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
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
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
beleeuâ— that if GOD had showen so notable a iudgment on Iohn Knoxe in the pulpite and presence of such a frequent assemblie as vseth to be in the Church of Edinburgh the people woulde not haue onely abhorred his doctrine but stoned him selfe out of the towne Or can anye man that hath a mans harte that is reason and vnderstanding beleeue that if Iohn Caluin had vsed that manifest iuglarie which ye are not ashamed to publish in the face of the Sun in the congregation at Geneua that that people who found the moyen in a priuate grudge to banish him their towne for certaine yeares would not on such a notorious cause as that haue either stoned him in the streetes or expelled him at the leaste with shame for euer But this is a note of gods iudgment that hee hath so besotted your senses that you haue not the wittes to caste a probable collour vpon your lyes This was an other cause that made me leaue my purpose to confute your booke For if I had gone fordward I sawe that I was to meete with many slanders which was not worth the hearing nor reading and needed no other to confute them then the mouth that toulde them if the hearer had but halfe a nose to smell alye as whote as a foxe Yet hauing spent many dayes and nights in gathering materialles to that worke I resolued not to lose them but with some trauell contriued them in this forme which you see hoping that the power of reason and truth might not onelie staye such from that erroure as your sectaries had made to doubt but also make you and them to doubt of that which you teach so confidently if you would read as aduisedly as you haue bequeathed your selfe vnconsideratlye to that abhomination And heare I charge you in the bowels and mercies of lesus Christ as you will answere in the great daye of the Lorde if you doubt indeed which is not likely for anye matter that wee can see in your bookes to haue turned you or left the truth for any particular to open your eyes againe to the light and to returne to the grace from which you are fallen I haue heere deduced the truth of this question whereon standeth the foundatioÌ„ of the Romane religion from Christ to our owne times I haue taken this paines partlie for our people partelye for you to whome I wishe the good that a Scholar should to his maister And therefore I praye you as you loue to liue for euer to leaue the way of death euerlasting Otherwayes in the court of conscience where truth will be reuealed the popes indulgence will doe no good I must beare witnesse of your wilfulnes and proude contempt of the reuealed truthe The Lorde giue you a harte to loue him better then men Yours if you be Christes ALEXANDER HVME The diduction from the fountaine OVR Lord and maister Iesus Christe that night that hee was betrayed into the hands of the highe preiste to continue in his Church a solemne remembrance of his blessed passion which hee was shortly to suffer instituted at his last supper with his disciples after that hee had finished the lawe of the pascall Lamb in place there of a newe Sacrament in the Elementes of Breade and Wine In this and with this after an vnspeakable maner be a secret diuine efficacie hee deliuered also to their Faith his precious Bodie and Blood to vnite them and al that should succeede them to be bone of his bone and flesh of his flesh to nourish their soules vnto eternal life In this mystery there is such a secret coÌ„iunctioÌ„ betweene the elements and his precious flesh that in al ages it hath exercised the hearts and minds of men in the deep contemplation thereof some to life and some to eternall death and condemnation For seeing the glorie and excellencie of our omnipotent God consisteth in the highest perfection of mercie and iustice his infinite wisdome hath tempered his worde and Sacraments to minister matter to both Therefore betweene his elect whose heartes he illuminates with the light of his spirite and those whome he hath left to the iudgment of their owne fenses and illusions of errour there hath risen out of this cloude greate stormes to exercise his Church that it might not lye sleeping in the sonne of securitie It is fortie yeares and morâ— since the Lordâ— beganne to sowe in this countrie being then ouerwhelmed in the mists of ignorance the seede of his eternall trueth Now seeing our vnthankfulnes hee suffereth the enemie to repaire home againe and to sowe darnel in his haruest He is busie and we are secure Wherefore to meete his practises and to arme the simple against his sophismes I haue chosen this argument of reall presence as of greatest importance to confute all papistrie For if the naturall bodie of our Sauiour is not in the sacrament as they call it of