and louely societie of the Churche When as the Lordes meaning dyd reatch to a farre higher mystery in this institution of the Supper which may be made most euidently apparant by the very wordes and circumstances of the words of the Supper For when the Lorde did commaunde to take and eate he doeth not say this is my mysticall body that shal fructifie and encrease out of many members of the Church But this is my body that shal be geuen for you Whereupon if I might now argue in the schooles of Diuines I would on this wise proceede against mine aduersaries The thing that is properly signified in this Sacrament is the only fleshe of Christe geuen for vs. The power of the vnitie and societie of the Churche was not deliuered for vs. Ergo The vnion of the Church oâ—ght in no respect be called the substance of the Sacrament Therfore this doctrine of Lombarde is false vtterly to be abandoned wherein hee affirmeth that this visible forme is a sacrament of a double thing And albeit I wil not deny that this mystery of Ecclesiastical vnion christian conâ—unction is a matter of vnspeakable excellency to haue singulâ—r likenes relation to bread as S. Paul testifieth Yeâ— Paul â—eacheth no such doctrine to wit that the sacrament was instituted to that ende or that the â—lements of bread and wine were deliuered to bee eaten and druÌ„ken for this purpose namely to expresse this mysticall â—â—ion but that it shoulde allure vs to an otheâ— matâ—eâ— rather to wit to the very body of Christe which shoulde suffer for vs that is to say shoulde represent the passion of Christe which doth truely quicken vs make vs too fructifie and to growe vp Therefore the estate of this Sacrament doth require that the Sacrament it selfe and the thing of the Sacrament alsâ— be both of this naâ—â—re to comfort to nourish for otherwise howe can the thinâ— significant agree with the thing signified vnlesse â—he nourishment of the one bee answerable too the nourishment of the other Now this is without al question that nothing can nourishe vnlesse it bâ—â— first eaten Wherefore as there bee twoo thinges that â—oe nourishe so must there be two thinges that muste bâ—e eaten In the one whereof is the Sacrament of the body in the other the verye thing it selfe is deliuered namely the passion of his naturall body And as they both nourishe so they muste both bee eaten The bread feedeth the flesh of Christ crucifâ—ed feedeth but after an other maner The bread feedeth corporally the fleshe feedeth spiritually That one the naturall body this other the spiritual part of the soule the bread feedeth this present lyfe the fleshe feedeth vnto the euerlasting life to come For as the life of the bodie doth growe encrease by dayly bread and foode euen so the spirituall life is preserued by the passion of Christ. Which the Lord himselfe foreseeing before did vtter these woordes of himselfe not without great consideration My fleshe is meate indeede my blood is drinke in deed geuing vs to vnderstande that by blood hee did meane the blooddy Sacrifice of his owne flesh Therfore as there is two kinds of mans life To wit earthly and heauenly so haue they both theyr proper foode The earthly life is preserued with foode and bread the heauenly life is obteined with the death of Christ. And for this cause nothing câ—ulde haue beene more commodiously handled then that the Lorde shoulde deliuer the bread and wine for a memorial of his passion because of the agreable application of the mutuall resemblaunce And heereof aryseth al the substaunce of this Sacramentall Action whereby bread and wyne doe obteine too bee called by the name of the body and blood not because the thinges themselues doe alter theyr substances but after the vâ—uall phrase of speach which is commonly frequented in all languages almost chiefly aboue others in the mysticall Scriptures Namely that thinges significaÌ„t shoulde obteine too bee called by the thinges which they doe signifie Which being most manifestly to be approued by innumerable testimonies of the Scripture is aboue all other moste iustifiable in this one Sacrament chiefly where the name of the body is attributed too the bread but not the substaunce none otherwise in very deede then as by like phrase of wordes is set downe in the booke of Genesis where seuen eares of corne are called Seuen Yeeres Fleshe Heye Seede the Worde a Fielde the World the heauenly Father an Husbandman Christe named a Uine or a Lambe the Apostles called Salt of the earth Peter a Stone and Iohn the Euangelist not only called of Christes own mouth the sonne of the Uirgin but accepted of the mother of Christe as her sonne by the Lordes commaundement Yet wil no man be so mad for this cause to affirme that vnder the figure and forme of this Disciple he either became truely and naturally her sonne or the Uirgin his naturall mother for it is one thing to bee called a mother by name an other thing too bee a naâ—urall mother in deede After the same maner fareth it with the Sacramentes in the which must be considered not what they bee but what they be called and wherfore they be so called For euen amongest vs in our dayly and vsual speaâ—hes as also in the Scriptures chiefly many thinges are many times beautified or described by strange names where notwithstanding no alteration is made of substance but the reason and cause that mooued the holy ghost to name it so is noted After the same maner Christ doth call bread his body not meaning thereby to transubstantiate the substance of the one into the other neither was it to any purpose at all to haue done so but to expresse the power of his passion for this cause therefore hee tooke the bread and cup of wine and called them his body and blood which he would giue for the sins of the world Neither did he only cal them so but also did deliuer them in his last supper to bee eaten and drunken in steede of his body and blood In like maner before Supper he vouchsafed by a like Figuratiue phrase of speache too call his owne fleshe meate and feeding bread from heaueâ— But least any man may fayle in the propertie of woordes I thinke it good too hearken vnto Augustines couâ—salie who discoursing vpoÌ„ the 33. Psalm of Dauid wâ—erin it is said that Dauid did change his couÌ„tenance before Abimelech alias before Achis he doeth transpose this figuratiue speach of chaunged couÌ„tenance to y â— words of Christe vttered touching the supper of his body blood For as Dauid is saide to haue dissembled in countenance before Achis the king seeming outwardly otherwise then hee was inwardly After the selfe same maner of speache the Lorde himselfe treating of his fleshe and blood doeth seeme in Augustines iudgement as it were
changing countenance before Achis to wit an ignorant king to expresse one thing in vtter shewe of woordes and to conceale an other thing in a secrete mysterie before the Capernaites to wit a grosse ignorant people Wherevpon Augustine commaundeth vs to knock here bicause there is some hidden thing shut vp in this place and not to sticke too much to the letter which killeth but exhorteth vs to rayse our selues too the spirituall sense which doeth geue lyfe Because the spirituall vnderstanding sayth he doeth make him that doth beleeue to be safe And proceeding forward in the same comparison wherein he compareth Achis the king That is to saye the kingdome of error with the Capernaites Dauid with Christe hee inferreth on this wise when our Lorde Iesus spake of his bodyâ— except yee eate my flesh and drink my blood the disciples did abhorre this speache because they vnderstoode it not For the Lorde in the chaunge of his countenance seemed vnto them to bee halfe frantike when he spake of eating his fleshe therefore they supposed that the Lorde seemed besides himselfe knowing not what he spake and as it were halfe mad But he seemed so to be vnto Achis the king that is to say to fooles and to ignorant men and therefore hee forsooke them and went his way or rather they forsooke him because this speache seemed very hard vnto them when as notwithstanding the speach was not hard but they rather hard dul of vnderstanding not the speache Who if had not departed from him but abidden still with the Apostles hee had instructed them plainly howe they shoulde haue conceaued the sense of the woordes as hee taught the other Apostles when hee tolde them It is the Spirite that quickneth for the fleshe profiteth nothing My woordes which I haue spoken vntoo you bee spirite and life As though hee had saide according to the interpretation of Augustine Understande yee my wordes which I haue spoken spiritually This body which you see shall yee not eate nor drinke that blood which the Iewes shall shed out of my side I haue deliuered you a certaine Sacrament the same being spiritually vnderstood wil quickeÌ„ you Wherby no man can be so blockish except he be altogether void of sense what the purpose of the Lorde was in the Action of this Supper â—nd howe hee woulde haue our hearts minds affected towards these misteries with what mouth and by what instrumentes hee woulde haue vs too receiue this bread of his body Wherby his purpose was to make plain demonstration vnto vs of the spiritual efficacie of his passion and our faith on him which hee coulde not haue done by any so fitte similitudes as by setting downe these chiefe and pâ—incipall stayes and supportes as it were of this preseÌ„t life which do serue for the daily foode and necessary nourishement of the bodie I haue hitherto nowe manifested a cause sufficient enough except I be deceiued that moued our Lorde to institute this sacrament of his body and blood in bread and wyne Namely to represent the power and efficacie of his most ghostly and comfortable death not onely to our faith and remembrance but to our senses also by a most apte similitude Which similitude beeing not able to be made consonant by any meanes without bread and wyne hereof therefore commeth it to passe that reteining bread we doe admitte here a necessarie figuratiue speeche whereby wee doe most truely call bread by the name of Christes body and the body of Christe by the name of the bread of life For if it might bee lawefull for Lombard too vse this kynde of speeche In bread that is to saye in forme of bread in the sacrament that is to saye in the visible forme Againe wheresoeuer part of the bodie is there is the whole c. which can not be spoken of any man without a figure Why then shall it not bee as lawefull for vs by the same figure to affirme that bread is the body of Christe that bread doth signifie the body of Christ as well as Lombarde can winke in his owne proper conceit and saye The visible fourme is bread the forme that is to say the bread doth signifie the body of Christe It remaineth now that you holy father with your cowled cloysterers render vs a cause likewise why yee driue the bread out of the sacrament like a runneaway Why in this case you will not admitte a figure in any case For this is your doctrine that in the sacrament no bread is eaten but the very body of Christe simply naturally and really Go to what was the cause at the length why the Lorde him selfe should either deliuer vnto his guestes his owne naturall fleshe to be deuoured or why doe ye suppose that we ought to beleeue the same to bee true you will aunswere that hee did it to the ende hee might feede our frayle weake and vncleane fleshe with his most holy fleshe Of the very same opinion were the Capernaites wandring in the same mismaze long before your dayes and being offended as Cyrill reporteth with the wordes of the Lord reuolâ—ed from him The same answere therefore which they receiued of the Lorde be yee satisfied withal at this present The flesh saith hee profiteth nothing at all that is to saye Christe did not meane here his naturall flesh simply which being borne for vs crucified for vs and risen againe doth profite very much in deede but hee did meane of our eating his body According to which kinde of eating if Christ do plainly confesse that his flesh is altogether vnprofitable will you grounde all the commoditie and profit of the sacrament in the eating of his fleshe And after this will exact of vs also that forsaking the very meaning and open exposition of Christ him selfe who doth testifie that his wordes be spirit and life should accept this your childish grammaticall construction of the fleshly deuouring naturall fleshe for sounde and catholike diuinitie But here againe will some one of you steppe foorth like a tall felowe and saye when the Lorde spake those wordes of his body he vttered no sillable or terme of signifying Neither did he speake thus This doth signifie my body but did professe simply without all figure this is my body But this trymmetraâ—â—ne so nicely conned out Augustine will easely vnlose vnto vs. Who writing against Adimantus doth amongest other rules recited in the nature of a signe reckoÌ„ vp this same very speech in the Gospell The Lorde saieth Augustine doâ—ted nothing to saye This is my body when hee gaue a signe of his bodye Uerily if he gaue a signe of his body he could not choose but giue somewhat wherein hee might signifie his body although there bee no woorde significant expressed In like maner neither was any woorde significant vttered by the Apostle when hee spake of the Rocke as the same Augustine witnesseth for the Apostle sayed not
eate not the blood for the blood is the life therefore thou maiest not eate the blood with the fleshe Nowe therefore what maner of â—uersion not obseruation of Gods lawe is this what a disagreemente and vnlikenesse is this betwixt the olde Testament and the newe That which the father forbiddeth the sonne commaundeth that which not onely nature doth vtterly condemne but also the fathers commaundement by most special law hath abolished shal Christ the sonne of God the most seuere keeper of the lawe bring the same againe into vse God forbid hee neuer did it hee neuer willed it he neuer thought it neither was hee able to commit so grosse an absurditie without great prediudice of the law and nature it selfe neyther doe thou imagine euer any suche thing in thy minde gentle Reader Christâ— did neuâ—r bryng in any suche enormitie but the Paâ—ists a deteâ—table and sauadge kinde of people altogeather contrary to Christes meaning and contrary too all lawe and rule not only of all nature but of Scripture it selfe They doe gnawe vppon the woordâ—s as vppon the fleshe of the letter which if be construed in their right sense nothing can be more heauenly but yf carnally nothing câ—n bee more damnable But if wee will needes bee so precise about the woordes of Christâ— Why then by the same Argument of Christes omnipotencie let vs turne Peter into a Rocke of Stoneâ— and a Stone into Christe and Christes fleshe into Table meate For neither when he called bread his body which hee woulde geue for vs noting thereby the power and effâ—cacie of his passion did these woordes tende to that ende to institute some transmutation of Creatures by any hidden myracle or that departing out of the earth with his body to leaue his body behinde him or else why shoulde hee commaunde it too bee