saieth Athanasius that hee ment not that they should eate his very bodie he telleth them that it shuld returne to heauen againe and that they should not haue it to eate Which thing August setteth down most plainely answering the same Capernaites Si ergo videritis filium homiâ—is ascendentem vbi erat Prius quid est hoc hinc apparet vnde fuerant scandalizati Illi enim put auerunt illum erogatâ—rum corpus suumâ—ille autem dixit se ascensurum in coelum vâ—ique integrum Cum videritis filium hominis ascendentem vbi fuerit prius certe vel tunc videbitis quia non eo modo quo putatis erogat corpus suum Certe vel tum intelligetis quod gratia eius non absumitur morsibus That is if you see the sonne of man ascending where he was before What is that heerof appeareth the ground of their offence For they thought that hee would exhibite to them his owne bodie But he telleth them that hee was to goe whole to heauen as if he woulde saye when you see the sonne of man ascending where hee was before then shall you see that he will not so bestowe his bodie as you thinke then shall you vnderstand that his grace can not bee consumed peecemaall or bit and bit This is that Christ him self teacheth The poore shall you haue alwaies but me you shall not haue alwayes that which Peter teacheth That the heauens must hould him while al things be restored This is that which our beleefe teacheth That he sitteth at the right â—and of his father Heere their distinction of his visible and vnuisible presence is a dreg of mans braine Christ him self neuer taught vs of that vnuisible preseÌ„ce And wee will not learne such deep mysteries at men who may deceaue and be disceaued that Christ can doe it we denyâ— not but that he will doe it we will beleeue no man but him self of whome we are sure that he will not lye Clemens Alexandrinus saith Duplex est sanguis domini alter carnalis quo redemptiâ— sumus alter spiritualis quo uncti sumus Et hoc est bibere Iesu sanguinem participem esse in corruptionis domini There is two sortes of the Lordes blood the one carnal where with we are redemed the other spirituall wherewith wee are anointed To drinke the Lords blood is to bee partaker of his puritie and incorruption Cirill saith Num humanae carnis coÌ„mestioneÌ„ hoc nostrum sacramentuÌ„ pronuncias et ad crassas cogitationes vrges irreligiose mentes â—orum qui crediderunt Et attentas tu humanis rationibus tractare ea quâ— sola et purafide accipiuntur Callest thou our Sacrament caniball barbaritie and presest irreligiouslie the minds of them that beleeue to grosse thoughts and aseyes thou to handle that with humaine reason which is receaued by pure faith onely Ambrose saith Fide tangitur Christus â—ide videtur non tangitur Corpore non oculis comprehenditur Christ is touched be faith and seene be faith Hee is not handled with the handes nor seene with the eies August saith Dominus dixit se panem qui descendit de câ—lo hortans vt credamus in illum hoc est manducare panem vivum qui credit in illum manducat The Lorde saide that he is the bread which came downe from heauen exhorting vs to beleeue in him for that is to eate the breade of life that came downe from heâ—uen He that beleâ—ueth in him eateth him Bee these places you see that to eate Christ is to beleeue in Christ and pertake his puritie and that hee is eaten onely be faith not with the teethe Theodoret saith Christus naturam panis non mutat sed naturae addit gratiam Christe changeth not the nature of the breade but to nature addeth grace And againe Post consecrationem mystica signa non exuunt naturam suam manet enum prior substantia forma et species The mysticall signes after consecration puteth not of there owne nature for the former substance forme and shape abideth Ambrose saith Sunt que eraut et sn aliud commutantur they are the same thing they were before that is breade and wine and are turned to on other that is turned to an other vse to present to vs the bodie and bloode of our Sauiour to feede our soules spirituallie Gelasius saith in sacramento manet panis et vini substantia In the sacramentes the substance of breade and wine remaineth Irenaeus saithâ— Quemadmodum qui est aterra panis percipiens vocationem domini iam non est communis panis sed eiu haristia ex duabus rebus constans terrena et celestâ— sic et corpora nostra percipientia cucharistiam iam non sunt corruptibilâ—a spem resurrectionis habentia As the breade growing out of the earth receauing the Lords institution is no more common breade but the eucharist consisting of two things the one earthlie the other heauenly So our bodies receauing the eucharist are no more corruptible hauing hope to rise againe Be these fathers it is cleere that the substance of the bread abideth and that the eucharist that is the communion of thankes giueing consisteth of an earthlie and a heauenly thing To conclud this matter Chrysostom saith in Vasis sanctificatis non ipsum corpus Christiest sed mysterium eius continetur In the sacred vessels the verie bodye of Christ is not but a mistery thereof And August saith more peremptorily Non hoc corpus quod videtis manducaturi estis non bibituri sanguinem quem fusuri sunt qui me crucifigent sed sacramentum vobis aliquod commendaui You are not to eate the bodie which you see nor to drinke the blood which they are to shed who will crucifie me But I commended a certaine mysterie to you c. In these places which I haue quoted you haue plainely without any glosse al that we teach and beleeue of this sacrament That the words of the institution are figuratiue That the action of eating and drinking these mysteries is spirituall That the bodie of Christe is receaued bâ— faith not be the mouth That the wordes of the institution are to bee taken literallie That the body of Christe which suffered for our sinnes is in heauen not in the SacrameÌ„t That to eat the flesh of Christ is to beleeue in him That the substance of the breade and wine abideth and is not transubstantiated And lastly that the body of Christ is neither in the holie vessels nor eaten be them who receaueth this sacrament All these thinges I haue heere proued I saye in plaine categoricall wordes which the aduersaries can not avoide without most odious and absurd gloses which the actours neuer knewe nor thought Yet not-withstanding they vendicat these fiue hundreth yeares as the other fiue hundreth also vntill the dayes of Berengarius and beareth the ignorant in hand that all is theirs without contradiction They haue such a confident
these words inforces not a literall sense that hee is a verye doore vine or rocke Ergo these wordes inforce not literallye that the breade is his bodie The speaker is one the forme is one and there is nothing in the one which is not in the other to inforce a literall sense Of this see more in the answere of Maister William Reinoldes fourth replye to Maister Robert Bruce cap. 19. hereafter pag. 96. This ground being laide that these wordes are as opportune â—o a figure as to the letter wee ioyne with these men vpon a new conclusion that the figure is moste consonant to the truthe and agreeable with the scriptures To begin then my first argument is taken from the name and nature of a Sacrament No sacrament is the same thing which it signifieth The bread wine in the Lordes Supper are sacraments of Christs body and bloode Ergo they are not the thing which they signifie that is they are not the body blood of Christ The first part of this argument is a rule of nature deliuered vs be a common consent of all the learned before the dayes of ignorance and papistrie Let August serue for all sacramenta saith he sunt signa rerum aliud existentia aliud significantia Sacraments are signes of thinges being in deede one thing and in signification an other The answere here that the accidents are the signe and that the substance is changed is a tricke of Romane iuglarye without warrant of the word or testimony of any father for eight hundreth yeares after the institutioÌ„ of this sacrament Of this see more hereafter in defence of Maister Robert Bruce against Maister William Reinold cap. 19. reason 2. My next reason shal be from the analogie of the sacraments of the new olde couenant The sacraments in the new couenant are the same to Christe now commed that the