the altare they haue no sacrifice for the quick and deade and wanting that their market of masses this fiue hundreth yeares hath beene a faire of false wares In this disputation I will vse no rethoricall colloures to fill mens eareâ— with wordes but shortely will ayme my arguments to the poynt hoping that in all sounde iudgementes weight of reason will be more effectuall then the ratling sound of emptie words I will deduce the truthe of this poynte out of the well of truth and then will proue the Church to haue receiued it from Christ and his Apostles and notwithstanding the craft and crueltie of the enemie to haue kept it sincere and pure to our times Lord shew to me the the light of thy truth put weight in my wordes and force in may arguments to beare thy truth through the middest of thy enemies and to confounde the wisdome of the wise Our Lord and Sauiour at the institution of this Sacrament tooke breade and after that hee had giuen thankes broke it and gaue it to his disciples saying Thus is my body which is broken for you this doe ye in remembrance of me The wordes this is my bodye the Church of Roome taketh literallie â—ffirming that the breade is turned into the very natural reall body of christ hauing no nature thereof but collour sauour taste and other inseparable accidents Wee on the other side take them figuratiuelie denying that there is anye change of the substance but that the bread remaineth bread representing to our soules the bodie of Christ to feede our soules to eternall life As for the wordes them selues without other inforcements they are capable of both senses we grant that if both scripture nature did not denye they maye be taken literallie Againe that they may be taken figuratiuely if the peruersnesse of the aduersarie will not grant other scripturs in the same forme will easilie conuince He that saide of the bread This is my bodie saide likewise of him selfe I am a vine I am a doore and Paull saith the rock vvas Christe But
delated to the King bee ane Doctour Austine they wrote to him a confession of their faith most sounde and Catholicke mistake me not I meane not Romane Catholicke but that which Christ deliuered to his Apostles and the Apostles to the Church and the Church to this houre hath kept pure and cleane as they receaued it and vnmingled with the dregges of mans witt But to our purpose they who setled at home gote noe long rest They were dayly and heauely persecuted by the Bishopes Arelatensis Narbonensis Aquensis Albanensis They possessed two townes called Cabriers and Merindoll till our dayes that is to saye till the yeare one thousand fiue hundreth fortie fiue and the vaile of Angroinguâ— The Bishope had accused theÌ„ to the Parliment of Aix for defection from the Catholicke faith The Parliment had giuen out sentence that they should haue beene destroyed man woman and childe And their Towns Trees euerted be the rootes This bloodie sentence laye ouer fiue yeares and was once attempted be the President Casson and afterwaâ—de forbidden be the King as ouer câ—uell against innocent people At last one Mineres Lord of Opede a bloody tyrant and their mercilesse enemie at the request of the Bishope delated them to the King falsly that they were all in armes against his Maiestie and bee moyen of the Cardinal Turnonius got the Kings letters patent to take the forces provided for the English warres to meete them This bloodie monster atchiued with crueltie the thinge which hee had begunne with a lye and put to the sworde those two townes and two and twentie villages about without mercie of sex or age It were horrible and tedious to tell the perticulares Let them who would know that read Slâ—idan or she booke of Martyres Onely for a taste hee burned fortie wemen in a barne of which many were with child The like crueltie was vsed againste the rest of them in PiedmoÌ„t in Vallies of Angroing Lucern Perouse and Sainte Martynes Aboute the same time Anno one thousand fiue hundreth fortie fiue Thus were that innocent people with the greate regrate of their neighboures destroyed among whome the Lord till then had preserued to himselfe a Church worshiping and seruing him according to his owne word Nowe hauing deduced this doctrine to our owne times it remaineth to open the hidden mynes through the which these men hath drawen this rotten water as out of the well of life where-with this eight hundreth yeares they haue poysoned many milliones of soules The foundation that they laye to raze this monstruous worke on is the wordes of the institution This is my body which is broken for you To mentaine in these wordes a literall sense they pervert the true sense of many places of scripture and to null a figure in this place they force many monstruous figures on other places they denye common sense they pervert nature and at one worde they