eaten if his will had beene too haue it reserued for a token but Christe did vnderstande by these woordes an other maner of thing being matter of farre greater and deeper mysterie For he deliuered a Sacrament which being vnderstoode spiritually doth geue life but beâ—ng carnally vnderstoodeâ— doeth kyll For flesh according too the testimonie of Christe him selfe doeth not proâ—ite any thing at all But howe can it bee apâ—ly saide that this moste holy fleshe doeth proâ—ite nothing at all What did not the fleshe of Christe borne for vs baptized for vs and slaine for vs profite Yes truely very muche But our treatise heere concerneth not the very substaunce of his flesh nor yâ—t his heauenly Actions in the fleshe but only our fleshly eating of his naturall fleshe in this Sacrament which shoulde auaile vs nought at all too eternall life tâ—ough wee eate thereof with our mouthes a thousande times whereof the Lord himselfe meaning to aduertise the Capernaites not altogether obscurely who did wrest these wordes to the carnall and fleshly sense and meaning of eating saide vnto them these wordes My woordes are spirite and life The fleshe doeth not profite at all Which wordes doe tende too this construction at the last You doe conceiue of these woordes which I spake touching the eating of my fleshe too too grossely and carnally and farre otherwise then my meaning is for I did neither speake them in any suche sense as that I would inuite you to the deuouring of my person for what can bee more absurde Neither did I take vppon mee this fleshe too any suche ende as too fill your throates and belies therewith For what commoditie shoulde thereby redownde vnto you that was not my meaning but too the ende I shoulde geue the same to bee slaine for your sakes which slaughter of my fleshe beyng apprehended of you spiritually by faith and inwardly disgested within your heartes shall refreshe you much more effectually then Moyses refreshed your bellies with his Manna for it shall reuiue you with a liuely life not perishable and temporall but eternall and it shall satisfie your hunger not that hunger which will bee hungry again but which shall replenish you being full fed with euerlasting felicitie in such wise as that you shal from thence foorth neuer bee hungry any more Whereupon those his woordes are not without cause called spirite and life not wherewith he turned bread into fleshe but whereâ—ith he represented the efficacie of his fleshe which was slaine for vs and of his blood which was shedde for vs vnder the mysteries of bread and wine And on this wise in deede the fleshe of Christ not in that sense as it is eaten but in that whereby our faith is reposed in him is become altogiâ—her profitable vnto vs. It seemeth vnto me nowe that I haue spoken sufficiently of this matter if I anâ—exe one thing more Whervnto I woulde verie faine heare what aunswere these Laterane breade flesh makers will make who thinke it not sufficient to turne breade and wine into a Sacrament of the bodie and blood by the diuine power of the woorde vnlesse by a certaine kinde of Alcumie they poure foorth substaunce of things from out one substance into an other and so produce out of the substaunce of breade and wine a certaine contrarie nature of mans flesh and blood and make thereof some certaine quinte essence And goe to nowe to yeelde thus much to their Alcumistical chaunge to wit that nothing remayneth in the Sacrament besides the onely substaunce of the bodie and blood I come nowe not to enquire in what mynute of time in what instant of pronouncing the woorde this transubstantiation taketh his first commencement of being created For the Popes themselues cannot yet agree vpon this poynt This thing do I demaund After that this same bodie of our Lorde being once deuoured by vs doeth passe once downe into the bowels and resteth within our bodies whether it remaine whole there without all kinde of disgestion or whether the substaunce of that fleshe doe growe through naturall concoction into and increase the substaunce of our fleshe If they graunt this it must needes then come to passe thereby that the vndefiled and pure fleshe of Christ swallowed vy vs and conuerted into the substaunce of our mortal and corrupt nature must become one and the selfsame flesh with our corruâ—t flâ—sh For as bread and wine according to the testâ—monâ—e of Damascen by eating and drinking is transposed into the bodie blood of the person that eateth and drinketh euen so the flesh and blood of Christ if they bee receyued really as they tearme it into our bodies must needes be transubstantiatâ—d vnited into our owne flesh and blood Hereof therefore must it folow of verie necessâ—â—ie that the â—lesh of Christ being nowe made our fleshe shall be sinfull flesh which were horrible to bee spoken yea not onely sinfull but also as our fleshe doeth corrupt and waxe rotten withall so the same corruption must of necessitie happen vnto the flesh of Christ as well as into ours if according to Dâ—mascene we bee concorporate and
manly but brutyshe and sauadgely vnder what fourme so euer it bee couered and hydden Wherefore this loathesomnes doth not consiste in the rawenes but in the very humayne fleshe not in the beholding but in the nature of the thinge it selfe not in that which the eye doth beholde but in that which the heart doth conceyue For if according too the olde prouerbe the wolfe will not deuoure wolues fleshe nor the dogge dogges fleshe is there any man beeing of any manly nature that woulde not abhorre to bee fedde with mans fleshe vnder whatsoeuer fourme it were shrowded or doe ye thinke that Christe did euer conceiue any such matter as when hee helde the bread in his handes wherewith he determined to feede his disciples would therefore exclude bread quyte out of doores to the ende hee might gorge the mawes of men carnally with his naturall fleshe beeing both rawe and aliue contrary to nature without any necessitie without all cause altogether vnprofitable and frutelesse Wherfore you doe not by this meanes exclude lothsomenes from out the sacred mysteries Lombard when you turne the fourmes of bread and wyne into the fleshe of Christe but you choppe a loathsomnes in rather so that nowe this supper may seeme not honourable but horrible if so be that excluding bread and wyne this bee true that you speake that there remayneth nowe nothing to eate but the substaunce of flesh and blood which substance neuerthelesse ye will not vouchsafe to be seene in it owne kynde but vnder an other kynde Wherein ye become two maner of wayes iniurious to the sacrament coupling together therewith a twofolde absurditie First bicause you defraude the fourmes and accidentes of bread of their true and proper subiect Secondly bicause you doe in like maner robbe the very naturall substance of the body of his proper accidentes so that nowe there remayneth neither any substaunce of bread at all nor any fourme of a body on this wyse the Poetes as it seemeth were wonte to describe their Chymeres Neuerthelesse this is not spokeÌ„ to that end as though we would banishe Christe cleane out of the sacrament or that we might seclude our selues from partaking with the holy bodie of Christ in this heauenly Supper But for this reason chiefly y t this holy CoÌ„munion may be cleared from all grosse absurditie If you will demaunde by what meanes Ambrose will answere you verie learnedly who will tel you that ye drinke out of the holie cuppe not blood it selfe but the likenesse of blood rendering the reason why bycause it shall breede sayeth he no