difference of dayes in thother liffe Not withstonding this is not of the canon but master Durāts And to returne to this praier of the Memento me thincketh that it is folissh and vnsauery and that it speaketh against it selff Because first it cōfesseth that the dead doo slepe in the slepe of peace and that thei rest in Christ And notwithstonding affter it desireth that god wold giue them place of comfort of light and of peace Iff thei slepe in the slepe of peace and rest in Christ haue thei not the place of peace What nede yow axe that thos that slepe in peace shuld haue the place of peace Is it not all one to slepe in peace and to haue the place of peace To rest in Christ and to haue place of comfort Iff the sowles be tormented in purgatory be thei not dead in torment How rest thei than parauenture the defenders of the canon will answer that this praier meaneth of the body whan it saith that the dead slepe and not of the sowle Let it be so For the sowle in deede slepeth not but only the body But it saith also that thei haue quietnes and rest which spech can not be conueniently vnderstand but of that part that may be trobled What rest shall that be to rest in that part that can feele no maner of thing withowt the sowle and to be trobled in that part that in deede felith and l◅ueth Whan thei say in their seruice for the deade requiescant in pace surely thei meane to speake of the sowle and not of the body For as moch as it nedeth not to pray that the body of the dead shuld rest because that of necessitie it doth rest But the sowle may as thei thinck haue troble and paine in purgatory And therfor thei pray that thei may haue rest as concerning the sowle Apoc. 14. S. Iohn in thapocalips whan he saith blessed are the deade that dye in the lord why doth the spirite say that from hens forth thei rest from their trauale will we say that he shuld speake of the rest of the deades body and not of the sowle Iff he speake of the body what prerogatiue haue the bodies of the iust vntill the day of Iudgement more than the bodies of the wicked The one and thother doo rest equally and there is no difference in this point And yet Ihon maketh a difference betwene them for he calleth them the dead in the lorde that is to say the Iust blessed And why blessed because that from hensforth thei shall rest from their trauel and be in quyet geuing to vnderstand that the other doo not rest frō their trauale but haue more thā euer thei had because thei be damned to euerlasting paine So that whan the quietnes of the Iust is spoken of it meaneth of the quietnes of the sowle and not of the body Being than thus that this praier in one part affirmeth that the iust slepe in peace and rest in Christ and in a nother part desireth that god wold geue them a place of peace and comfort appeareth that plainly it speaketh against itselff The xi and last part is this To vs sinners thy seruantes that trust in the multitude of thy mercies vouchsafe likewise to giue some part and cōpany with thy holy Apostels and martirs with Iohn Steuen Mathy Barnaba Ignatius Alexander marcellus peter felicitas perpetua Agatha Lucia Cecilia Anastasia and withall thy saintes in whos felowship we besech the admitt vs not as a regarder of desertes but as a giuer of pardon through Christ our lord Amen And thes wordes are said somwhat with an higher voice to th entent that thei shuld be somwhat hard And the prest knocketh his brest representing saith master durant the contricion of the these that rebuked thother these And Amē is not answered partly because the angels that euer be assistent doo āswer thē seluis ād partli for other causes that he him selff alledgeth See what reasōs thes be of the masse vaine and to no purpose For iff Amen be not āswered because of the assistence of the angels it foloweth that in the masse Amen shuld neuer be answered for ◅hangells as thei thinck be allweies assistent He sheweth also the cause why Steuen is put there accōpanied with Ihon before mathy ād barnabas ād whi memori is made of Ihon ād not of the other Apostels Without dowt this cannō being made and affter put in to the masse for such causes as William Durant alledgeth thei may boldly take it owt of the masse and the masse booke withowt any scrupulositie sauing thos fewe wordes of Christ that are there For the masse shall be lesse beastly althoughe it be estemed for the chefe and bewtifullest part seing that it is alltogether full of supersticions beside the multitude of iniquities and blaspemies that be in it And he that wold axe why mencion is made in this place raither of Ignacius of Alexander of Marcellinus and Peter which was a nother than Peter thapostell and so furth of thes particular holy wemen and martirs than of thother saintes men and wemen I knowe not what thei shuld answer being so many other besides thes here named It is said that certen desiered with great ernestnes of the popes to put in there in this canon s frances but it wat not granted them I thinck for this cause least thei of s Benet of s Dominik of s Austen and of other sectes shuld haue start vp and also haue desiered to put thereinto their sainctes mē and wemē as a man wold say s Peter the martir s Catarin of Siena who had the marks of Christes woundes as s francis had And iff not thes yet at the least the heades of their orders I doo not willingly tell thes things but thei be of gretter importance than some thinck There foloweth affter also in this