mingle heauen and â—arth together Before I buckle with their arguments I hope this reason shal satisfie any minde that will heare reason that these wordes are not evident ynough to lead our faith to such a monstruous 〈◊〉 Noe scripture that will 〈◊〉 anadâ—â—â—t â—ther meaning is of â—ufficient importance to lead the heart of a Christian to a persuasion contrary to sense and abhorring from nature But these words of the institution wil beare an otheâ— meaning Ergo these words of the institution are not of sufficient importance to leade the heart of a Cristian to a persuasion contrarye to sensâ— abhorring from nature That the words will beare an other meaning admitting both a figure and the letter is proued alreadie That the persuasion is monstruous no man seeth not That â—eeing breead feeling bread and tasting bread it is not bread which thou eatest but the very flesh of Christ which thou neither seest feelest nor tastest is againste sense To rend with thy teethe and put downe into thy foule bellie the precious bodie of Christ which was broken for thy sinnes beside Cannibal crueltie were impious inhumanitie And therefore the scripture that must induce the faith to beleeue a thinge so contrarie to faith should be single simple pregnant and vncontrouleable And now to their arguments The first is that all sacraments shuld consist of simple and plaine wordes without ambiguitie but figuratiue wordes are not plaine and simple without ambigâ—itie Ergo Sacraments shuld not consist of figuratiue wordes Firste this argumente destroyeth vtterly the naâ—ure of a Sacramente For as August teacheth all Sacramentes are visible signes of vnvisible graces that is seene figures of graces which are not seene As for plainesse figuratiue speeches are many tymes playner then they which are without all figure As for the wordes whereon we stand there is no speeche more vsuall when men presentes themselues be lots then this is I and that is thou Mistake me not I haue proued alredie sufficiently that the sacrament is not a naked figure As for ambiguitie will these men set the eternall worde of GOD to the schoole and â—each him to speake What if the spirite of God will haue his word so tempered that it may be the sauoure of life to them that liue and the sauoure of death to them that dye Doubtlesse his sheepe knowes his voice and hee goeth in and out before them He maketh them rest in greene pastores and leadeth them to the still waters As for his enemies he hath tempered their cuppe with galle and madâ— the worde of life to bee a block in their way He hath left ambiguities for heritickes to waken his Church out of the dreame of securitie It is good saith he that offences be but woe to them bee whome they come And in this poynte it is a wonder to see how God hath infatuated the â—ense of these men to seeke a knot in a rushe and to force a senslesse sense on his worde against sense Secondly out of the same words they make this argument That which Christ divyded amongst his disciples was his bodie broken for them But his essential bodie was broken for them Ergo that which he deuided among his disciples was his essential bodie All this we confesse to be most true as our Sauiour spake it that is sacramentallie That which he deuided amongst his desciples was sacramentally or figuratiuelye his bodie which was broken for them that is his reall and essentiall bodie in a figure but not bee transubstantiation or mutation of the bread into his bodie Thirdely they vrge hard this letter I am the bread that came downe from heauen And againe my flesh is meate in deede gathering that therefore his essentiall body is in the sacrament This enthymem I haue done what I can to caste into a syllogisticall moulde for I wouâ—defaine playe faire playe and displaye their arguments in their best geere But it will not bee for mee without a manifest and seene blemish Yet if it can bee for I acknowledge my owne weaknesse
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
thing in the Sacramente as they speake of their woulde haue beene plaine mention made thereof in the scriptures To which hee answereth that no plainer mention can bee required then this is my bodye which shall be deliuered for you And asketh M. Robert if he can with al his studie deuise words more plainâ— more effectuall and more significaÌ„t This is pertly said to it These men hath herein a speciall grace But not-withstanding if wee get no plainer and more manifest proofe we are very like neuer to beleeue that there is any miracle in the Sacrament For besides that this text is ambiguouse and capable of two senses it hath no mention of changing the substance nor that the body of Christ is invisible and vnpalpable Nor that there remaineth noe breade sauing accidents nor that the bodye of Christ can at once bee in heaâ—en at the right hande