sacraments of the olde couenant were to Christe to come But the sacraments of the old couenant were types and figures of Christ to come Ergo the sacraments of the new couenant are types and figures of Christ alreadie commed The proposition Paull confirmeth The fathers did all eate the same spirituall meate and did all drinke the same spirituall drinke And Aug. sacramenta iudaeorum in signis diuersa fuerunt a nostris in rebus significatis paria That is the sacraments of the Iewes did differ from ours in signes but are the same in signification The assumption the aduersarie cannot denye Thirdly I reason out of Christs own words after that hee had absolued the hole action and his disciples had al eate of the bread drunk of the wyne I wil saith he no more drinke of this fruite of the vine while I drink it laying this foundation which I hope no man can denie that the breade is no other wayes his bodiâ— then the wine is his blood The fruite of the vine is not the naturall bloode of Christ. But that which he had consecrated his disciples had drunken he calleth that the fruite of the vine Ergo that which hee consecrated they had drunken was not his naturall blood be like reason that which they had eaten was not his naturall and reall bodie The proposition being a negatiue of things disparate and diuerse is not deniable and the assumption is a text vttered be the mouth that could not lye Fourthly the order of the institution Iesus the night that hee was betrayed tooke breade and giuing thankes broke it and saide take eate this is my body that is broken for yow yealdes vs this argument That which hee broke was the same which they did eate But Christ tooke breade and broke it not his essentiall bodie Ergo that which they did eat was bread and not his essentiall bodie The proposition is manifest in the wordes as they lye he tooke bread hee brake it that is breade hee bade his disciples eate that same bread and of it saide this is my body which is broken for you That which hee tooke hee broke that which hee broke he gaue them that which he gaue them they did eate and that which they did eate he calleth it his bodie To applye the verbes following to an other thing theÌ„ that which the first verbe is ioyned with is to teare Christs wordes in sunder and to parte the thinges which hee spake coniunctly The assumption is the very text And further when hee broke the breade Christ had not vttered the wordes bee vertue whereof these men holdes that the breade is changed into the bodie of Christ. Fifthly out of the same wordes weâ— drawe this argument The thing which he gaue them was his essentiall bodie as the breaking of it was the breaking of his bodie But the breaking of the bread was not the breaking of his body for our sinnes as it was done vpon the crosse â—rgo the bread was not that same essentiall body which was broken on the crosse but in a figure The proposition is true because as hee saith of the breade it is his bodie so hee saieth with one breath that it is his bodie broken this is my bodie broken for you The assumption is true because the bodie of Christ was not broken before his passion and because the breade was broken in peeces which his bodie was not Sixtly it is saide in the sixt of Iohn He that eateth my flesh and drinketh my blood dwelleth in me and I in him Which words yealdes vs this reason Hee that eateth the flesh and drinketh the bloode of Christ dwelleth in Christ and Christ in him But all that eate the sacrament dwelleth not in Christ nor Christ in them Ergo not all that eateth the sacrament eateth the flesh and drinketh the bloode of Christ. The proposition is the text the assumption the great heap of vnworthie receauers doth proue This Peter Lumbard the great maister of sentences alleadges out of August Qui discordat a Christo non manducat carnem eius nec sanguinem bibit et si tanterei sacramâ—nâ—um ad iudicium sibi quotidie accipit He that followeth not Christ eateth not his flesh nor drinketh his bloode how-be-it hee dailie receaue the sacrament of so great a mysterie to his damnation Which sentence afterward in B. and C. hee laboureth to answere without sense or sentence That the wicked eateth the proper flesh of christ which was borne of the Virgine Marie but not the spirituall flesh of Christ which is receaued onely be faith vnderstanding We reade in the scripturs but of one flesh of Christ which was borne of the Virgine Marie suffered on the crosse for our sinnes Of this flesh saieth Christ whosoeuer eateth dwelleth in me and I in him But the wicked saith Lumbard eateth this fleshe and so bee his worthye sentence the wicked dwelleth in Christ Christ in theÌ„ The faith which beleeueth or vnderstanding which conceaueth anye other flesh of Christ then this beleeueth and vnderstandeth the thing that
neuer was Of the wicked Paull saith hee that eateth this breade and drinketh of this cuppe vnworthely eateth and drinketh his owne damnation He saith not hee that eateth the bodie drinketh the bloode of Christ vnworthely And heare I dare lay my heade which I will not giue for the popes heade and his triple Crowne too that all the Schooles in Roome and Remes shall neuer proue be the Scripture that the body of Christ can be eaten vnworthely Howe oft doth hee promise himselfe in Iohn eternall life sumtime to him that eateth his flesh sometime to him that beleeueth Whereof it is manifest that none eateth his flesh vnworthely seeing that all that eateth of it shal haue eternal life This besides the place quoted be Lumbard that worthy Fatder August in Iohn tract 26. striketh dead Sacramentum quibusdam ad vitam quibusdam ad mortem sumitur res vero cuâ—us est sacramentum omnibus ad vitani nulli ad mortem That is some receaueth the sacrament to life some to death but that whereof it is the sacrament bringeth life to all death to none Seuenthly in the fore cited wordes of Paull He that â—ateth of this breade and drinketh of this cuppe vnworthelie eaâ—eth and drinketh his owne damnation We find this argument The elements in the Sacraments remaine that which Paull be the spirit of God doth call chem But Paull be the spirit of god doth cal them bread and wine and that after the consecration or else they coulde not bee receaued vnworthely nor drawe on so heauy a iudgment as to be guilty of the Lords body and blood Ergo the elements in the Sacrament remaineth breade and wine and are not changed into the naturall bodie and blood of Christ. Heare the base shift that the Apostle vseth the names which they seeme for the names which they are will not houlde for that were to feede the errour of the fenses and to brangle the foundation of faith which thing bee farre from this Apostle who trauâ—lled so faithfullye and discreit ye 〈◊〉 Apostleshipe Heare thou hast seauen argumentes gentle reader thâ— weakest of all which if wee hade no more were sufficient to beare out this cause with greater probability then any that our aduersarie hath to the contrary The firste thirde fifth and sixth concludeth the negatiue that the breade and wine are not the reale and essentiall bodie of our Sauiour The second proueth that they are types anâ— figures of Christ exhibited for the ransome of our sinnes The fourth and seuenth that the bread and wine remaineth in their owne natures and are not transubstantâ—aâ—ted as the Church of Rome laboureth â—o earnestly to bring the worlde to beleeue And so of these seuen arguments four erefutes the aduersarie and three confirmes the truthe Nowe that the Church maintained this truth as she receaued it from Christ and his Apostles for more then fiue hundreth years after Christ I wil proue bee the the testimonies of the fathers who liued and taught the Church in that age And heare I woulde praye the reader not to mistake me I alleadge not these testimonies to confirme this truth as not sufficiently proued already or to ad more authoritie to the testimonies of the scripture for we acknowledge the authoritie of the word of God to haue that Maiestie that if all the world did say against it yet it remained the certaine trueth of the eternall God who is trueth it selfe and can not lye And wee greatly lament the miserie of this age wherein there is so many fouÌ„d and of them some who knew the truth to oppose them selues