares as also that to every communicant a part morcell Hee distributeth the bread in peeces the real body of Christ is not yet there theÌ„ Prius ergo quaÌ„ iste panis frangatur c. At the first then when the bread is broken it is the partaking of the body of Christ for the blessing causeth that the bread bee the partaking of the body of Christ the blessing I saie of the Lord wherby he giuing thankes said This is my body and commanded vs to doe it in his remembrance Here is a gallimaufery of fustiaÌ„ tearmes wouen Lincy-wolsy fashion He speaketh of breaking distributing of bread yet the reall body must be there according to his accompt beefore the breaking come for that is his drift here and then will he say it is the reall body of Christ Noe by his own confession it is but the breaking panis benedicti of the coÌ„secrated bread as he calleth it before Againe he saith the blessing is don by sayrng this is my body but the order of the Evangelists is contrary they place that blessing last of al. The wordes are Hee tooke bread blessed it after the blessing commeth the breaking He tooke 1. Hee blessed 2. He brake 3. He gaue 4. after that the distributing then this is my body So that except he wil interrupt the narration of the EvaÌ„gelists and confounde those tearmes which are distinct and refuse that for a blessing which the Gospel pointeth calleth a blessing on the other side call that a blessing which the Gospell doth not Instit l. 5. c 3. he can neuer iustifie his report Haec est mendaciorum naturae vt cobaerere uon possint This is saith Lactaâ—tius the nature of lies that they cannot agree to gether cap. 6. Valet enim visua veritas but the truth doth preuaile of her own force whosoeuer resisteth If one or two of them did thus dote or dreame in their discourses it might be excused by the insufficiency of the meÌ„ but since amongst

Ibid. fol. 187. this to be done without mutation or change of place or any strange creation which they doe so much abiure If since the mysterie of our redemption wrought and finished Christ as man bee ascended into heauen and thither in soule and minde we ought to mount and goe after and that it be good for vs that he ascended and bee there as agreeing to the scripture which saith seek those things which are abous where Christ sitteth one the right hand of his father they doe teach Is it not earthly and grosse to seeke him in the earth and substantially and fleshly to haue him And is it not a great hinderance to the spirits of our minds and bringeth it vs not into earthly cogitations which are euer to be shunned If they say true in the one assertion Omnis contradictio est ad idem they erre in the other for both cannot be true At one the same time they make the same Christ sitting in heauen at the right hand of his father according to the dimensions parts and proportions of a true body the same Christ at the same time in the sacrament without dimeÌ„sions parts or proportions of a true bodie which is wholy to ouerthrow the truth of his body and vtterly to disanull our beleife therof a part wherof is that he is in heaueÌ„ with those dimensions and distinction of parts wherwith hee liued on earth and wherwith he was crucified and so died was buried and ascended The Rhemists in their testament followe the same stepps They say it is plaine by the scripture Rhem. Heb. 9. v. 20. 10. v. 11 that the blessed chalice of the aultar at their Masse hath the verie sacrifical blood in it that was shed vpon the Crosse the like they affirme in other places of the body Now as the Trent fathers Catechisme Rhemists are found to speake impieties and contradictions in this first question of the presence of Christ in the Eucharists vsing some tearmes As. 1. Really 2. SubstaÌ„tially 3. SacrameÌ„tally 4. Spiritually Of the Sacrifice of the Masse as may be easily yeilded vnto as be fore is shewed And some others which repunge their owne grounds and be altogether different from them so before I goe to others of them I wil shew how these goe about indeed it is about to make their Masse a sacrifice that is to say to offer the reall fleshly substantial body of Christ to god his father the same which he offered on the Crosse for the sinnes of the world They cannot tell in this what tearmes to vse but veile their meanings with such words that furthereth neither their cause nor hindreth ours Conc. Trid. sess 22. in pref de sac missae On the Crosse on sacrifice that was bloody Cap. 1. The counsell pretendeth to intreat of the sacrifice of the Masse quatenus verum singulare sacrificium est so far forth as it is a true and soueraigne sacrifice Christ therfore our Lord although hee was to offer himselfe once on the aultar of the Crosse that with death to work there our eternall redemptioÌ„ yet because the preâ—sthood by his death was not to be extinguished he did leaue to the Church his most beloued spouse at his last supper the verie night hee was betrayed a visible sacrifice wher in that bloody sacrifice which was to bee donne but once on the Crosse might bee represented and that the memory of him should be continued to the worlds ende and therfore he being a Preist after the order of Melchisedech offered his body and blood vnder the formes of bread and wine to God his Father And further they saie because in this holy sacrifice which is performed in the Masse idem ille Christus continetur incruente immolatur the same Christ is contained Cap. 2. The saÌ„e Christ offered vnbloodily Apropitiatory sacrifice Can. 1. offered vnbloodily whoe did offer himselfe once one the aulter of the Crosse bloodily the holy synode teacheth that this sacrifice is trulie propitious that whosoeuer shal say that in the Masse is not offered to God verum proprium sacrificium a true and proper sacrifice let him be accursed So by the Trent Fathers we must beleiue the Masse to be a true soueraigne propitiatory sacrifice the same which Christ offered on the Crosse But marke their tearmes In the sacrifice of their Masse is represented the sacrifice of Christ on the Crosse there is he offered vnbloodily these tearmes they shal haue of vs we say the Lords supper is a sacrifice as it is the passioÌ„ of Christ that is a thankful rememberance of Christs passioÌ„ and that Christs blood is shed in a mysterie But with them how is Christs sacrifice represented if the same Christ be really offered who offered himselfe on the Crosse What need the same thing to be a remembrance of it selfe and in the one to offer himselfe painfully bloodily and in the other-same-sacrifice to be offered nether painfullie nor bloodily If hee be offered but vnbloodily in the Masse Nec cruentÃ¨ nec paenali mo do AlleÌ„ de euc sac l. 2. c 10. fol. 541 Rhem. annot heb 9. v 20. The very blud in the Chalice Allen de sac euch l. 2 c. 11. realis imm ola tio Rhem. annot heb 9.1 v. 25 Christ offered vnboodily Rhe. Mat. 26. v 28.2 mystically â— In a sacrament annot Luc. 22.19 fol 205. Camp 2. rat Sacramentalis mactatio c. 14. fine how agreeth it with a reall offering and reall presence how saie the Rhemists that the very blood which Christ shed on the aultar of the crosse is in the Challice at the time of the Masse Or D. Allen that there iâ— a reall offering of the body of Christ as there is a real presence so that I see not if they meane as they speake whie they mince the word vnbloodily as they doe Would they say that blood is shed let it be shed let not blood be shed vnbloodily they knowe not how If the Trent Fathers Rhemists by their tearme vnbloodily doe meane mysticallie as they saie in an other place wee agree with them they shal haue vs reasonable It is shed in a mysterie not executed indeed and that is rightly tearmed a mysterie not as they saie in a mysterie that is really Or he is now immolated or offered as they are driuen to saie in a sacrament which wee saie also but not in a sacrament that is really and substantially Omne aenigmaticum omne offusum caligine loquendi Al this is darke couered with mists D. Allen stil ouerthroweth himselfe and them too for hee saith againe that in their Masse there is onlie a sacramentall killing or sheding of blood which we also wil neuer denie for in the Lords supper we haue the death of Christ in a mysterie in a figure or sacrament Christ is there killed sacramentally for there we see the death of the

that sacrifice which the ancient Church of God 1400. yeares before those of Trent spake of was not so caled properly according to the rigor of the word with them the celebration of the Lordes supper is called an oblation for that it is a representatioÌ„ of Christs death sacraments haue names of the things which they signifie because the merits fruits of Christs passion are by the power of his spirit devided bestowed on the faithful receauers of these mysteries Thomas of Aquine was in his time of greater credit with them then the Master of the sentences AcutÃ¨ diuus Thomas vt omnia Camâ— rat 9. argutissime Canus l. 12 to 408. Melius diuus Thomas vt omnia dixit Allen fol. 419. p. 3. q 83. art I resp dicendum ex Aug. ad sim pl. quest 3. If Thom. had thought that Christ had bin killed sacrificed to God his father as D. Allen disputeth l. 2. c 11 he needed not to haue hand led it as here he doth Camp rat 5. Duraeus