of his father and betweene the priestes handes at the eleuation of the masse with sundry other miraculous mysteries of this diuinitie which they neuer learnâ—d of God nor his worde The fourth is aboute the pronoune this in the wordes of the institution in which he answereth noe thing but onelye maketh a baiâ—nelye obiection that it can not demonstrate breade His reason is for tharin Latine congruitie in hoc est corpusâ— mâ—um hoc can not agree with Panis And in hicest sanguis meâ—s hic can not agree with Vinum In which obiection either he sheweth him sâ—â—fe a meere ignorant of the Latine grammer or else speaketh agaiâ—ste hiâ— knowledge For it is obserued in that tongue that an adiectiue or relatiue betweene two substantiues or two antecedentes may accorde with either of them As that of Cicero Anunal plenum rationis quem Vocamus hominem for quod vocamus hominem Hee woulde bee counted a man either of notable Ignorance or peruerâ—e resolution that woulde denye Animal to bee the antecedent to Quem because it accordeth in gender with Hâ—minem And what may we thinke of Maister William Râ—inoldes Who in the words of our Sauiouâ— denâ—eth Hoc to respect Panis which Christe did demonstrate because it agreeth with Corpus This doubt is not worthy a child in the grammer schoole But to strike this dead with a syllgisme In these wordes our Sauiour tooke hreade and after that hee had giuen thankes brake it and gaâ—e it to his disciples saying this is my bodye The pronoune this demonstrateth that which hee tooke and brake But he tooke breade and brake it giuing it to his disciples Ergo in these wordes of our Sauiour the worde this demostrateth the breade And so the sense muste bee This breade is my bodye which this man pertlye saieth that Christ neuer spake That it cannot demonstrat their Indiuiduum vagum or the bodie of Christe vnder the shape of breade thus I prove A pronoune demonstratiue must demonstrate a thing certaine subiect to sense or reason But the bodye of Christ in the shape of breade is not a thing certaine nor subiect to sense or reason much lesse their Indiuiduum vagum Ergo the pronoune this can not demonstrate the bodie of Christâ— vnder the shape of bread and wine much lesse IndiuiduuÌ„ vagum which it is not possible to english except it be some wandring vagabond The fifth and laste aboute the place of August is answered alredie Nowe to Maister Iohn Hammilton my olde maister I beganne with him and therefore thinke it reason to giue the reader a taste of his reason The first markable thing that I finde in him is that since he was made Doctour hee is become a worse diuine He hath written two bookes The one printed anno 1581. before his Doctour-shipe bee intituleth of the Lordes Supper And least anye mâ—n should thinke that he giueth it that name as from the subiect which he laboureth to confute he saith in the beginning of it that of all the controuerted heades there is none of greater importance â—hen that which concerneth the Sacrament of the altar otherwayes called the Lordes Supper The words the Lords Supper he writteeth also in the letters which he sorted for the texts of Scripture and citations of the ancients remembring belike that Paull giueth it that name When you come together therefore in one place this is not to â—â—te the Lords Supper Deipnon Kyriacon that is â—aules owne wordes Now he is doctoured either hee hath forgotten this or aduising withsome other Doctour of greater account then Paull was in his last booke hee condemneth both himselfe and Paull of heresâ—e because this Sacrament was instituted as hee saith after that our Lorde Iesus had supped and therefore is an heresie repugnant to the euangell to call it The Lordes Supper He hath an odde argument for him to stope euen Paules mouth if hee were aliue to speake one worde for him self ab auctoriâ—te negatiue The fathers called it not the supper of the Lorde Ergo it is rank heresie to call it so Bee the same argument no father for 600 yeares after Christ euer knew or wrote the name of transubstantiation nor accidentes with out subiects c. Ergo all these theoremes of the Romane diuinity are heresies But if it were a wonder to see Maister Iohn Hammilton change beholdâ— a greater wonder then this There was nyntene yeare betweene his bookes and therefore in nyntene yeares hee might well change his concept of Paull who in lesse then nyne-tene monethes if wee â—re not mis-informed changed his opinion of Christe and of a protestant became a papist But this is stranger for within nyntene dayes if the printer was not verye slowe hee changeth also the title of this laste treatise At the beginning condemning the title of the Lordes Supper for hereticall and allowing the title of the Sacramente of the alter onely for Catholicke hee beginneth with that and for 61. Pages he keepeth it At