against so manifest a light But seeing bee the peruersnes of man and malice of the deuill it is controuerted in my simple iudgment the consent of the Church is no small inducement to indifferentmen and a great slap in the aduersaries saill who beares the world in hand that they saill before the wind and that all the fathers of the primitiue Church doth rowe in their bardge Which confident assertion how false it is I hope with gods good help to make it manifest and to proue be their owne wordes that none of the fathers did euer know that transubstantiated monster which was whelped in the counsell of Rome fiue hundreth yeares after them and after that fostered in the bosome of that Church To beginne Tertullian who liued in the yeare two hundreth saieth of the eating of Christ in the Sacrament Auditu deuoâ—andus est intellectu ruminandus et fide digerendus That is bee hearing he is to bee eaten be vnderstanding chawed bee faith digested Chrysostom teacheth the same Magnus iâ—â—e panis qui replet mentem non ventrem This is the great bread which filles the minde and not the bellie And August Quid dentem et ventrem paraâ— crede et manducasti Why preparest thou thy teethe and thy bellie beleeue and thou hast eaten Cyprian saith esus eius carnis eâ—t quadam aviditas et desiderium manendi in Christo Quod est esus carni hoc est fides animae non dentes ad mordendum acuimus sed fide sinceva sanctum panem edinms The eating of his flesh is a certaine gredinesse and desire to dwell in Christe As eating is to the flesh so is faith to the soule We sharpe not our teethe to bruse but faith to eate that sacred bread Basilius saith est quoddam spirituale os interni hominis quo pascitur recipiens panem vitae qui descendit do caelo There is a spirituall mouth of the inward man bee which he is fed who eates the bread that came downe from heauen Be the testimonies of which fathers it is most cleere and apparant that the Church then tooke the eating of Christs flesh and drinking his bloode to bee a spirituall action of the soule not a bodily action of the mouth that it is eaten be faith not with the teethe and digested into the minde not into the bellie and foullâ—stomache of the receauer Of sacraments in generall August saith in sacramentis videndum est non quid sint sed quid ostendant signa enim rerum sunt aliud existentia aliud significantia in sacraments it is to bee noted not what they are but what they meane so they are signes of thinges signyfiing one thinge and in deede an other Of figures that they are vsuall in the scripture and that the name of the figure is set for the thinge figured and contrariwayes of the thinge for the figure he saith Solet res quae significat eius rei quam significat nomine appellari Hinc dictum erat petra erat Christus Non dixit petra significat Christum sed tanquam boc esset quodâ—vtique per substantiam non erat The thinge which signifieth vseth to be called many times be the name that it signifieth Hereupon it is saide that Christ was the rocke he saide not that the rock signifieth Christe but as if
grace in shamelesse lyes But heere I would beseech the diligent reader to iudge betweene vs and them indifferentlie Bellarmine the great Rabbi of the seminarie at Rome and the goâ—â—ah of that vncircumcised congregation gathereth what euer hee couldâ— find with his owne trauels or the trauels of the whole seminary which bee report serued him what euer had anye shew for his purpose Hee hath gathered together aboue a hundreth and nine places of all which I dare promise the diligent reader that hee hath not two which speaketh the thing which hee woulde haue In them all hee hath neither founde transubstantiation of the elements nor accidents without subiects nor subiects without accidentes nor the bodie of Christ rent with teeth nor that the accidentes are the outward signes in the sacrament nor that â—he bodie of Christ is at one time both in heauen and all other places where the sacrament is ministred nor any other of these new theoremes of the Romaine faith without a glose and that sometimes impertinent sometimes obscurer then the text sometimes repugnant to the text and alwayes peruerting the true sense of the author I hope that no man will count these allegationes equiualent except they proue all the theoremes and appendices of transubstantiation as cleerelye as wee haue done Notwithstanding whate uer they or we can doe in this kinde is no proofe of the truthe but a witnes of the consent of tymes Nowe in this place followeth next to be considered howe this monstrouse opinion of transubstantiation began to insinuate it self into the heartes of men in the ages following for from this time forth it beganne dailye to grow and to gather strength In the mysterie of the sacrament there is such a secrete sacred coniunction of Christs blessed flesh with the seales as we can not well vnderstaÌ„d nor is lawful for vs curiously to enquire but reuerentlye to beleeue that his bodie is the bread which came downe from heauen and giueth life vnto the worlde On Christs parte by the secret and vnseene efficacie of his diuinitie hee conuaieth him selfe into our soules to feede them vnto eternall life On our parts there is an action iointly of the soule and bodie the one receauing the elementes with the mouth of the bodie the other receauing the body and bloode of Christe bee the moâ—th of fâ—ith In this action the whole powers of the soule and body are occupied at one instant applying all the comforts of the senses to the soule The mouth tasting sweetnes presents sweetnes to the soule the stomach receauing refreshment mindeth the soule of refreshment The vitales receauing strength comfort life offers to the soule the strength comfort life that floweth from the bread of which who-so-euer eateth shall neuer hunger nor thirst againe To printe this analogie into our heartes and to lift our senses from the sensuall consideration of these present obiects to the spirituall contemplation of his absente flesh it pleased the wisdome of our Sauiour to name the figures of breade and wine his bodie and blood broken and shed for the faithfull partakers of these mysteries And that he doth not changing the substance as these men woulde haue vs weene but turning the vse of bodilie meate to present to our deepe speculation the meate that feedeth the soule to eternall life This besides the places alredie cited Theodoret about foure hundreth yeares after Christ teacheth as resolutelie as euer did either Zuinglius or Caluin his wordes ar these faithfullie translated because they are ouer long to set downe in his owne language Our Sauiour changed the names to the bodie giuing the name of the signe and to the signe giuing the name of the bodie His purpose is mantfest for he would haue them who did participate his diuine mysterie to haue no eye to the thing which they sawe but bee changing the names to appreheÌ„d the change made be grace For calling his naturall bodie bread meate and calling him self a vine hee honoured the signes with the names of his bodie and blood not changing their natures but adding grace to nature This example of our Sauiour all true preachers in all ages who laboured to instruct the heartes of men in these mysteries followed when they sawe the mindes baselye contented with the externall action manie tymes they amplifyed the presence of Christe with hyperbolicall argumentes of his diuine power to lift the heart from the elements to the thing presented be the elements For as mariners betweene two dangers in the seas beareth of that which they moste feare towardes that which they leaste suspect euen so these teachers drew the people froÌ„ the elements subiect to the sense towards a bodely presence contrarie to sense neuer surmizing that men woulde bee so credulouse as to take such hyperbolical amplificationes for simple suthes The deuill who hath alwaies beene reddie of good to take occasions of ill watered this weede with all helpes Firste hee bred in the heartes of men such a colde regarde of these holye mysteries that few resorted to them as it appeareth be the grieuous complaintes of the fathers of that age and lawes made be sundrie emperours to mende that fault Be this meanes he so incensed the harts of them who had the haÌ„dling