loathsomnesse to the stomack And againe in another place hee doeth beare vs witnesse that wee receyue the Sacrament in a likenesse That which Ambrose doth verifie of the likenesse others doe affirme in a figure in a mysterie in a Type in a memoriall Moreouer the same Ambrose writing of the Eucharist sayeth It is the memoriall of our redemption And bycause we be enfranchised by the death of the Lorde wee doe signifie our mindfulnesse of the same death in eating drinking the Lords blood which were offered for vs. And again in the same place The blood saith he is a testimonie of Gods great liberalitie in the Type whereof we doe receiue the mystical cuppe of the blood to the preseruation of bodie and soule Where he calleth the Mystâ—cal cuppe a Type Nowe who is so vnskilful that knoweth not that a Type doeth signifie nothing else than a forme a likenesse and an example Agaiâ—e who knoweth not what great diuersitie there is betwixt likenesse and trueth it selfe and that they bee so contarie eche to other that they cannot agree togither by any meanes Whereby you may learne two things Lombarde both that the horror is taken away and that the substaunce of breade and wine abydeth neuerthelesse still vnempaired All which beeing thus concluded vpon as appeareth by plaine demonstration before all that your lying and false assertion infringible as you tearme it is become windshaken altogither wherewith you mainteyne so stoute a combate for the kingdome of accidentes and your transubstantiation as that yee leaue no place nor space for breade and wine in the Sacrament but calling all backe to visible fourmes plant all your whole batterie of the materiall part of the Sacrament vpon these buttresses of shadowes onely Which fourmes though retaine still the names of the things which they were before yet doe ye denie them to be the very thinges themselues Wherevpon if at any time the names of breade and wine doe occurre in the holy Fathers of the Church the same ye teache to be vnderstoode on this wise To witte that they bee called breade and wine not in respect that they be so but bycause they were once so and that the very substance thereof is gone farre away and that therein is nought resiant nowe that is elemental besides the onely names of elementes and emptie fourmes onely of breade and wine the names whereof they doe reteyne still but haue vtterly lost the verie substaunces themselues and do conteyne nought else now besides the naturall and substanciall bodie of Christ by the which bodie neither bee the fourmes affected nor doth the bodie affect the fourmes Loe this nowe is your gay diuinitie in describing the Sacrament the which howe agreeth with the Scriptures with the iudgementes of the auncient Faâ—hers with the antiquitie of the purer primitiue Church â—nd with fayth it selfe nay rather howe farre and wide it is dissonant and diâ—crepant from all truth and reason it shall not bee amisse to discouer in fewe woordes for I thinke it not coâ—uenient to vse many wordes herein And first wheÌ„ we heare that saying of Paul Let a man proue himselfe and so let him eate of that breade and drinke of that cuppe c. May any man bee so boyde of reason to affirme this to be spoken touching the fourmes and not the materiall part of breade and wine for what shall we say may any man ymagine that to eate to breake to eate of the breade to drinke of the cuppe is to bee referred to emptie and bare shadowes of bread and wine onely and not to the naturall breade In the Decrees is a certaine â—entence extant vouched out of Hylarie whereof we made mention before The bodie of Christ sayth he that is receiued of the altar is a figure whiles the bread wine are apparantly seene with eyes but it is the very body when the inward fayth apprehendeth it for the bodie and blood of Christ. c. To the same effect and in like plaine phrase of speech writeth Cyprianus The Lorde sayth Cyprian did vouchsaâ—e to call wine by the name of his blood the liquor which was enforced by the presse out of the grapes and clusters and made into wine c. For what shal we say do we easily wring accidents of wine out of grapes clusters not rather the very substancial liquor of
an Apostle or els as a Bishop Let the bishop of Rome vnloose me this knotte But this is out of all question If Peter taught at Rome at all standing or sitting in a chaire surely he taught alwayes Iesus Christ. But you holy father sitting in the Romish chayre at Rome what teache you but the doctryne of deuils Peter did boldly proclayme to the worlde the manyfest scriptures of God which he receaued by diuine inspiration of the holy Ghost being an eye witnes of the things which he heard and taught But what doth your holines bray foorth else to the people but fryuolous ceremonies and fruitlesse traditions of men If Peter came at any tyme to Rome he came not thither vnlesse he were sent by God or called thither by men and then also came too mynister not to beare soueraignty to work not to skrape riches togither as a trauailer not as an ydle sitter But who euer called you to this stately stage of chayre lordelynesse Goo ye saieth the Lorde not into the Citie of Rome but intoo the whole worlde speaking not too Peter alone but to all his Apostles and preache not the ceremonies of the lawe not traditions of men but the gladde tydings of sauing health not to the Romaines only but to euery creature In which vniuersall embassy Peter togither with the rest of his fellowe labourers did mightely behaue himselfe in the ministery of the Gospel according to his duety and the nature of his function leauing no â—otte of the vttermoste of his duety vndone wherby in his wandring abroade amongst people and nations hee might teache al that hee might not onely publiquely but priuately also in euery house might be earnest in season and out of season might sowe abroade fâ—â—re and wyde the most ioyefull message and gladde tydinges of peace might perfourme the woorke of a true Euangelist might approue himselfe too bee a trusty seruaunt of Christ might become an ouersear ouer the house of Israel might receaue the woordes and embassy of God and the same so receaued might faythfully deliuer to the people might shewe himselfe to bee salt of the earth light of the woorde not feeding himself but the flocke not seeking his owne glory or priuate lâ—cre but the only honor of Christ not entruding himselfe in to the publique affaires of ciuil pollicie but seruing the Lorde not exercising soueraigntie ouer the seruauntes of God nor procuring that others shoulde mynister vnto him but that after his maisters example hee might become seruaunt to others rather and in no respect aboue any other but acknowledging al other bishops to be equal with him and in dignitie name calling them fellow elders yelding his dewe obedience to Princes as being sent of God giuing vnto Cesar things apperteyning vnto Cesar whome also he disdained not to call by the name of his Lorde and Soueraigne On this wyse except I be deceaued Peter spent his tyme which as was a charge of al others most laboursome so was there in the worlde nothing more humble base If we leuel our Popes lyues now by this rule and perpendicular I beseeche you what one thing doo they in Rome now wherein they may seeme not only not to be Peters successors but meere straungers rather and alyens vnto him Esay the prophet doth wonderfully commende the feete of the Apostles preaching vpon the tops of mountaynes and proclayming peace bringing glad tydings and preaching saluation Nowe as for these whither go they vnto what people and