xi part By the which that is to say by Christ create halow quicken blesse ād make thes things O lord allweyes good vnto vs. And here saing thes wordes thei make iij. crosses ouer the host and the cupp together And the cupp being vncouered and the host takē in hand there is added By him with him and in him and there is made iij. other crosses ouer the cupp and ij other betwene the cupp and him selff that sayeth the masse saing And to the god the allmighty in the vnitie of the holy goost be all honor and glory So that there are in all viij crosses in thes fewe wordes And master Durant according to his accustomed maner geueth a reason of euery thing And what reasons be thei Folissh and vaine And surely iff thei that made all this canon I say thei because it was not made all at onis but at sondry times and of sondry men were not moued by more reasonable causes than a great part of thos reasons that he rendereth thei were meruelos lightly moued For the masse shuld haue bene lesse blasphemos than it is if thei
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 agreemēt ād 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 ād his bloude drinke ād 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 ād drīk my bluode I meane that you must eat my flesh and drink my bluode spiritually ād 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 whē mē beleue in him And Augustine ī the exposiciō of the said words saith Crede et māducasti that is to sai beleue and thou hast eaten geuinge to vnderstād 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 frō 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 ād he that beleueth not should be damned Seing then that the one ād the other of these two sainges be trew that is to saie that he that eateth Christs fleshe ād 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 sacramēt 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
day to come so farr of that is to say from heauen he beinge neerer on the earth what ells neded but that he shal goe out of some coÌ„secrated cake orells hoste as they name it and appere in maiestie aÌ„d glorious Suerly it nedeth not that a thiÌ„ge which is nere vs should come to vs froÌ„ a farr of aÌ„d it can not be denied but a thinge froÌ„ at haÌ„d may lightlyer and easelier If it be not lett come to vs then froÌ„ a farr of Christ therfore is not in the sacrament nor there is not made any maner of chaunge of substance Another reason is this the opinion that saith Christ is bodely in the sacrament diminisheth the trueth of Christs trew and naturall bodye therfore it is false It is clere that the Christian religion holdeth for an article of the faith that Christ is a trew and naturall maÌ„ that is to say Luc. 24 that he hath the very nature of a man and that he hath a very body and a very soule as other men haue And althoughe presently th one and the other that is to say the body aÌ„d the soule be glorified neuertheles they be yet a very bodye aÌ„d a very soule For the glorification taketh not awaie the nature It maketh it in dede more ê‘fit but it taketh it not awaie so as it is not the self same that it was before as we vnderstand by Christ himself who being risen and hauing taken his glorified body said to his disciples behold my hands and my feet that it is euen my self Suerly he should not haue bene the self same that he was before if he had not had the self same hands the self same feet and the self same whole body and the self same soule that he had before That that opinion which holdeth that Christ is bodely in the sacrament diminisheth the trueth of Iesus Christs bodye and his mans nature I do proue it because the nature of a body hath two properties or conditions the first is to haue quantitie that is to say some maner of lenght some maner of bredth and some maner if thicknes and euen as a body hath greater or smaller quantitie so much greater or smaler place it occupieth as by eyperience we may see And his propertie agreeth and is naturall to euery body in such sorte as also the glorified bodies do occupye place that is to saye that the greater glorified body occupieth greater place and the lesse body lesse place euen as Christ Iesus when he was risen did occupye place that is to say he was in so much place as the quaÌ„titie and greatnes of his body was nor he was not in any less place then the greatnes of his bodye was For so much as that this that is to saie to be in lesse place then the quantitie of the body is should diminishe the trueth of the body The other propertie is to be onely in one place And these properties be in such sort natural to a body that thei caÌ„not by any meanes be separated froÌ„ it and when a maÌ„ separateth them from the bodye then shall it be no more a bodye These among the rest be two properties that make the bodye vndyuidehable as the philosophers sai that is to saie thei make that the bodye is an vndyuidehable thinge that is to say onely one other this or that distincte and dyuers from other And that these two properties that is to saye to occupy place and so much as the quantite and greatnes of the body is and likwise that a body cannot be but in one place at ones and at one tyme be in separable from the bodye nor there can be no maner of body that hath them not whether it beglorified or no. We speak not this of oure self onely for Saint Augustine saith it in his 57. epistle answering to dardanus the bishop who had made certain questions