of them yâ— no man thoght his eloqueÌ„ce sufâ—icieÌ„t to amplify the preseÌ„ce of Christ in the sacrament with high speeches to imprint a reverent estimatioÌ„ of these sacred mysteries in the dull heartes of the people This continued well nye three hundreth yeares without suspition of ill With the opinion of a corporall presence the deuil drew in be little and little that the verie bodie of Christ offered to the father in the masse was a sacrifice propitiatorie for the quick dead and the people as wee are all borne to superstition and idolatrie imbraced that more gredelie then any truth The Clargie spying the masses to become good marchandise and hopeing for greate cheates to the kitcâ—in bee that market put to their shoulders lifted the sacrifice aboue the sacrament So this weede grewe dailie as weedes commonly growes fastest till few could find the truth that onely such as diligently sifted the Scripturs and fathers of former times It was long before men grew so brasen faced as to denye the figure in the words of the institution The first that wee reade to haue commed so farre was Damascene about the yeare eight hundreth After him followed Pas casius and Theophylact wel nye a hundreth yeares These men broke the yce to them that followed but pearsed not into the depth of this diuinitie Transubstantiation of the elements accidents without subiects and subiects without accideÌ„tâ— the monstruous brude of the Romane Church were not yet clecked She had not yet sit vpon that egge neither was these men yet so well resolued as vpon all occasions to sing one song They disseÌ„ted in many things from them that followed and in sundry thinges from themselues At
nature I am persuaded that these men will not saye that the substance of the water is also changed in Baptisme into the bloode of Christ how-be-it the reason be as good to saye this as that Bee these examples I woulde haue the circumspect reader warned that when he readeth in any of the fathers that the nature of the breade is changed in the Sacrament hee take it not for substance alwayes I will giue the an example or two of the moste peremptorie places that these men hath and which maye begâ—â—le a wise and circumspect reader Harding against Iewell alleadges out of Câ—prian these wordes Panis iste quem dominus discipulis porrigebat non effigiâ— sed natura mutatus omnipotentia verbi factus est caro This breade which the Lord gaue to his disciples changed not in shawe but in nature be the omnipotencie of the worde was made breade Where firste note that hee calleth it breade which hee gaue his disciples which thing as this day were heresie in Rome Secondly that hee saith not the substance of the bread is changed but the nature of it which being created to feede the bodye of man to temporall life is now changed be the omnipotencie of the worde that is Christ to feede the soule to eternall life Thirdelye where hee saieth the breade was made flesh it proues not a chaÌ„ging of the one substance into the other For Iohn saith of the sonne of God that the worde was made flesh which not-withstanding was not turned into flesh Lastly the hyperbole of the omnipotencie of the worde sundrie of the fathers vseth of the water in Baptisine which abideth water still and is not changed into the blood of Christ. Beda saith Panis et vini creatura in sacramentum â—arnis et sanguinis Christi ineff abili spiritus sanctificatione transfâ—rtur The creature of breade and wine be the vnspeakable sanctification of the spirite is translated to the Sacrament of Christes bodie and bloode Where you see as hyperbolicall wordes not to change the breade and wine into the bodie and blood of Christ but into the Sacrament of his bodie and blood Maister William Rainold againste Maister Robert Bruce alleadgeth two places out of Ambrose which being weighed in these confiderations will proue no transubstantiation Ambrose comparing the efficacie of Christes wordes with the words of Elias at laste concludeth if his wordes were of such force that they caused fire to come downe from heauen shall not Christes speach be of sufficient force to alter the nature of the elements First the Latine worde which hee interpreteth nature is species elementorum The shapes of the elements which it is certaine to the sense remaineth vnchanged and so the wordes beareth a manifest hyperbole It is true that Ambrose in that place vseth sundry high amplifications not to persuade the breade to be transubstantiated into the essentiall bodie of Iesus Christ but from the authoritye and power of the consecratoure to settle into the heartes of men a dreadefull account of the consecration That this is his drift it is plaine in the same place Where he saith ante benedictionem rerborum coelestium alia species nominatur post consecrationem corpus Christi significatur Before the celestiall blessing an other forme is named after consecration Christs body is signifyed saith hee not in deede transubstantiated For that which doth signifie his bodie can not be the same thing which it signifieth In the other place Ambrose teacheth that the consecration is made bee the wordes of Christe the selfe same whereby all things were created and after a long induction concludeth it was not the body but breade before secration but after when Christs words came there to then was it the bodie of Christ. and addeth thou seest then how many wayes the speach of Christe is able to change all thinges This long induction of Christes power as I haue saide is to noe other ende but bee the powerful consecration of the elements to settle a resolute persuasion in our heartes of Christs presence which is the vnseene subiect of our faith That Ambrose knewe not transubstantiation of the elementes it is plaine in that same cap also Where he saith Si tantavis in sermone domini fuit vt inciperentesse quae non â—rant quanto magis operatorius est vt sinâ— quae erant et in aliud commutentur If there was such power in the worde of the Lorde to make thinges beginne to bee that they were not howe much more powerfull is it to make thinges byde that which they were before and to be changed into an other Where note that he saith the bread and wine abideth the thinge which they were that is breade and wine which these men denieth And a little after warde hee saith similitudinem pretiosi sanguinis bibis Thou drinkest the lâ—kenesse of that precious bloode In the cap. following also hee calleth it figura corporis et sanguinis A figure of the bodie and bloode of our Sauiour Iesus Christe If Ambrose had thought the elementes of breade and wine to be the essentiall and reall body of Christ hee woulde neuer haue called them similitudes and figures thereof If these men woulde buckle that opinion on Ambrose or anye other father let them produce him in his monstruous coloures of accidents without their naturall subiects and subiectes without their naturall accidents and substance changed into substaÌ„ce For we are surely persuaded that transubstantiation was neuer beleeued before these strange theoremes were vniuersallie receaued And if they cannot find these theoremes which muste haue rung in all the pulpits and schooles if that doctrine had beene receaued before the counsell of Rome which condemned Berengarius let them pardon vs to thinke that that doctrine was not till theÌ„ knowne in the own complexion To conclude this matter of the fathers it is no wonder that these men presumâ—â—g on the ignorance of their readers draw the amplifications of the fathers to their bent seeing they blush not to take Calvin and Maister Robert Bruce whome all men knoweth to dissent from them at such stottes Maister Rainolds quoteth out of Caluines institutiâ—ns foure or fiue places which if hee had written a thousand yeares before would make a greater shew for their transubstantiation then anye thinge that father Robert Bellarmine hath founde among all the fathers and more pregnant then these places which I haue answered of Cyprian and Ambrose The firste is in the mysterie of the Supper saieth Caluin Christ that is Christs bodie and blood be the signes of bread and wine is truly deliuered vnto vs. And al-be-it it may seeme incredible that in such distance of places he shoulde passe downe to vs Yet let vs remember howe farre his power exceedeth our sense and that our minde cannot comprehend let our faith conceaue Againe in his holy supper hee willeth me vnder the symboles of breade and wine to take eate and drinke his bodie and