eaâ—â€¦ fol. 265. Art 17 cont luel fol 206. b. 207. a. though in time later the Master is not euer allowed by them but Thomas they saie hath done all things acutly well yet hee saith as we say in this In two respects saith hee celebratio butus sacraements dicitur immolatio Christi the celebratioÌ„ of this sacrameÌ„t may be called the sacraficing of Christ First because as S. Augustine saith resemblances are wont to be called by the name of those things wherof they are resemblances therfore the celebration of this sacrament is a certaine representatiue Image of the passion of Christ which is his true sacrificing Secondly touching the effect of Christs passion quia scilicet per hoc sacramentum participes efficimur fructus dominicae passionis because by this sacrament wee are made partakers of the fruite of the Lords passioÌ„ This of Thomas were ceaue against their reall external corporal kinde of offering the liue flesh of Christ to God the Father by the Preists handes vnder the formes of bread wine as now they teach they doe With what facilitie of language D. Harding D. Stephan Gardiner proceeded in this question I will now also shew you and the rather because Campian Durâ—us both doe highly commeÌ„d D. Harding his worke he hauing spoken something of the sacrifice of Christ on the Crosse done with shedding of blood in his owne person as the scripture witnesseth commeth to shew how he is handled in their Masse saith Sacramentally or in a mysterie Christ is offered vp to his Father in the daily sacrifice of the Church vnder the forme of bread and wine truly indead not in respect of the maner of offering but in respect of his very body blood really present And after recitinge the words of the Evangelists Luc. 22 how that Christ at his last supper took bread gaue thankes brake it said take eate this is my body which is giuen for you and this is my blood which is shed for you in remission of sinnes out of which he would proue his sacrifice saith they are wordes of sacrificing offering they shew and set forth an oblation in act deed though the tearme it selfe of oblatioÌ„ or sacrifice be not expressed therfore belike seeing nether any tearmes nor words to make for it there afterwards vpon more deliberation he peeceth out the Euangelists S Paul for Christ said Doe yes this in my remembrance he readeth doe yee or make yee this in my remembrance Reioynder f. 283. 305. Tully de natur deotum l. 1. feâ—e fine Elephanto belluarum nullaprudentior at figuraÌ„ quae vastior Of beasts saith Tully none is more wiser then the Elephant in shape none more deformed M. Harding was thought for that time to haue dealt substantially against his aduersary in substance of matter none more weake Who can explaine how Christ is offered really in their Masse yet not in respect of the manner of offering what manner what respect is this Or what words of sacrificing and offering did Christ vse at his last supper without any tearme of oblatioÌ„ sacrificing Hoc non est considerare sed quasi sortiri quid loquare Tull. ibid. This is not to speake with discretion but as it were by lot hap-hazard But the truth is Christ vsed noe word tearme or act of sacrificing at his last supper we maruaile not then though M. Harding say hee expressed it not by any tearme Yet the farthest of from al truth is Hard. Ibid. fol 209. A necessary point of Christian doctrine yet without al manner of Religion that which in the prosecution of this article he deliuereth which is that Christ at the very same instant of time that he offered himselfe on the Crosse with shedding of blood we must vnderstaÌ„d for a necessary point of Christian doctrine that he offered himselfe invisibly as concerning man in the sight of his heauenly father bearing the markes of his woundes and there appeareth before the face of God with that thorne prickt naile boared speare perced other wounded rent torne body for vs. Here are 4 sacrifices made of one The same Christ sacrificed at his last supper the same Christ on the Crosse the same Christ at the same time sacrificed in heauen the same Christ sacrificed in the Masse How M. Harding can bring Christs sacrificed into heaueÌ„ without his tormentors is hard to conceaue Aâ—â€¦as Caiphas Iudas Pilate the rest of that damned crew indeed for without those wretches Christs blood was not shed and without shedding of blood there is noe remission of sinne Where M. Harding shold euer findany such doctrine deliuered before him I cannot iudge Heb. 9. l. 12. fol. 421. a incruentam oblationem Christus in cae lis fecit In his explication assertion of the true catholike faith l. 5. fol. 144 b. Noe iteration of Christs sacrifice except he did allight vpon it in Melchior Canus who amongst other idle vaine discourses of their Masse insinuateth such a thinge speaking of an vnbloody sacrifice in heauen offered there by Christ Stephan Gardiner sometime Bishop of Winchester a sure card to the posters at Rome writing purposly of the sacrifice of the Masse beginneth wel saith it is agreed by the scriptures plainly taught that the oblation sacrifice of our sauiour Christ was is a perfect worke once consummate in perfectioÌ„ without necessity of iteratioÌ„ as it was neuer taught to be iterate but a meere blasphemy to presuppose it This is sound Catholike if he would abide by it but within two leaues after hee saith wee must beleiue the very presence of Christs body and blood on Gods board and that the Priests doe their sacrifice and bee therfore called sacrificers If the Preists doe there sacrifice Ibid. fol. 146. b verie sacrificers theÌ„ doe they either iterate Christs sacrifice or

part with him againe the Preist doth all Bellarmine treating of this same question De missa l. 2. â— 4. fol. 776. of the sufficiencie of the sacrifice of the masse deliuereth according to his maner certaine propositions distinctions of his own only making without confirming them either by the holy scriptures ancient Fathers or doctors and hauing that liberty hee were very simple if he could not make a bad cause shew wel Hooker praeâ— ad lib eccles pol. fol. 24. The masse is of value finite If this reason of Bellarmine bee good against the value of the mass in the behalfe of the sacrifice of the Crosse it ouerthroweth the whole masse establisheth that of the Crosse The sacrifice of the Crosse is of infinit valuâ— especially to those that wil take any thinge for good at their hands vnto whom they beare stronge affectioÌ„ For commoÌ„ly such is our forestalled mindes that whome in great things we mightily admire in them we are not willingly perswaded that any thing is amisse His fourth proposition therfore is valor sacrificij Missae finituâ— est The value of the masse is finite that is the masse is not of infinite worth or price And this saith he is the common opinion of the diuines is proued most plainly by the vse of the Church Marke his reasoÌ„s For if the value of the masse were infinite it were needlesse to haue many masses especially for the obtaining of one thing For if one masse were of infinite value it would suffice to obtaine al things therfore why should we haue other And this is confirmed by the sacrifice of the Crosse which for noe other cause was one nor neuer is repeated but only because it is of infinite value obtained a ransome for all sinnes past and to come But saith he although the masse be of value finite which is verje true in it selfe yet the reason howe it cometh to be so is not so sure For it may seeme strange Câ—r valor sacrificij huius fit finitus cum idem sit hoc sacrificium cum sacrificio crucis A great maruaile why the worth of this sacrifice should be finite since it is the same with that on the crosse which was infinite wheÌ„ there is the same host The offeringe the offerer is one in both and the same Christ offering himselfe which are infinitly acceptâ—ble to God Bellarmine might adde further of his own if it pleased him A maruaile it is how the sacrifice of the masse should be inferiour to that of the crosse since that of the masse is a most true sacrifice euen one of the tearmes he gaue before to the sacrifice of the crosse And maruaile it is that the sacrifice of the masse should not bee of the same value with that of the crosse seeing as he saith one where there is the the same offering offerer Christ in both Ibid. l. c. 25. fol. 749. c. 3. in principio infinitly accounted of by God otherwher that the sacrifice of the masse is a most true sacrifice so in a third place he graÌ„teth that in the sacrifice of the masse it may most truly bee said that the blood of Christ is shed there Take into these Ibid. fol. 49 in fine paginae the word propitiatory which the TreÌ„t fathers giue to the masse to then if al these to gether serue not the turne Iuel cont Hard art 1 druis 33. touching Amphilochius fo highly renowned by M. Hardinge to make a great maruaile why the sacrifice of the Masse should be of value finite that of the crosse infinite wee may say as one said in an other case nothinge I trowe will serue the turne For grant those things of the masse it cannot but be of infinite value price aswel as that on the Crosse but they knowe that none of those thinges are true of the masse and therfore Bellarmine playeth a desperate