last hee changeth that againe and to the ende which containeth 54. pages hee intituleth it of the Holye communion A wandring minde is inconstant in all his wayes But let vs take a vewe of his reasons God saith he made all thinges with hiâ— worde Ergo the wordes of Christ This is my bodye turned the breade into the bodie of Christe This saith he the Centurion confessed Saye the worde and my sonne shall be made whole And the deâ—illâ— command that these stones be made breade 〈◊〉 this argument Christe him selfe saying I am the bread that came downe from heauen is turned into breade and I am the true â—ine and my father the husband man He is tâ—rned into a vine and his father into a husband man with a snedding knife in his hande to prune him And where hee saieth to his disciples Ye are the salt of the earth they were turned into a piller of salte like Lots wife And to the pharasies generation of vipers they were turned into a nest of young vipers Aâ— for the power of God might of
A DIDVCTION OF THE TRVE AND CATHOLIK meaning of our Sauiour his words this is my bcdie in the institution of his laste Supper through the ages of the Church from Christ to our owne dayes Whereunto is annexed a reply to M. William Reynolds in defence of M. Robert Bruce his arguments in this subiect and displaying of M. Iohn Hammiltons ignorance and contradictions with sundry absurdities following vpon the Romane interpretation of these words Compiled by ALEXANDER HVME Maister of the high Schoole of Edinburgh EDINBVRGH Printed by Robert Waldegraue Printer to the Kings Maiestie 1602 Cum Privilegio Regiâ— TO THE RIGHT Honorable the L. Prouest Bayless and counsel of Edinburgh ALEXANDER HVMâ— wisheth true wisdome and felicitie THE Spouse of Christ right Honorable who lyeth in his bosome heareth his voice that is his word keepeth his sacraments in the integritie which she receaued This glorious title of his wel-beloued the Church of Rome doeth falslie arrogat For she hath preferred her owne decrees to his word to the one sacrament she hath â—dded oile spittle salt and creame From the other she hath taken away the blessed cup of his precious blood she hath set vp in his chaire the man of sinne she hath giuen his office of intercession to Saints and Angels She hath made his house a denne of theeues and a market of merites masses pardones and other pelfe selling heauen and hell for siluer and golde Whereby it is cleare to all men that hath not drunke of the wine of her fornication that she is not the spouse of Christ but the skarlet whore that sitteth on the beaste with seauen heades and hath poysoned the nationes of the earth with her abhominationes It is the guise of a whore to disgrace the lawful spouse to whose bedde shee presumeth what lyeth in her To this end this strumpet hath per secuâ—ed the welbeloued of our Sauiour euer since she gote vppe her heade And nowe in our dayes slandereth her with the opprobrie of a whore neuer harde of before the dayes of Luther To meete with this contumelie I haue contriued this little treatise the laste winter at such houres as I coulde borrowe of my bed because my calling holdes me occupied at other times In it I haue taken for one of the surest notes of the true spouse the sacrament wherein he communicateth him self and all his graces with her Firste I gather be seauen argumentes drawen out of the well of truth the true meaning of the wordes of the institution this is my bodie containing the right maner howe Christ feedeth vs with his precious body and bloode Secondly I proue be their owne testimonies that the fathers of the primitiue Church receaued that sense from Christ and his Apostles and kept it as they receaued it 500 yeares after the firste institution Thirdlye I proue the occasion of the corruption and how it sprang and grew with the truth like darnell amongst wheate without offence for the space of 300 yeares Fourthly I shewe howe in the yeare 800. it beganne to â—appe the truth and that some grewe either so impudent or ignorant as to denye a figure and maintaine a literall sense in the wordes of the institution Fifthly that aboute that same time Ioannes Scotus in the time of Charles the greate Bertrame at the commandement of Carolus Calvus opossed them selues refuted that erroure whereby it maye seeme that that noble Prince was of the same mind Sixthly that the better sid coÌ„tinued long a partie that these books were not coÌ„demned â—il the counsel of Lateran 250. yeares after they were published Seuenthlye that this counsell condemned Berengarius vnhard for an hereticke and the truth which hee mentained of heresie Lastly I followe the storie that the Church of Rome euer since persecuting the truth with fire and fagot could neuer get it extinguished That it had alwayes assertoures and many that sealed it with their bloode In which