where Thou hast harde August say page 28. that they who receaueth the sacrament eateth not the bodie which his disciples sawe And page 18. that Christe doubted not to saye This is my bodie When he gaue the figure of his bodie And therefore I woulde praye thee not to take Maister Wil. Rainolds naked worde against seene proofe If he can produce one where of this euerie where where Aug. saith plainely that the bodie of Christe is in the Sacrament as it hanged on the Crosse I shall giue him my hand That Christe is in the Sacrament wee grant and places out of August or any other to that effect maketh no thing againste vs nor no thing for their presence flesh bloode and bone The scripture teacheth of Christe that hee was like vs in all thinges sinne onely excepted and so his bodie must bee in all thinges like our bodies Now in the place quoted bee Maister Robert Bruce Saint August speaketh of all bodies in generall and therefore of Christes bodie also euen in the sacrament if it were in the sacrament And heare I woulde praye the reader to marke a tricke of Romaine Logicke to haue no exception from an vniuersal axiome but onely the thing in question where of the doubt is whether it be or not To a text out of the Actes of the Apostles that the he auens must containe Christ till all thinges be restored hee answereth with a perhapes such credit these men giueth to the eternall truth that it may proue Christes bodie to bee in heauen but that it is no where else hee vtterly denyeth it to proue except it bee in the reprobate sense of a sacramentarie This you see is well sayed to it And yet for all this boulde face I hope this argument will holde in the sanctified sense of a chosen Christian. He that saith the finite bodie of Christ is in heauen denyeth it to bee any where else But Peter in this place saieth that The finite bodye of Christ is in heauen Ergo Peter in this place denyeth the body of Christ to be in anye other place till all thinges be restored c. This answere it seemeth that he mistrusted and therefore fleeth to a better shift and denyeth the text The wordes are translated verbatim out of the greeke and latine also For in these words the fintax of bothe languages agreeth Hon dei ton our anon dechesthai Quem opertet caelum capere Whome the heauens must containe In deede they are not thral in english to the peruersnesse of a wrangler as they are in greeke latine If that be a falt it is the falt of the language not of the translator And therefore that these wordes were neuer spoken be Peter nor written be Luke but forged bee Maister Robert or some phanaticall brother of his sect is a thudde of Maister Rainold his choller which manye times blowes lowder then his loue As to the English Bible of Kinge Edwardes time we are not bounde to it That Christe muste containe the heauens vntill the time that all thinges be restored which he must containe also after that restitution is ouer impertinent and vnproper a sense to shoulder out the other lyeing so plaine to the wordes and containeing an assertion that the aduersariâ— can not denye Moreouer it is to be marked that to bring in that sense the accusatiue Onranon which praeceedeth the verb must violently be cast behinde the verb which thinge to auoide an inconvenience were tollerable but to bringe in a nedlesse and imperfect sense is perversnesse Next Maister Robert reasoneth Euerie humaine bodye is visible and palpable Christes bodie if it be in the Sacrament is a humane bodie Ergo Christes bodie if it be in the sacrament is visible and palpable This argument he calleth the weakest of all for it is a parte of these mens facultie to crye when they are sorest bitten that they feele no thinge But I hope to make this argumente sticke as fast to their skinne as the best in the packe To our Sauiour saieth hee to proue the veritie of his body this argument was forcible but to Maister Robert to proue the negatiue that Christes bodye is not in the sacrament it hath no force at all And this hee exemplifyeth in his spitefull maner with A. B. a minister that preacheth heresie he might haue taken William Rainoldes for example for except I am deceaued hee was a minister or at least a preacher of that which nowe hee calleth heresie of whome it will follow saith he affirmatiuly that he is an heriticke but of that hee is no minister and preacheth no heresie it will not follow that he is no hereticke But his simile if he had anye of that sharpenesse with which some slandereth him holdeth not It is common to all humane bodies to be visible and palpable but it is not common to all heritikes to to be ministers and preachers But that M. Roberts argument holdes both negatiuely affirmatiuely thus I proue All negatiues of inseparable accidentes proues the negatiue of the subiect But visibilitie and palpabilitie are inseparable accidents of a humane bodie Ergo the negatiue of visibilitie and palpabilitie proues the negatiue of a humane bodie This argument for as weake as it is it will passe the cunning of all the Iesuites in Rome and Remes to answere without an instance in the question that the naturall bodie of Christe in the sacrament is neither visible nor palpable Which assertion is contrarie to sense damned bee reason and without warrant of the word except an ambiguous place which I haue proued the fathers for 500. yeares to haue taken figuratiuelye If any amongst them beleeueth the fable of Gyges his ringe which hee there alledges let them beleeue lyes that wil. We admitt no such proofe in maters theologicall After this Maister Robert alledges the articles of the Beleefe not as an other argument then that of Peter in the thirde of the Actes as this wrangler pretendeth but as an other testimonye againste their monstruous presence The argumente is the same that before That Christ seeing he is in heauen is not in the Sacrament To eleuat this place this wrangler alledges Calvines interpretation of sitting at the right hand of God and supposeth Maister Robert to gather his conclusion thereupon that therefore because hee hath all power giuen him in heauen earth he is not in the sacrament But this is wrong libelled hee leaueth out the tongue of the trumpe and then scorneth because it will not playe Maister Roberts argument is that Christ is in heauen at the right hande of his father as it is in the beleefe Ergo he is not chowed and champed amongst the teethe of men in the Sacrament The force of the argumente is not from his sitting at the right hande of his father but from his being in heauen And there fore Caluins interpretation of his fitting at the right hand of his father is an vntimely birthe
writtinges he might haue beene vndoctored this dozen yearâ—â— and if hee profite no more then he hath done hee might haue wanted a Doctour hoode so long as he liueth Of all the vnleaâ—ned books 〈…〉 I red of all the vnconstante and wand ring stiles running aâ— the â—â—ubiect on euerie â—ighte occasion I giue it the first place Hetherto I â—aue laide downe what little reason they haue to denye the wordes of the institution to bee â—iguratiue Now beside the seauen argumente in the beginning And the sounde arguments mightely laide in bee M. Robert Bruce and weakely warded be M. William Rainoldes I will open what mater of inconuenience what forcing of textes what coyning of figures what monsters in nature sense and reason might haue chocked this monster in the cradle if a drifte of heresie raised bee the enemie of truthe had not dazaled the eyes of men and driuen them into the wildernesse of erroure To beginne at the lightest to maintaine that there is no figure in the institution they are driuen to force a stranger figure on the wordes of Paull Hâ—â— that cateth of this breade and drinketh of this cup c. Compelling the spirite of God in which the Apostle wrote with rashe and inconsiderate â—duise bee the names of breade and cup for wine to feede the erroure of the sense againste the truthe of faith if it were as they sâ—y not bread and wyne but the very body and blood of Christ. As is saide alredie page 13. in my seuent reason Secondlye in the wordes of our Sauiour I will drinke no more of the fruite of the vine they shape two monstruous figures leauing it indifferent to take which a man liketh best Either that bee the wine is vnderstoode the bloode of Christ vnder the shew of wine or else that the kingdome of God is the time of the gospell in the which we drinke the verie blood of Christ in the Sacrament Thirdelye the wordes of our Sauiour He that easteth my flesh and drinketh my bloode dwelleth in me and 〈◊〉 him They ar compelled either to mangle miserably or else to denye them and make the incredilous to eate the bodie of Christe which neither dwelleth in Christe nor Christ in them Fourthly the Article of our beleefe and the place of the Actes That the heauens must containe him vntil the 〈◊〉 that all thinges be restored They are driuen to seeke some defense bee hooke and crooke how Christ maye not onely bee in heauen at the righte hande of his father but also in the Sacramente betweene the handes of a gredie preiste reddie to eate him vp stoup and roupe These foure textes they are compelled to mangle to maintaine a literall sense in one But behoulde more absurditie Firste they will compell vs vnder paine of damnation to beleeue that the bodie of Christ hauing all properties of a humane bodie sinne onely excepted is handled and not felt eaten and not tasted looked on and not seene in the Sacrament Secondlye that the accidentes of bread that is sauour colour taste hardnesse moistnosse c are in the Sacrament without the substance of breade where to they are inseparablye anneâ—ed Thirdely that these same accidentes hauing no nature nor power to feede are ordained be Christ to bee the signe of the spirituall breade that feedeth our soules to life euerlasting Fourtlye that the substance of the breade is changed into the verie reall and naturall substance of Christs bodie that was borne of the Virgine Marye and suffered on the crosse for the sinnes of man Fistly that accidentes doth nonrish and feede the bodie because the substance doth nourish bee meanes of accidentes Sixtly that the bodie of Christe being finite and locall as it was when hee walked on the waters taught in the shipe and died vpon the Crosse is now in heauen at the righte hande of his father and also on all the altares in the worlde in the handes of all the prestes in the bellies of all that eateth him and in the coffers of al that will keepe him in store for an euill daye Seuently that in this mater of transubstantiation vnder paine of bothe deathes that is temporall and eternall we are bound to beleeue nether nature sense nor reason And that eightly heerefore how-be-it we see it to mould rott and consume we must bee persuaded in faith that it is the immortall bodie of our Lorde and Sauiour Iesus Christ. Nynthly when Aug. or anye other of the fathers calleth it a figure wee muste beleeue that it is bothe the figure of Christs bodye and Christes bodye it selfe Tenthly that the partes of Christes bodie are not distinguished as eie from eie hand from hande heade from foote or with reuerence bee it spoken taile from tongue but all confused together in the compasse of the rounde waâ—er Eleuenthly that the preist is the creatore of his owne creatore and eateth him when he hath created him Twelfthlye that Christe hauing but one bodie the people consumeth him as many bodies in one daye as communicantes receaueth the Sacramente in all the worlde Thirtenthlie that the substance of Christs naturall bodie maye be made of other substance then the substance of his mother the virgine Marie My wit can not comprehende the absurdities of this absurditie On manye they are not yet agreed among themselues Firste if an oulde wife or anye other superstitious bodie keepe that sacred breade for a neede and chance to lose it which may well fall out Thomas Aquinas Alexander de Hales and Gerson holdeth that a mouse hog or doge if they finde it and eate it findeth and eateth the verie body of Christ Bonauentura and sundry others counteth it more honest and reasonable that they eate it not But Peter Lumbard the grand maister of catholicke conclusiones leaueth it to God what they eate and with all thinkes that it may be saide that brute beastes eate not the body of Christ. Some will haue the mouse if shee can be gotten burnt aâ—d buried aboute the altar Others will haue her opened and some well stomached preist to eate that which is founde in her mawe or else to reserue it in the tabernacle till it naturallie â—nsume In this kinde one highlie commendeth one Goderanus a preist for lapping vp the vomet of a leper man who had not long before receaued the Sacrament Secondly in the wordes of the institution This is my bodye Gerson saith that the demonstratiue pronoune this demonstrateth the substance of the bread Occam saith that it demonstrateth the bodie of Christ. Thomas Aquinas saieth that it demonstrateth the thing contained vnder the forme of the breade Hokot saith that it signifieth a thing betweene the bodie of Christ and the bread which is nether this nor that but common to both Durand saith that it signifieth nothing but is set materialiter After all commeth Steuen Gardinar Bishope of Winchester and turning his iudgment for once hee thought it
it were the thinge which it was not in substance To the same effect he saith Non dictum est petra significat Christum sed petra erat Christus it a enim scriptura solet loqui It is not said that the rock did signify Christ but that the rock was Christ for so the scripture vseth to speake This forme of speach he and sundrie other of the fathers acknowledges in the sacrament Ad hibâ—â—t Iudam ad conuiuium in quo corporis sui figuram discipulis commendauit Christ admitted Iudas to the Supper in which he commended to his disciples the figure of his bodie And againe Non dubitauit dicere hoc est corpus meum cnm daret signim cerporis sui Hee doubted not to saye This is my bodie when hee gaue to his disciples the signe of his bodie Chrysostom saith Christus mortuus non est cuius symbolum ac signum hoc sacrificium est Christ is not deed of whome this sacrifice is a symboll and a signe Theodoret saith Qui seipsum vitem appell at ille symbola et signa quae videntur appellatione corporis et sanguinis honor auit non naturam mutauit He who called himselfe a vine honoured the signes and symbolles which are seene with the name of his bodie and bloode not changing their nature Nazianzenus calleth them â—oon megaloon mysteerioon antitypa The figures of great mysteries And in another place tou timiou soomatos antitypon The figure of his glorious bodie Tertullian to proue against Marcion that the bodie of Christ is not a fantasie taketh an argument from the Sacrament in these wordes Acceptum panem acdistributum discipuilis corpus suum illum fecit hoc est corpus meum dicendo id est figura corporis mei figura autem non â—uisset nisi veritatis fuisset corpus That is taking breade and diuiding it among his disciples hee made it his bodie saying This is my bodie That is this is a figure of my body Now it coulde hot haue beene a figure of his bodie if his bodie had not beene a very bodie because men vseth not to make figures of phantasies August de doctrina teaching in a long discourse that the scriptures alwayes implyeth some figure when they seeme to command facinus or flagitium That is as he him self expoundeth it an ill turne to him selfe or to an other in the ende bringeth for example the place out of the 6. of Iohn The letter whereof these men vrge so instantlie and concludeth it to be a figure in dispite of the pope the counsell of Rome which did in cannon it eight hundreth yeares after him to be catholick doctrine to grinde and rend the sacred bodie of Christ with sacrilegious teeth Nisi manducaueritis carnem filii hominis et sanguinem biberitis c. Facinus saith he vel flagitium videtur iubere figura ergo est Except thou eate the flesh of the sonne of man and drinke his blood seemeth saieth August to command a foull turne and therefore is a figure In these places of August Chrysostom Theodoret Nazianzen and Tertullian and many moe that might bee alledged to this effect it is manifest that these fathers and the Church in their times tooke the wordes of