mans part in giuing such reasons as cannot proue the masse inferiour to Christs sacrifice Virg. Aeneid l. 8. inde repeÌ„te impulit impulso quo max imus insonat aether prima exparte hostiae quae offertur except hee in euitably ouerthrow the masse it selfe as Hercules in the Poet ouerthrew Cacus his den wheÌ„ heaueÌ„ rebounded with the noise His reasons salue moliore iudicio are 3. The first is drawen froÌ„ the host which is offered For in the sacrifice of the crosse Christ in his naturall being was there sacrificed destroyed in the forme of a man but in the sacrifice of the masse hee is destroyed in his sacramentall being In his sacrameÌ„tall being you say that Christ hath there a real substaÌ„tiall beeing the ProtestaÌ„ts say he is slaine and his blood shed in a sacrament Ipsa hostia offerens Christus but his naturall being is more noble more precious then his sacramentall This reason thus drawen from the nature of the host or thing offered is very friuolous absurd especially seeing Bellarmine deliuered before that the host in both was one where can he finde a defect in that In flying from his naturall being on the crosse to his sacramental beeing in the masse hee ioyneth with vs for we acknowledge he died sacramentally in his last supper because a sacrament of his death passioÌ„ was iustituted so when the Lords supper is now administred we say he is sacrificed beecause the memory of his sacrifice is celebrated 2. ratio sumitur ex parte of ferentis Ipsa hostia offerens Christus The second reason is drawen stronger as he saith from the party that offereth for in the sacrifice of the Crosse the party offering is the person of the sonne of God but in the sacrifice of the masse the offerer is the sonne of God by a minister did he not lay it for a ground in the same page of the leaf to take away an obiection that Christ is the offerer as well in the Masse as on the Crosse 3. Ratio sumitur ex ipsa Christi voluntate nam etiaÌ„si posset Christus per vnam oblationem sacrificij incâ—ueÌ„ti siue per se siue per ministâ—uÌ„ oblati quae libet deo pro quibuscuÌ„que impetrare tameÌ„ noluit perere nec impetrare nisi vt pro singulis oblationibus applicaretur certa mensura fâ—uctus passionis suae siue ad peccatorum remissionem sive ad alia bâ—ne fâ—cia quibus in hac vita indigemus And hath he not disabled him selfe his fellowes of a great excuse which they were wont to make in that behalfe for when we obiect the persoÌ„ of the Preist taking vpon him contrary to the scripture so great an office not called thervnto as to offer vp the sonne of God to his Father they had to say that it was not the Preist that did it but Christ that offered himselfe by the mynistery of the Preist end yet now Bellarmine would

things cannot be spoken of the body of Christ though by meane of the accidents but by a trope Now if by a Trope Bellarmine meane a figure a signe or tokeÌ„ as the Eucharist is we willingly agree with him and with Allen too that whatsoeuer may be verified of the bread and wine before consecration may be said also of the body of Christ that we see it feele it breake it cate it and that it encreaseth the substance of our bodies Chrisost de sacerd l. 3. quoted by the Rhem Heb. 9.20 Hard. art 6. fol. 137. Toastall l. 1. f. 71. Dureus 2. rat fol. 118 Bellar. de eue sacra l 1. c. 2. fol. 27. 29. l 2 c. 22. fol 220. tuÌ„ vero turbam circumfusam precioso sanguine in tingâ— ac rubefieri They borrow each others names and feedeth them and that Christ is seene there by all the faithfull and handled with their hands as the Rhemists Harding Tonstall Dureus and Bellarmine do quote S. Chrysostome the rest vnto vs so as they will take withall that which the same Chrysostome saith in the same place that the people staÌ„ding about to receiue are besprinkled and made redde with that precious bloud and that we are not then conversant in earth among mortal men but translated into heaven If all this be too hard and harsh to affirme of the body bloud of Christ let them consider it is spoken by a trope or figure and verified actually and really of the bread and wine which speech the like are vsed of the fathers only to draw their hearers from fiâ—â€¦ing their mindes below on the earthlie elements but to mount vp to heaven and their seeke Christ For as the bread in the Eucharist is called the Lordes body but in plaine and simple manner of speech is not fleshly and really the Lords body so is the body of our Lord sometime said to nourishour bodies and feede vs because the sacrament of his body feedeth vs and this is done in respect of the Enterchange of names the sacraments bearing the names of the things whereof they are sacraments and the things having attributed vnto them which is due only to the signes If Bellarmine meane any other thing by the word Trope than I haue expressed he falleth from the vse of the word and hath not satisfied the question nor rectified his fellows error But it is a worlde to see into what streightes the want of consideration in these pointes hath driven the adverse part proving their discourses to be hungry and barren hetherto without fruit because they proclaime war against the general edicts of nature reason Bellarmine againe De sacra euch l. 1. c. 14. fol. 117. 