or demauÌ„ds to him and he answering him to one after another sayth to the first speaking of Christe risen and glorified doubt not sayth he but the man Christ Iesus is now there froÌ„ whence he shall come And after a few words he sayth he shall come froÌ„ none other place then froÌ„ whence he shall come to iudge the lyuinge and the dead and meaneth from heauen And so he shall come by the witnes of the Aungels voice in the self same forme aÌ„d substance of flesh in the which he was seen go into heaueÌ„ to the which forme and substance in dede he hath geuen immortalitie but he hath not taken away the nature we must not think that according to this forme that is to saye of the flesh he is spred abrode euery where for we must take hede that we do not in such sorte affirme the godhed of the man that we should take away the troth of the bodye for so much as it doth not in dede folow that he that is in god should be so euery where as god And after a few words he saith God aÌ„d man is one person and one Christ Iesus is th one and thother In that that he is god he is euery where but in that that he is man he is in heaueÌ„ And after about the middest of the Epistle or a litle before he saith Take the rowmes of places froÌ„ the bodies aÌ„d they shal not be in any place aÌ„d because they shall not be in any place they shal not be at all take the same bodies from the qualities of bodies and there shall be no place where they should be and therfore it is of necessitie that thei be not Also he saith in the 30. treatise vpon Ihon the lord is aboue but yet the troth is here that is to sai the lord because that the bodye of the lord in the which he is risen must nedes be in one place but the troth of the same is spred abrode euery where By all these words of Augustine we haue specially two thinges The first is that Iesus Christ risen and glorified is not in that he is man but in one place that is to say in heauen from whence he shall come to iudge the lyuing and dead in that he is god he is euery where in the world The second is that the bodies of necessitie do occupye rowme of place aÌ„d if they did not occupy rowme they should not be in any place and being in no place they should not be any thing at all but should be nothinge this groundwork standing that these two properties that is to saye that euery body doth occupy so much place as his greatnes is and likewise it is not at one tyme but in one place And these two properties cannot be taken from bodyes And he that wold take them awaye should bring to passe that the bodyis should not be in anye place as S. Austen sayth and if they should not be in any place thei should be nothing It foloweth necessaryly that if Christ were bodely in the sacrameÌ„t for somuch as there
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 Testamēt or els at the least that the new Testament was in that cup the which is not trew for the new Testamēt 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 childrē the euer lasting wealth that is to say the forgeuenes of sinnes the freing frō all euell the euerlasting lyfe ād the possessiō of euery good thing If thes be incōueniēces as we may see thē their opiniō is false The last reason is this The tenth reason Christ mai be eatē ād his bluod drōk 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 ād 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 ād 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 sacramētally 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 thē 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 ād 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 childrē be baptised being no lesse of gods people thē they and being no lesse redemed by Christ thē 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 ād 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 cōmunicate 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 thē in to the mouth What is the cause that we mai not also eate his body and drink his bluod sacramētally 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 sacramēt And to be à 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 substāces 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 sacramēt 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 ād 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 ād yet he sayth that all did eat the self same spirituall meat ād 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 ād drink and not of the spiritual that is to saie by faith the which belōged 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
is god the maker of nature can bringe it to passe in his body that is to saye that first the bread should be turned into his bodye and the wyne into his bluod and after then that it should be whole in the whole hoste and in the cupp and whole in euery parte of the sacrament and that it should be in dyuers places If he can do those thinges and will doo them as we vnderstand by the words of the sacrament the whiche say this is my bodye shewing the bread and this is my bluod sh◅winge the wyne then they be done because it is written in the psalme Quaecunque uoluit fecit dominus All thinges that the lord wold do he did I answer first to the reason it self and after I will speake of the similitudes To the reason that is to say if god can do it therfore he hath done it I say that it awayleth not and it is already answered before in oure seauenth reason that god doth not all