nations flee they as clowdes what peace proclaime they Nay rather what peace do they not ouerthrowe what good tydinges preache they Nay rather of what mischief are they not the very authors what wholesome doctryne teache they the Gospel of Christ nay rather they locke vp the Gospel fast in prisonâ— They challenge to themselues the propertie of the keyes but therewith they shut vp not open the kingdome of heauen They make themselues treasorers of woonderful yea inestimable treasures of the Churche as if they were the onely treasorers of heauenly treasory And what good or commendable iewelles of pryce doo these famous iewellers deliuer out of these treasories Forsooth for pure gold drosse chaffe Popishe pardones for the grace of God for Christ his most precious blood ragges and reliques of Saincts Peter did gaine vnto Christ at one preaching three thousande â—oules but howe doo these merchauntes choppe and chaunge their wares what gaine yeelde they nay what losse rather It was not without cause that a certaine Israelite Prophet seemed so grieuously offended against that sorte of sheaperdes which did feede themselues and not the flocke which cloathing their bodyes with the woolle pampering their paunches with the milke made litle accompt of the seely sheepe the weak they strengthened not the sick they healed not nor bouÌ„d vppe the broken and brused nor sought that which was lost but with cruelty and with rigour did rule ouer them In like maner what doo these else then ply their paunches delicately not caring what become of the flocke whereof not one so much becoÌ„meth better by their industry not one restoared to health not one a title so much the more learned towardes the kingdome of God themselues teache nothing nor can disgeste others that teache soundly and truly the woorde of God they deliuer not but keepe it close from the people they take no paines at al only they lie lazilie at home like dumme dogs luâ—king in their Laterane measuring and apporcioring by ynchmeale as it were all the compasse of purgatory and all manner the punishementes thereof where they plundge some poore soules intoo deepe pittes boyling with fire and brimstone other some for a fewe pence they plucke out againe They appoint special and priuate Masses to be solempnly mumbled vp in all corners of their Churches they sitte bussing about their holy mysteries whyspering in an vnknowne tongue the sacrament they blaze aloft to the gaze of the people not to be eaten but to be worshipped of them and the same also in open daylight they carry abroade a procession vppon a whyte ambling palfray attended with torchelight belles and banners if any solemnytie or triumphe happeÌ„ to be With besmeared greasy fingers they consecrate oyle waxe salte water belles chalices altars and coapes They make open markets of iubiles Graces immunities expectations preuentions Annates palles bulles indulgences and pardons What do they thinke these knackes to be sufficient warrants towardes the creation of the vicar of Christ or to the establishing of Apostolicke succession on earth and that some one wretched caytif not for any singular excellency of fayth or vertue wherein hee surpasseth others but for a most fryuolous tytle of place and chayre only wherein hee may bee enstalled which may aswell happen to the most doltish asse in the worlde as to some woorthy or famous personage may of right clayme soueraigntie ouer the Churche of God for sitting in that chayre onely and therein
bodie in deede And in verie deed if it had not bene bread Christ would not in any wise haue giuen forth that it should be eateÌ„ corporally bicause to maâ—e mans flesh mans blood vnder whatsoeuer shew it be shadowed to seeme agreeable for table meate is not only forbidden by the prescript law of God as is said before but also most lothsome and abhorred of nature it selfe It remayneth now sithence wee haue treated of the matter of the sacrament that we speake now of the thing it selfe which is signified by this Sacrament And for as much as all Sacraments which according to their proper natures are defined to be visible signes of inuisible grace are sayde to be of the nature of those things which the Grecians call 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and with vs bee named Relatiuesâ— can any man doubt hereof That the body of Christ can not possibly be the Sacrament of it owne selfe As the father is not a father of himselfe but of the Sonne as it proceedeth not of the Sonne to bee called sonne in respect of himselfe but of the father so can it not possibly be but that in the Sacramentes two distinct and seuerall thinges must concurre as Irene witnesseth to witte an earthly thing and an heauenly the one wherof must represent a likenesse and a signe the other must bee signified For wheresoeuer a signe is there of necessitie must somewhat bee signified Here therefore that which supplieth the place of the signe is the bread without all question That which is signified by this sacramentall signe no man will denie to bee the bodie of Christ. In the one whereof is conteyned the Sacrament in the other the matter of the SacrameÌ„t Whervpon ensueth an vnauoydable conclusion That either the bodie of Christ crucified for vs being the verie thing of the Sacrament is not the verie Sacramental signe that is eaten in the Supper or else can not by any possible meanes bee the selfe thing which is represented by the signe Therfore that which we do eate with our mouthes is bread but that which is vnderstoode is the flesh The first whereof wee receyue with our mouth the other with our Spirite And for the same cause Ierome doeth call it spiâ—ituall fleshe whâ—se authoritie Peter Lombarde cytâ—th in the same cause saying The fleshe and blood of Christ muâ—â— bee vnderstoode two maner of wayes eyther that which was crucified or that spiriâ—uall and heauenly fâ—eshe whereof Christ spake himselfe My fleshe is meate in deede and my blood is drinke in deede Neither can there bee any cause rendered why Ierome shoulde call it the fleshe of Christ other then bycause wee doe receyue it with our spiritual mouthes and not with our fleshly mouthes for if it were not so whâ— doth not knowe that the fleshe of Christ giuen for the life of the worlde wheresoeuer it be is not spiritual but in the verie nature thereof naturally carnall But Peter Lombarde doeth denie that any crumme of the breade at all doeth remaine besides bare formes which onely do reteyne the names of the naturall things which they were before What And did Christe therefore feede his Disciples with Mathematicall formes and names of things without the verie naturall things themselues No say you but vnder those shadowes and accidents of breade and wine the verie substance of flesh and blood is receyued And why doeth Ierome then call this by the name of spiritual fleshe of Christ ought it therefore be called the spiritual flesh of Christ bicause being shrowded vnder outwarde cloakes of formes and shadowes it deliuereth it self into our bodies And what if this visible Sunne being ouershadowed with clowdes and rackes doe not appeare plainly to our sight wheras notwithstanding it doth enlighten the whole worlde on all partes thereof shall we therefore call the Sunne a spirituall Sunne bycause it is bidden with thicke and darke clowdes Go to then where is nowe that similitude or likenesse that is required in all Sacramentes to witte of the signe with the thing signified if you will leaue vnto vs no substance at all except of the bodie and blood onely What then Shal the bodie of Christ be both a signe and a Sacrament of himselfe No say you but that visible forme of bread which is made a Sacrament of two thinges bycause it signifieth bath to witte the true bodie and the mysticall and doth represent the expresse likenesse of both the things Go to Let vs heare our maister of sentences opinion in this matter what maner of similitude this is and howe it is expressed Bicause as the bread sayth he doth nourish the body more than any other graine and bicause wine doeth comfort more than any other grape Euen so the flesh of Christ doeth comfort cherish and make glad the inward man This is well sayd Lombard in dâ—â—de But how wil you now agree with your selfe thâ—n As the bread say you doth nourish the bodie But howe shall the bread refresh or nourish the bodie if yee leaue vs not so much as one crumme of breade in the Supper Howe shall the visible fourme of breade nowe without breade be a Sacrament of two thinges and carrie the likenâ—sse of both For if the likenesse of a Sacrament consist in this that it is sayde to refreshe and nourish questionlesse the breade must needes remaine or else the visible forme without bread can be no Sacrament nor shall carie any likenesse at all For what nourishment can bare superficiall formes voyde of al substance yeeld or what likenesse can there be in these in respect of the flesh of Christ nourishing the inward man What aunswere will Lombarde make here hee will crowde vnder his trope anâ— Grammer figure Metonymia Wherewith it lyketh him well to sport himselfe in his owne â—orged fourmes but will not suffer vs to deale with aâ—y trope at all in substaunces by any meanes The fourmes sayeth hee doe retaine the names of the things whâ—reof they were substaunces before namely bread and wine What do I heare Were these mere accidents at any time euer called by the names of the things then when as they conteyned the substances of bread and wine and why should the very same seuered nowe from the other reteine the names of those thinges which are sayde they neuâ—r helde before But it was breade that is to say as you consâ—er itâ— Breade was present before the Consecration Be it so And what hereof then After the Consâ—cration remayneth no substaunce of breade anâ—e more Why so I pâ—ay you Lombarde Howe knowe you this By what argument doe you prooue it By what authoritâ—e do you beleeue this Who commaunded this to â—â—e beleeued who did suâ—der the substance of breade from the formes With what woordes in what instant of time what shoulde moue him to doe so who euer discerned any rending asunder of substances or any passage â—â—ansubâ—â—anâ—iarie But you
in substaunce but in the respect of the sacrament vse likenesse aud denomination the holy body of Christ. Therefore that which wee receaue in our mouth is natural bread but in respect of the eating this nature is not regarded of vs but raysing our hartes much more high euen intoo heauen yea vntoo the heauens of heauens as Chrysostome reporteth it doth meditate vpon farre more excellent matter And heereof came it that the auncient wryters did so vsually extol the magnyficence of this sacramente with such excellency in olde tyme. Wherein they wâ—re many tymes rapted intoo such a wonderful vehemency of hyperbolicall speeches as though the bread and wine were in very deede matter of nought and that nothing els should seeme to be made accompt of in the celebration of the supper but the body and blood of the Lord onely As in very deede these dead elementes be no better worth in respect of the body which they do represent But what hereof then Shall the elementes of bread and wyne bee therefore no parte of the sacrament bicause the consideration of the Lordes body doth possesse the principall partes and holdeth the whole soule attentiue and faste fixed vpon it Or shall Christe bee therefore sayde too haue transposed the substance of bread and wine intoo his naturall body really bicause hee hath chaunged the same intoo the sacrament of his body Or by what argument will our aduersaries make this their assertion iustifiable For if God and nature do bring to passe no one thing in the whole frame of creation without great cause It remaineth that we may bee made acquainted too what ende for what cause to what vse or to what purpose Christe should make this Metamorphosis That thrusting away bread from out it owne substance he should deliuer ouer his true naturall fleshe in deede but inuisible to be deuoured carnally with the carnall mouth of the body vnder inuisible formes But here againe startes vp our Lombard a gods name and will render vs a tryple cause of this great mysterie to wit why the Lord would so liberally bestowe his natural flesh and blood to be deuoured not after a fleshly maner but vnder an other kinde naturally and in deede but inuisibly First bicause faith should obteine a more excellent rewarde where mans reason is not able by proofe to attaine according to the testimonie of Gregory whom hee vouâ—heth Secondly bicause the minde should not abhorre that which the eye might beholde for that otherwise the stomake of them that should eate would loathe â—he straunge deuouring of rawe fleshe Thirdly bicause nothing should be seene here thaâ— might bee offensiue to the vnbeleeuers or that might mynister occasion to the infidell to scorne and deride it You haue heard now the prety poppet reasons patchâ— vp in the chief shoppe of Lombards diuinitie It remaineth hencefoorth that wee searche the very depth of them And first where as hee reasoneth of the merite of faith I will not deny but that in matters of fayth mans reason is not of any such capacitie too attayne thereto For the excellencie of fayth is conuersant in those things properly which the fleshly eyes can not see or which haue beene knowen by the scriptures to haue beene already past either which are promised shall come in after time Moreouer I am not offended with that no lesse auncient then true proposition of Gregorie where treating of the Lordes entering vnto the disciples the gates beeing shut hee doth deny that faith ought to haue any merite where mans reason caÌ„ make proofe by experience For we doe confesse and beleeue this to be most true that which the scriptures haue deliuered touching the gates being shut and of the Lordes entrie in But wher did the scriptures at any tyme make neuer so litle a motion of the casting away of bread of the essentiall presence of Christe vnder empty formes or of transubstantiated elementes Blessed be they sayeth Christe which haue not seene yet haue beleeued This is true I confesse but it followeth not therefore that all thinges which are not seene with the eyes ought to be beleeued Neither doe we not therefore relinquishe the reach of mans reason bicause wee doe not yelde to all maner trifling imaginarie coÌ„ceiptes Whatsoeuer is commaunded by the prescript word of God the same we do firmely and faithfully beleeue and thereunto with most forewarde and ready faith do submitte all maner force of mans reason But who euer gaue any such commaundement to beleeue that which you haue forged touching that most senselesse absurditie of transubstantiation or by what authorised woorde of scripture at the length will you make iustifiable by writing or by meaning that we ought to adore though our eyes see not that your conterfaict person of the sonne of God shapen out of bread and set out to be adored and eaten of vs Fayth therefore wanteth not her merite in thinges that ought truly to be beleeued which by expresse and vndouted auâ—thoritie of the word be to be iustified