118. to avoide the grossenes of Allens and Hardings opinion of the mingling of the flesh of Christ with our bodies saith That the body of Christ going into the mouthes of the communicants passeth into the stomacke then the outward formes being corrupted and gonne The Eucharist is no meate for the body yet goeth in at the mouth and into the stomacke the body of Christ without any detriment to it selfe ceaseth to be there and that the body of Christ eaten by the faithfull is not for the nourishment of the bodie but of the soule Here is the rule of Christ and difference betweene the body and soule of man quite antiquated and confounded Our saviour decideth that nothing can enter both the hart and the belly and yet Bellarmine will haue one the same thing enter in at the one yet feed the other If our soules be nourished and not our bodies as hee saith then must our soules eate it and not our bodies Can our bodies eate and our soules be nourished by it What more contrary to al Religion Eating digesting and nourishing be consequent and coherent actions and therefore they must al three be either corporal or spiritual If the soule be nourished the soule must eate and digest that which is eaten If the body eat the body must digest and be nourished by that foode Eating is therefore in vaine without nourishing If then Christs flesh do enter our mouthes it is vtterly without profit to vs if it nourish not our bodies Thus are the wits of the greatest amongst theÌ„ even snared in their owne gins They handle therest that follow as vngainly as those before which lest I should coÌ„sent vnto by silence I will also set downe vnto you then iudge you of all To the question what it is in the sacrament that nourishâ—th our bodies seeing generally they deny it One is hungry an other is drunken 1. con 11. 21. of the body of Christ and taken immoderately after consecration will make a man drunke as S. Paule reproued the Corinthians for their abuse that way Thomas Aquinas the father of all popery Comment in 1. Cor. 11. lect 4. in fine and most acute disputer amongst them leaving the grossenes of the one absurdity of the other opinion before saith 1. That some amongst them haue saide That those things are not wrought by any conversion but by an alteration of the senses of a man by the accidents of bread and wine which remaine after consecration for men haue bin accustomed to be comforted by the only smel of meate and to be overcome and as it were made drunk by the abundant smell of wine 2. Some others haue said That the consecreted bread and wine may be conuerted into an other thinge so nourish because the substance of bread and wine remaineth with the substance of the body blood of Christ but this saith he is against the scripture 3. Some others haue said that the substantiall forme of bread remaineth which worketh the operatioÌ„ so it norisheth as the bread should nourish This he refelleth 4. Some haue said that the aire rouÌ„d about is conuerted into the substance of that which is nourished or into some such thinge But this saith he caÌ„not be 5. And therfore some haue said that by the power of God the substance of the bread wine is restored againe to the intent that the sacrament might not be found in such like conuersions But that is vnpossible 6. The accidents shews of bread can nourish De euch sacra l. i. c. 37. f. 432. How can you seuer the naturall properties of a thing froÌ„ the very thing it selfe Part. 2. q. 33. f. 189. His own conclusion is that the accidents formes of bread and wine can nourish make drunke as wel as if the substance of bread wine were there So D. Allen although he bee loth so to say The formes accidents of bread and wine are able to nourish make drunke performe all the offices duties naturall that the bread wine could when their substance was there So the Romish Catechisme Why is it called bread after consecration say they Aswel because it hath the shew

Selected quad for the lemma: blood_n

Text snippets containing the quad