that he can do as we geue the example of the twelue thousand legions of Aungels the which god if he wold could haue sent to help Christ and yet he sent them not God can bringe to passe that we all maie walke vpon the sea without shippes as some tyme Christ did And as it is written in the boke of wysdom and yet he doth it not Oure question is not whether god can do it or no but it is whether god hath done it or no. Thei saiyes and we saye no It belongeth to them to proue that he hath done it and that he doth it a fresh the which they shall neauer do nor can neauer bringe it to passe by gods word this is a suer rule Concerninge that they go aboute to saye that god had desire to do it this is not onely false but most false What reason is this Christ sayd this is my body shewinge the bread and this is my bluod shewinge the wyne therfore he will that the bread should be turned into his body and the wyne into his bluod or at the least that he should be in the sacrament in such sort as they say This reason doth not deserue any answer for so much as Christ by these words ment not to saye any other but that the bread and the wyne were a sacramēt and signes of his body and bluod and ment not to saye that which they affirme as before we haue so often declared The exāples or similitudes that they bringe furth be not to the purpose and thei be rather dissimilitudes then otherwise The example of Moyses rodd turned into the serpent and after the serpent turned into the rod and of the waters turned into bluod it is not like because the serpent Note further that in turninge of Moyses rod of the water into bluod and such other myracles the senses did witnes the chaunge of the thinges which holdeth not in the transubstantiation into the which the rodd was turned was not before but was newly made Likewise that bluod into the which the waters were turned was newlye made and was not before but Christes body and his bluod were and be before the bread They put certayne turninges against nature not maruelous but rather monstrous and Imaginatiue Let them geue me but one example in the hole scripture that god eauer turned one thinge into another that was before they shall not fynde it How dare they then be so bold to affirme such a thinge yea that which is more to go aboute to make men beleue it as an article of the fayth and yet thei cannot neather proue it by gods worde nor bringe furth any example that eauer any lyke thinge was done The example of the heauen that it is in oure eye which is litle is nothinge worthe because the heauē is not really in oure eye but there is onely the image or the similitude of the heauen the which similitude is litle as the eye nor it is not vnconuenient that the similitude or the Image of a great thinge shuld be litle as the Image of Cesar was in the coyne that was shewed to Christ by the pharisees the Image of Cesar was in that coyne the which was much lesse then Cesar himself and neuertheles it did represent Cesar who was great and much greater then that Image We will say the like of the Image of the man in the glasse the which althoughe that it be muche lesse then the man yet it doth represent the man This is no great matter that the Image of agreat thinge should be litle but it should be agreat matter that agreater body should be conteined in one much lesse as they say of Christ that great and thick as he was vpō the wood of the crosse and as presently he is in heauen he should be whole conteyned in a litle cake They that geue these examples of heauen and of the thinges that be seen in glasses do not proue that agreat bodye is conteyned in a litle as they say of Christ that he is conteyned in the hoste but they proue onely the Image or similitude of agreat thinge may be whole in a litle thinge the which we denie not but if the similitude or image of agreat thinge be in a litle thinge this is because that that Image it self also is litle and no greater then that body wher in it apereth yea it is lesse so that these exāples be not to the purpose To the other similitudes I say also that they auayle not that of the soule that it should be whole in the whole bodye and whole in euery parte of the bodye This is because the soule seing that it geueth lyfe to all the bodye as it is playne must nedes be in euery parte of the bodye for so much as that seinge it geueth lyfe not onely to the whole body but to euery parte of the same It is necessarye that it should be in all the partes because that if it were not in any parte that parte should not be a lyue And because that the soule wheresoeauer it is of necessitye it must be whole there being vndyuidable and not hauing partes because it is a spirite there fore it is necessary that the soule be whole in the whole and whole in euery parte of the body but Christes body not being a spirite and hauinge many partes beinge longe brode and thinke cannot be whole in the whole and whole in euery parte of the place where he is and as it is repugnaunte to a bodye to be a spirite so is it repugnant to it to be vndeuydhable in a place To the other similitude of oure face the which is whole in the whole and whole in euery parte of the glasse after this sorte that is to saye that when the glasse is broken the Image of the face is in euery peece of the glasse I say they be deceaued nor it is not true that one Image is in all those peeces of the glasse when it is
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