the institution this is my bodie figuratiuely Origen saith Si secundum literam accipis id quod dictum est nisi manducaâ—eritis carnem filii hominis litera illa occidit If thou vnderstand after the letter the wordes of our sauiour except you eate the flesh of the sonne of man c. that letter killeth Hyeronimus saith De hac quidem hostia quae in commemor atione Christi mirabiliter fit edere licet de illa uero quam Christus in ara crucis obtulit secundum se nemo potest edere Of that oblation which was made wonderfullie in remembrance of Christe a man may eate but of that which was offered vpon the alter of the crosse of it self no man can eate Chrysostom saith Si carnaliter accipis nihil lucraris If thou receaue it carnallie it will doe thee no good Of these places it is plaine that the flesh of Christe is not eaten with our teethe and that the eating the flesh of the sonne of man is not to bee vnderstood literallie Cyrillus saith Christus credentibus discipulis fragmenta panis dedit Christ gaue to his beleeuing disciples peeces of bread Hieronymus saith Christus in typo sanguinis sui non obtulit aquam sed vinum Christe in the type of his blood offered not water but wine Cyprianus saith Dominus sanguinem suum vinum appellauit de botris et acinis plurimis expressum The Lorde called wyne pressed out of many clusters grapes his bloode And againe Inuenimus vinum fuisse quod dominus sanguinem suum dixit Wee finde that it was wine which the Lorde called his bloode Of these places it is cleare that it was bread and wine which Christ gaue to his disciples bittes of bread wine wrong out of grapes Irenaeus saith panis eucharisticus carnis nostrae substantiam auget The bread of the eucharist that is of the Lordes supper turneth to the substance of our flesh augumentes it Origenes saith Ille cibus qui sanctificatur iuxta illud quod habet materiale in ventrem abit et in secessum eâ—citur That meate which is sanctified that is consecrated to a holie vse according to the matter or substance of it goeth downe into the bellie and is cast out into the iakes Be these two fathers it is plaine that the breade in the Sacrament doth nourish the body passeth through the belly and auoydeth into the draught which were an absurd thinge to speake of the precious flesh of our Sauiour Cyrill saith Christus cum discipulus suis etsi non corpore tamen virtâ—te deit atis semper futurus Christ will be with his disciples howbeit not bodilie yet bee vertue of his diuine power alwayes And in an other place Christus non poter at in carne versari cum apostolis post quam ascendisset ad patrem Christ coulde not in his flesh conuerse with his disciples after that hee was ascended to his father Athanasius saith Quomodo vnius hominis corpus vniuerso mundo sufficeret Quod tanquam in illorum cogitationibus versatus Christus commemorat A quibus cogitationibus vt eos auocaret quemadmodum Paulâ— ante suae descensionis de coelo mentionem fecit ita nunc reditus sui in coelum How can the body of one man suffice the whole world which thinge hee recordes as if hee had beene in their heartes From which thoughts to drawe them now hee maketh mentioÌ„ of his ascending into heauen as hee had done before of his descending from heauen By these two fathers yow maye see that Christ is ascended into heauen as concerning his bodie And to perswade the Caparâ—aites
the answere is cleare and reddie Christes flesh is the meare of the soule and not of the bodie of the minde and not of the mouth It is eaten be hearing chawed bee vnderstanding and digested bee faith saith Tertullian This our Sauiour teacheth him selfe who knew it better then the pope without sauing his holinesse and all the Iesuites to helpe him I am the breade of life saith he he that commeth to me shall not hunger and hee that beleeueth in me shall neuer thirst Out of which words this argument floweth To come to Christ and beleeue in him is to eate the breade of life that thou neuer hunger nor thirste againe But to come to Christ and beleeue in him is not to eate with thy tethe the reall flesh of Christ which was borne of the Virgine Marie Ergo to eate the reall flesh of Crhiste which was borne of the Virgine Marie with thy teeâ—hâ— is not to eate the bread of life that thou neuer huÌ„ger nor thirst a gain And a little after he that beleeueth in me hath euerlasting life I am the bread of life Which Syllogisme adding the proposition may haue this forme Whosoeuer beleeueth in the breade of life hath euerlasting life But I am the breade of life Ergo Whosoeuer beleeueth in me hath euerlasting life where you â—ee beleeuing for eating But that which followeth in the rebuke of them who tooke him to speake of a carnall and fleshlie eating is most pregnant It is the spirit which quickneth the flesh profiteth no thing the wordes that I speake are spirit and truth That is to saye it is the spiritual eating of my flesh that quickneth and giueth life the fleshlye and carnal eating of it can doe you no good For my wordes are spirituâ—ll and liuelie that is effectual to life In all that cap. he that will marke attentiuely shal finde that whole discourse with the câ—pernaites to be spiritual and the difference betweene them and him to bee their carnall concept of his spirituall wordes Hee shall finde the meate spirituall the life that it feedeth spirituall and the teethe that eateth spirituall There he shall finde that hee that eateeth not his flesh hath no life in him that is no spirituall life and hee that beleeueth in him hath eternall life that is to eate the breade of life that came downe from heauen and giueth life vnto the worlde Thirdlye Maister Rainolds againste Maister Robert Bruce reasoneth thus Christes bodie is there present where it is broken But it is broken in the sacrament Ergo it is present in the Sacrament To the maiore we answere that it is present in the Sacrament as it is broken in the Sacrament But it is broken onely in a figure and therefore is present onely in a figure But to the faithfull Christ presents in deede bee a divine communication with the Sacrament his verie bodie to feede the soule Bvt if he wer bodily in the Sacrament then the wicked would also participate his bodie which thing Christ himselfe denieth in Ioan. c. 6. v. 56 Fourthly the same man in the same place reasoneth out of the wordes of Moses concerning the olde couenante and the wordes of Christe concerning the newe thus That whereof Christe spoke is the bloode of the newe TestameÌ„t as â— whereof Moses spoke was the blood of the olde But yâ— whereof Moses spake was the verie bloode of the olde Testament Ergo that whereof Christe spoke was the verie bloode of the newe Testament Of this argument we deny the minor The blood of both couenants waâ— one the bloode of Christ Iesus who made the vnion in the olde Lawe betweene god them maketh the vnion in the new Testament betweene god and vs. The blood of beâ—es in the olde testameÌ„t was not the very blood of the covenant And therefore this man hath founde a knife to cut his owne throate The wine of the newe Testament is the bloode of the newe couenant as the bloode ofâ— beues and sheepe was the bloode of the olde couenant But the bloode of beues and sheepe was not the very blood of the olde couenant but a figure thereof Ergo the wine in the new Testament was not the very blood of the couenant but a figure thereof Lastly they cast vp to vs incredulity and not beleeuing the omnipotencie of Christ. They beare the worlde in hande that wee denying Christe to turne the bread into his bodie are more incredilous then sathâ—n who beleeued that he coulde make breade of stones To cast this sweete simile into the teethe that it came from These men are as captious as the devill Hee reasoned a potentiae ad actum If thou arte the Sonne of GOD command that these stones bee made breade they follow the same â—rade hee was the sonne of God Ergo he changed the breade into his flesh The question is not heare what Christ could doe but what he would doe We know and confesse as wel as they that Christ can doe what he will but will not doe all that he can To proue that Christs will was to doe a thing as I haue said so contrarious to nature so refuted bee sense it behooueth the testimonie to be without exception That Christ was borne of a virgine that he walked on the waters that hee turned water into wine these are the exemples of their induction the spirit of truth that cannot lye hath tâ—stified in plaine tearmes If that spirit had testified as plainely that in his last Supper hee turned the breade into his bodie and left nothing to our taste but accidents we should beleeue this as well as that and bee Gods good helpe haue stoode as surely to it as all the Iesuites since the first Iesuit Ignatius Laiola But seeing these proofes are noâ— thing but figured scriptures turned to their naked skinne wee hope that all Christians will abhore that vgly sinne to rend with mercilesse teethe his flesh that hath borne the horrour of hell â—o purchase mercie to vs. Heare they woulde faine buckle on vs an absurditie out of the words of the institution which we may not passe by In the wordeâ— This is my body which was broken for you The prononne this demonstrateth that which was broken for the sinnes of the elect But in our opinidion the pronoune this demonstrateth the breade Whereof say they it will follow that breade was broken for the sinnes of the elect Firste the maiore is not true for the pronoune this demonstrates not the thing but the figure of the thing tha was broken for the elect Secondly there is a parte of the maiore left out of the conclusion which should haue been expresseâ— Ergo the bread is the bodie which was broken for yâ— elect which conclusion is true in a figure And heare it is a world to see the blindnesse of these men for of their liâ—erall sense this absurditie will followe without a warde The pronoune
his word we beleeue with the Centurion that he can doe what he will But that hee will doe al that he can was the faith of the deuill who persuaded him to make breade of stones because he coulde As for this question when Maister Iohn Hammilton can proue to vs that Christ his will was to create him selfe a newâ— bodie of breade bee the eternall worde of truthe we shall addresse our heartes to beleeue it Secondlye he argues It is blasphemy to saye that Christes blessing worketh no thing in the breade and if it worke anyething it is no thing but transubstantiation To this it maye be replyed that Christ hath not left vs in the worde that powerfull forme of blessing and that no other not the Pope him selfe can supplye that want with wordes 〈◊〉 As for the words 〈…〉 thanks or to giue him that blessing the bread it containeth onely an assertion that he blessed it not the forme how he blessed it Which thing it may seeme the Lorde left out foreseeing that these men woulde haue misconstrued it if they had gotten it Further they are not yet agreed on it whether the wordes of the institution or the blessing if they had them worketh this miraculous change When they are all agreed let M. Iohn Hammilton if hee like not this answere sende vs word and wee shall shape him an other Thirdely he saith we giue Christ the lyâ—â— â—enying the breade to be turned into Christes bodie Be that rule as is saide alredie hee giueth Christe the lye that saith he is not a vine nor a doore Alace that M. Iohn Hammilton should set his faith vpon such grounds as these Fourthlye he woulde proue bee the institution that Christ saide masse in his owne person sitting at the table with his disciples Masse at a table â—ye man â—oulde he not get an altar twentie to one that Masse was not Catholike that wâ—nted an alter hallowed hee some pope For seeing it is a necessarie instrument to that action it was no harder for him to haue raised vp a 〈◊〉 to that ende then to turne the bread into his bodie nether hauing two bodies nor changing the formes of the â—reade This doubtlesse was a great ouer-sight Bâ—t heare I woulde aske an other question also whether he saide masse sec imdum ordinem sarum vel Romanum And what was the forme of his masse â—loths whether in the consecration hee keeped the iust number of Crosses beckes binges Ioukes and turnes prescribed in that action whether in his memento he prayed for his father and his mother and in the oblation offered sacrifice for them And to omitt the rest for I can noâ— stand on all whether hee repeted the fiue wordes hoc est enim corpus meum with out taking his breath For if hee omitted these murgines or anye of many moe then these he was not so catholike a preste I meane so Romane catholike and for all my correction pardon my comparison as for M. Iohn Hammilton and ten thousand moe that isâ— and was farre more formal to mummill 〈◊〉 Romane Masse then hee Heere also might be asked whether the Masse which Christ saide was perfect or imperfect And if it was perfect as perhaps they may grant whether all the crosses and kisses in the rubrick of the canon of the Masse and the rest of the ceremonies prescribed there be vnnecessary additions and if they be what they were that durste presume to ad to that which the eternall wisdome of God had praescribed such trashe and make their inuentiones as necessarie as his instituâ—ion For now it is growen to that heade that if M. Iohn Ham. for as catholike as he is or the highest headed Bishope within the Popes precincts woulde acknowledge no other Masse then Christ ordained he woulde soone be as odious an heritike as either Martine Luther or Iohn Caluin But to his syllogisme That Christ said Masse thus he reasons The Masse is no other thing hut the giuing and offering of Christes precious bodie and bloode contained vnder the externall formes of breade and wine after the order and riâ—e of melchisadeâ— to theliuing God for the people But Christ Iesus after that he had consecrated the breade and wine in his precious bodie and bloode gaue the same to God the father for his Apostles sitting with them at the institution of this holy Sacrament Ergo Christe saide Masse at the institution of the Sacrament To the 〈◊〉 of this syllogisme I haue answered that if M. Iohn Hammilton would saye no other Masse then that he woulde be condemned of heresie for imitation of Christe The minor I vtterly denye The text saieth not that Christe gaue thâ— breade and wine consecrated to his father for his disciples But to his disciples for a remembrance of his blessed passion That which hee gaue to his disciples for a remembrance of him selfe it will passe M. I. his intandement to proue it giuen to God for them But to finde the Masse in these wordes beholde how many leapes he takes Firste that Christ gaue this Sacrament to his father Secondly that he gaue is that hee offered Thirdely that hee offered it euen then when he gaue it Fourthly that hâ— offerâ—â— a sacrifice foâ— his disciples Fistly that â—ee oâ—fered it for them that is not for their redemption for that woulde bee derogatorie to his bloodie sacrifice buâ— to adore GOD for their redemptioni And therefore as if their were noe morâ— doubt of these wordes then the wordeâ— of the Masse booke Iube 〈◊〉 perserri per â—ianusâ— sancti angelâ— tâ—â— c. Hee runneth out vpou vs as blasphemâ—ers of this holy sacrifice pernerters of this holy textâ— To conclude with him in a place heâ— proueth that the wicked eateth not noâ— driâ—keth the bodie and blood of Christ His argument is the foundest syllogisme in all that worke But that men may seâ— how loâ—h hâ— is to speake truth or reason for it 〈◊〉 â—â—teth vp that assertion argument and all at once and calleth it an impious heâ—e sie and proueth it bee the inâ—tance of â—udas who with the reste of the twelue Apostles receâ—â—â—â—â— the Saâ—rament In which reason the ingeniouâ— reader maye take vp an incâ—anted and besotted head with the sotâ—sh poyson of the Romane dregges The question is whether the wicked in the Sacramente â—eceaueth the reall bodie of Christ And for proofe hee alleges the euangâ—listes Mathew Marke and I uke to proue that Iâ—das receaued the Sacramente That Iudas receaued the Sacrament it is a thing that might haue beene and some affirmeth and some denyeth But that Iudas did eate the flesh and drinke the bloode of Christe it will passe all the schooles of Rome to proue bee the â—racles of truth Of that Augustine saith dominuâ—â—â—das â—â—das did eate not the breade the Lorde but the breade of the Lorde This much to giue the reader a taste of M. Iohn his doctourall learning For anye thing that appeareth in his