But to beleeue â—he things which are noâ— grounded vpon the wâ—â—d which are no where nor were euer instituted by God but drowsily deuised by fonde foolish vanitie of mans idle imagination is no matter of faith at all but amazed â—rensy rather nor hath any merite at al but is extrâ—eme wickednesse So also is that other absurditie no lesse ridiâ—ulous which he doth inferre touching the infidels least ocâ—asion be giueÌ„ saith he to the infidels to laugh it 〈◊〉 scorne Why should the infidels deride it I beseeche you Lombardâ— you do aunswere bicause it would breede great offence to the vnbeleeuers who without all question would loath scorne the Christian religion if 〈◊〉 should â—eâ— the blood of a slaine man in the sacrament Go to then doth this seme to be the cause why y e Lord should deliuer his body blood not after a fleshly maner but vnder an other forme lest if the Pagans should seâ— it they should coÌ„ceiue matter to laugh it too scorne for this seemeth your allegatiâ—n w t yâ—â— seeme also to haue â—onâ—ed â—onningly out of August very wellâ— And what shal we say then to the Apostles them selues were they Pagans vnbeleeuing also why did he not giue the cup of his blood to his Apostles in his proper nature kinde where was no daÌ„ger at all to procure any mockage or if hee were willing to hyde his blood vnder a sacramentall forme aunswere I praye you what cause was there why the Lorde should vouchsafe the deliuerie thereof by formes rather then by materiall bread Besides this as concerning the Paganes if Christe did feare the scornings of Paganes so much I desyre Lombard to tell mee thus much againe If some one Pagane shoulde happen too come nowe into your temples and beholde your massinges maskings what greater occasion can be ministred too mooue them to laughter and skorning then when hee should see
the whole swarme of Papistes in most humble wyse to fall groueling on the grounde too lifte vp their handes too heauen and to knocke their breastes at the heauing vp of one poore peece of bread ouer a shauelings head I beseech you syr woulde hee not saye that they were all the pack of them starke madde Nay rather doe not the Iewes Turkes and Infidels dayly saye euen so at this present And I knowe not whether by any one action more then by this kynde of massing it is come too passe that the same Iewes Turkes and Infidelles taking occasion of offence do as yet hitherto so obstinately absteyne from the participation of our fayth But wee are choaked here with a very harde boane by the which as through the woordes of Augustine picked out I knowe not from whence who too auoyde the scornes of vnbeleeuers doth teache that wee doe receyue the likenesse of blood in such wyse as that the true bodie neuerthelesse doth meane whyles abyde vnremoueable which wordes as they preiudice our cause nothing at all so doe they in no respect auayle our aduersaries For to admitte that the likenesse of a sacrament is giuen vnto vs in the sacrament yet is it no gooâ— consequent foorth with that the very reall and naturall blood is giuen in deede Or if it might bee admitted that the same might be giuen so after a certen maner yet the truthe of the thing it selfe doeth represent it selfe vnto vs after the same maner as the likenesse is presented vnto the eyes but by an other meane Nowe if you will knowe what meane that is Ambrose will set it downe vnto you You doe receiue the likenesse of the sacrament sayeth Ambrose but you doe obteyne the grace and power of the nature it selfe In which woordes you doe see both the likenesse and the trueth also of the Lordes bodie withall expresly set downe the one whereof must be present yet so that the other be not wanting But if you demaunde further howe it is not wanting and if you bee not satisfied with Ambrose then shall Hilarie explane it vnto you much more effectually who writing of the true presence of the body in most excellent woordes on this wyse The body of Christe sayeth hee that is receiued of the altar is a figure whyles the bread and wyne bee outwardly seene but it is the true body when the inwarde faith doth apprehende the body and blood of Christ c. I come nowe to the thirde fine reason of Lombard which is alleadged touching the loathing and horrour For thus he speaketh And for this cause also that the stomacke should not abhorre that which the eye did see bycause wee doe not accustome our selues to deuoure rawe fleshe and blood Goe to and what followeth then therefore bicause it is not lawefull too deuoure Christe with teeth for this cause his pleasure was too deliuer vnto vs fleshe and blood in a mysterie c. I doe perceiue what you speake Lombard and allowe thereof but howe will you nowe agree with your selfe for you deny it too bee lawefull too deuoure Christe with the teethe And howe then is hee not deuoured with teethe if ye establishe an essentiall nature of his body really in the sacrament you saye that hee deliuered vs his flâ—sh and blood in a mysterie This is truely spoken in deede but howe shall these Iermaines lippes hange together that the body of Christe is giuen in a mysterie and with all in very deede to be deuoured and not to be deuoured with teeth and not with teeth For if in the Greeke tongue a Mystery is all one in effect as in our language a sacrament And if the sacrament bee a signe of an holy thing nowe he that giueth his body in a mystery what doth he giue els then a signe of his body notwithstanding I am not ignorant of al these your iuggling and caffling which you frequent about sacramentall signes vnder the which you mainteine sturdely that the true and vndouted body of Christe though not apparant to the eyes yet is conteined and eaten really and substantially by an inuisible meane I beseeche you Lombard what reason hath this your diuinitie or rather drowsy slumber to call vs to a supper to prepaâ—â— feast to set downe in a dishe the very reall substantiall and whole fleshly body of Christe whereof the gueste that is inuited can not perceiue nor see either forme or substaÌ„ce But you will saye that the mysterie of the whole sacrament consisteth in the same to wit that we should not dout that the substance of the body is moâ—t truely present and eaten also bodily and really though wee see not the thing it selfe that we doe eate but you fall here into the elenche logicall called Petitio principii â— For howe shall this appeare that the Lordes pleasure was that wee should eate the same which we do see It was â—one to this ende saye you that the stomake should not loath that which the eye did see Admit this to be true that this spectacle of the rawe flesh of a slaine maÌ„ be as you saye very greuous and loathsome to a queysie stomake Yet doth it not folloâ—e forthwith hereupon that the body of Christe is conteined vnder an other forme really bicause it is set forth in his owne â—orme should become loathsome therefore Neither is this kinde of arguing suffâ—cient enough as I suppose the eye can not behâ—lâ—e the rawe fleshe of Christe in it owne kynde and forme without horror Ergo Chrisâ—es rawe fleshe is swallowed vp really and subâ—â—antially vnder the forme of bread When as both assertions be a like false and to be abhorred whether you affirme that we eate vp the liuely rawe substance of Christes fleshe in it owne kinde or vnder any other forme whatsoeuer least the stomake saye you shoulde conceiue horror at the thing which the eye doth see especially if it see rawe fleshe of a slayne man Go to and what if it see not rawe fleshe and what if the eye sawe sodden or rosâ—ed fleshe yea no flesh at aâ—l and the minde neuerthelesse were certified that mans fâ—eshe were hidden câ—uertly within woulde not the minde loath it and reiect it I appeale here euen too your selfe Lombard what if any man woulde inuite you being blyndeâ— or other wyse buddewynked of both eyes to rawâ— fleshe as in that horrible banquet prepared by Thyestes would ye eate it What if he should do the like vnder a gobbet of suger or vnder the couer of any other thing whatsoeuer shoulde thrust into your mouth the fleshe of your father or of some other your dearest frende either sodden or rawe would ye wittingly and willingly eate the same I thinke you would not And why so I praye you whether bicause you knew it to be rawe or bicause you did knowe iâ— to bee the fleshe of man For to deuoure raâ—e fleshe is beastly certes too eate mans fleshe is not