discourse my intent is to proue that the church was planted in the truth be Christ his Apost not be Caluin or Zuinglius as our aduersaries beareth the ignorante in hand That there hath beene alwayes since a Church professing it That the Church of Rome euer since the Counsell of Lateran aboute 550 yeares hath persecuted her That this little barke howbeit driuen into manye obscure harboures yet all the stormes which the deuill and antichriste coulde raise hath not sunke her This little treatise I haue thought good to dedicate to your Wisdomes because I and al my trauelles am consecrated to your common wealth Accept my good will and protect the truthe with your authoritie The Lorde giue you wisdome to discerne and heartes to maintaine his cause Fare-well in him who is the well of well-fare Edinburgh the 18. of Febr. Anno. 1602. TO M. IOHN Hammilton his olde Regent grace and right iudgment HEaring great report of a booke which you had set out I met with your treatise intituled of the Lordes Supper printed anno 1581. supposing that your comming home had stirred the mindes of men to read and praise the thing which had lyen long dispised I red also with hope to find the arguments that induced you to turne your coate But finding no thing which you might not and in all appearance did not knowe before your peruersion I pitied your miserable case who hath a hearte at one time capable of contrarie persuasions of your saluation and was woe how be it it be worthie no answere that our men had let it lye 19. yeares without an answere because it seemed that that silence had made you confident and your sectaries hope that it was vnanswerable Wherefore thinking it to be the worke so much spoken of I resolued to doe it the honoure that no man thought it worthie and set my selfe to answere it because you were some time my Regent After that I had answered the firste cap. and a good parte of the seconde there came to my handes your seconde worke Then I perceaued my erroure stayed my hande to read it also Hauing red it I rewed al For argumeÌ„ts in both I founde none indeede and few in show To flite which is the greatest parte of both these bookes I thought it meeter for a scoulde then a scholar And the last I founde contrarie to the firste not onely confuting but condemning of heresie the verie inscription thereof Your greatest gift for anye thing that I can see is in nik-naming and beleing the Saints of God That gift we can wel be contented to leaue to papistes because such graces are more acceptable to your pope then our God Some of you hath purchased Bishoprickes and some Cardinalshipes be that kind of eloquÌ„ece But wee are assured that he whome wee serue neuer rewardeth that arte with better hyre then hell Yet I wonder at your impudencie or rather stupiditie to hope that naked lies can win credite euen where the men of whom you speake are most hated Can any man
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
The same waye he misshapeth the argument of the Actes but of that alredie Lastly hee answereth three places of Iohn with an answere and that as wee saye hough inoughe The firste place is I leaue the worlde and goe to my father The second is I am no more in the worlde The thirde is I goe to my father and will praye â—im to send an other comforter to abide with you All this he answereth that Christ be the worlde meaneth his conuersation in the worlde with men to giue or take anye bodily helpe as hee did before his paâ—sion It is true that be the world hee maye meane that but that hee meaneth that onely is as vntrue For hee left the worlde as hee went to his father so the text speaketh plainlye But hee went to his father body and soule Ergo hee left the worlde and as hee speaketh in the second place he is no more in the world bodie and soule The last place yealdeth an other argument which how-be-it he is answered sufficientlye yet I can not omitt Christ going to his father did not that in his humanitie which hee sent the other comforter to doe But hee sent the other comforter to abide with them for euer Ergo Christe in his manhoode bideth not with them that is with his Church for euer â— which he most needes doe if he were daylye receaued in the Sacrament The 19. cap. he beginneth with a great contempt of the arguments which he is to deall with Calling them Iudaicall heritical founded vpon manifest lyes some derogatorie to Christs glorie and all without pith or power The peeuish ignorance whereof as hee speaketh in the former chap. he imputes to Maister Robert as the onelie author of them M. Robert is better knowne amongst them to whom I write then that the lauishing tongue of a railing Romane priest whose mouth runnes ouer with the venome of the whoores câ—ppe can impaire an hair-breadth of his name As for the arguments which hee in spyte calleth peeuish there is in them more quicknesse and sound pith to beare the conclusion through all the Popes seminaries than there is colour of probabilitie in all Maister Reinolds booke à capite ad calcem that is from the first word before to the last word for euer But to the purpose The first is Of an vnseene vnheard â—orporall presence no spirituall effect can flowe for that is Maister Rob. meaning But the effect of the sacrameÌ„t is spiritual Ergo the effect of the sacrament can not flowe from an vnseene vnheard corporall presence This argument is in festino in the second figure so the maior and the minor this Priest lyke a Doctour of the Popes divinity makes no answere The conclusion he condem neth of Iudaisme as making as stronglie against the incarnation death and passion of our Sauiour I would rather there were neither Pope nor Cardinal in the world then that were true Christ came in the flesh to doe a bodely work not onely a spirituall To performe the law to plant the gospell to suffer death and at a worde to offer sacrifice after the order of melchisedech were works to be performed in our flesh And so it was of necessitie that he tooke our flesh subiect to iniuries sicknesse death and all the illes that hell and deathe coulde inflict But Christe in the Sacrament hath no bodelie work to doe and therefore needeth no bodie in the Sacrament to effect the whole worke of the Sacrament This argument for as peuish and pithlesse as it pleased Maister Rainoldes to call it let him doe what hee can will leaue noe roume in the Sacrament for Christs reall bodie The second is that if the breade and wine are changed into the bodie and bloode of Christe there remaineth noe signe of feeding and nourishing which is a thing necessarie to the essence of a Sacrament This argument hee calleth false in euerie paâ—te and parcell thereof and flat repugnante to the firste And why for-soothe because if Christs corporall presence can not worke a spirituall effect what neede we a signe of it See the wit of a sophist Is this the sharpnes that some commendeth bee the cleane contrarie if he were present bodily wee neede noe signe of his bodie But now that he is absent in bodie the signe is giuen vs to minde vs of his bodie and the greate worke of our redemption which hee accomplished in his bodie And so the deepe contemplation of that bodie and that worke moued and wakned in vs be grace from Christ worketh in our heartes the spirituall effâ—ct of that Sacrament But saitâ— he the accidents moueth the senses and not the substance as ordinarie meate doth nourish bee meanes of the accidents And therefore accidentes are the signe in the sacrament more properlye then the substance And this hee proueth be the brasen serpent This is like the rest of it his collection is quite contrarye to his text The brasen serpent is a figure of Christe Ergo accidents is a figure of Christe without a subiect Howe so is a brasen serpent an accident No but it hath no thing of a serpent but the externall figure which is an accident Well libelled Sir William Did God ordaine that shape onely to be the figure of Christ The texte saith Moses made a serpent of brasse and set it vp for a signe not the shape of a serpent And because it hath no thing of a verie serpent but an accident will it follow that it is no thing but a bare accident Be such Logicke ye may well defende the corporal presence of Christ in the Sacrament and a greater absurditie then that if a grâ—sser and greater coulde be deuised But to Maister Robert his argumente That which can not nourish corporrallie can not bee a signâ— of spirituall nourishmente But accidentes of breade and wine â—an not nourishe corporally Ergo the â—ccidents of breade and wine can not be a signe of spirituall nourishment To this hee answereth that meates doth nourish bee meanes of accidentes But that is doubtfull and if it were certaine yet that reason can sounde to no sense but such as haue prostituted their reason to serue Antichrist Meates doth nourish be accidentes Ergo accidentes doth nourish If the Pope him selfe or the fattest Cardinall in Rome were so fed but fortie dayes hee woulde counte accidentes a warish meate He asketh Maister Robert where he findeth in all the euangelistes or the writtinges of Paule that this Sacrament was ordained to signifie spirituall nuriture which saieth hee was indeede apoynted to nourish spirituallie Heare Maister Robert asketh him againe where he readeth in the whole bodie of the Bible that this Sacramente is appoynted in deede to nourishe spirituallie As for the firste Maister Robert needeth no other proofe then the name of a Sacramente for the other I doubt me that euer Maister Rainoldes will â—inde any warrant from God and his word The thirde is if their had beene such a wonderfull
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