and if hee were of abilitie too leaue insteede of that token himselfe wholy with his Spouse did hee lacke power too perfourme that which hee spake by woorde or shall wee abridge the credite of his power I doe know that the Omnipotent power of Christs Godhead is able to do very much but I know also that this Omnipotencie doeth alwayes concurre with his will Therefore the state of the question heere is not what Christe was able too doe but what hee willed too bee doone Neither is the controuersie heere touching the abilitie of perfourming but of the very Action it selfe Wee doe reade set downe in the Gospell on this wyse The woorde was made fleshe where notwithstanding tâ—e woorde did not therfore put of it owne nature because it cloathed it selfe with fleshe Let vs nowe heare what these doe teache The bread say they is made the fleshe of Christe Howe so on suche wyse forsooth as leauing the formes only there may not remaine one crumme of breade so muche Goe to how shall this â—peare too bee true Because hee that spake the woordes is Omnipotent saye they therefore it maye bee so because hee sayde it shoulde bee so What doe I heare wyll they foorthwith â—etermine the channge too bee therefore made because it coulde bee made After the fame maner was the olde Heretique Praxeas wont to frame his argumentes in olde tyme whome Tertullian answeryng not vnaptly but after this manner quoth Tertullian may any man imagine what he list concerning God as though hee did it in deede because hee was able too doe it Therfore if these Romanistes woulde frame theyr Argumentes lyke good Logicians they must deduce the conclusion not from that which GOD was able too doo but from that whiche hee willed too bee doone For the power of GOD is his will and not too bee of power in GOD is not too will for whatsoeuer hee willed the same also was hee able too doe and dyd it in deede We doe not therfore extenuate heere the singuler and incomprehensible power of Christ in working myracles so also neither are myracles to be newe coyned where no myracles bee nowe Forasmuche as myracles are wrought not for the behoofe of the beleeuing persons properly but in respecte of the vnbeleeuers nor are at any time vsually frequented but for some great and vrgent causes or some notable necessitie too strike a terror into the heartes of the beholders whom a man is willing to winne to the faith I woulde very faine learne then of these men what cause or commoditie may be alledged in this Action why the Lorde sitting with his Apostles shoulde by the Omnipotencie of his power transpose the substaunce of bread intoo the substaunce of his owne fleshe too bee eaten Namely sithens neither the Apostles did neede any suche myracle being already before established in faith yea though they had needed it yet did the Lorde very grauely forewarne them that his fleshe shoulde not profite them any whit at all Moreouer neyther was any of them carried into any amazed admiration or straunge adoration of any thing doone by the Lord in that Supper Besides this also neither do any of y e Euangelistes make report of any myracle wrought heere but doe describe the maner and story of the action simply without al astonishment of the beholders And by what faith I praye you may wee conceaue in our mindes a myracle of hidden transubstantiation where no thing appeareth too any mans sight that we may wonder at where no degree of a myracle may eyther appeare to the senses or bee comprehended by reason But you wyll say that the senses may not be credited heere bee it so so neither may no credite bee geuen too euery drowsie dreame of euery doting Dotterel but our imaginations must be guided by the right line of Gods worde And in this same very woorde of God if any thing occurre eyther figuratiuely or doubtfully spoken as the naturall propertie of the very speaches them selues is alwayes too bee obserued so that construction of woordes is to be shunned of all others chiefly which is preiudiciall too the sinceritie of the whole Scriptures and which throweth men downe headlong into open horrible impietie And what can be more horribly wicked then to destroy the true and naturall humanitie of Christe and too drawe Christe himself maugre his head into blemish of offence Both which must needes ensue vpon this that these transubstantiators doe forge vnto vs. For if that holy body of Christ which in the nature of his manhood is of the same mettall that our bodies be euen by the very lawe of naturall humanitie is conteyned with all the proportion therof within one onely precinct of heauen if I say these men may disperse abroad the same body in many places at one instaÌ„t of time placing it in no certain place doubtlesse Christ neuer brought with him this nature from out the Uirgin Mary forasmuche as to be in infinite places at one instant of time cannot in any respecte agree with the nature of humanitie but is proper and peculiar to the Godhead only And by the same reason shall the trueth of the Scripture lye which hath made no difference betwixt the humanitie of Christe and our humanitie in the thinges whiche properly apperteine too the properties of manhood sinne only excepted neither doeth that their foolishe most doltish shift of concomitance as they tearme it helpe theÌ„ ought at all For to admit this to be true that wheresoeuer the glorious body of Christe is present that his Diuinitie is not absent there yet doth it not hereupon folow by the same kinde of arguing backwarde that his corporall presence is alwaies coupled togeather personally with the presence of his diuinitie An other kinde of impietie appeareth in this that Christe shal be inforced by this meanes to commit manyfest transgression agaynst the holy commaundements For it this heauenly banqueter did set before his guestes none other maner of substaunce too bee eaten and drunken but the very fleshe and blood of the same naturall body which hee tooke of his mothers nature then could he not choose but incurre a iuste reproche of crime nor by any meanes auoide the guilte of breaking his fathers commaundement sithens the law it selfe not in one place only ne yet obscurely commaundeth by especial wordes you shall not eate the blood with the flesh And again in an other place Whosoeuer hee bee that eateth any blood I wyl euen set my face against that person and wyl cut him of from amongst his people Moreouer yeelding the cause thereof hee inferreth foorthwith Because the life of all fleshe is in the blood Wherevppon I haue saide too the children of Israell None of you shal eate the blood of any flesh whosoeuer eateth it shall bee cut off And afterwardes likewise in Deuteronomie repeating the same again againe he sayth Onely bee sure that thou