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
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
saieth Athanasius that hee ment not that they should eate his very bodie he telleth them that it shuld returne to heauen againe and that they should not haue it to eate Which thing August setteth down most plainely answering the same Capernaites Si ergo videritis filium homiâ—is ascendentem vbi erat Prius quid est hoc hinc apparet vnde fuerant scandalizati Illi enim put auerunt illum erogatâ—rum corpus suumâ—ille autem dixit se ascensurum in coelum vâ—ique integrum Cum videritis filium hominis ascendentem vbi fuerit prius certe vel tunc videbitis quia non eo modo quo putatis erogat corpus suum Certe vel tum intelligetis quod gratia eius non absumitur morsibus That is if you see the sonne of man ascending where he was before What is that heerof appeareth the ground of their offence For they thought that hee would exhibite to them his owne bodie But he telleth them that hee was to goe whole to heauen as if he woulde saye when you see the sonne of man ascending where hee was before then shall you see that he will not so bestowe his bodie as you thinke then shall you vnderstand that his grace can not bee consumed peecemaall or bit and bit This is that Christ him self teacheth The poore shall you haue alwaies but me you shall not haue alwayes that which Peter teacheth That the heauens must hould him while al things be restored This is that which our beleefe teacheth That he sitteth at the right â—and of his father Heere their distinction of his visible and vnuisible presence is a dreg of mans braine Christ him self neuer taught vs of that vnuisible preseÌ„ce And wee will not learne such deep mysteries at men who may deceaue and be disceaued that Christ can doe it we denyâ— not but that he will doe it we will beleeue no man but him self of whome we are sure that he will not lye Clemens Alexandrinus saith Duplex est sanguis domini alter carnalis quo redemptiâ— sumus alter spiritualis quo uncti sumus Et hoc est bibere Iesu sanguinem participem esse in corruptionis domini There is two sortes of the Lordes blood the one carnal where with we are redemed the other spirituall wherewith wee are anointed To drinke the Lords blood is to bee partaker of his puritie and incorruption Cirill saith Num humanae carnis coÌ„mestioneÌ„ hoc nostrum sacramentuÌ„ pronuncias et ad crassas cogitationes vrges irreligiose mentes â—orum qui crediderunt Et attentas tu humanis rationibus tractare ea quâ— sola et purafide accipiuntur Callest thou our Sacrament caniball barbaritie and presest irreligiouslie the minds of them that beleeue to grosse thoughts and aseyes thou to handle that with humaine reason which is receaued by pure faith onely Ambrose saith Fide tangitur Christus â—ide videtur non tangitur Corpore non oculis comprehenditur Christ is touched be faith and seene be faith Hee is not handled with the handes nor seene with the eies August saith Dominus dixit se panem qui descendit de câ—lo hortans vt credamus in illum hoc est manducare panem vivum qui credit in illum manducat The Lorde saide that he is the bread which came downe from heauen exhorting vs to beleeue in him for that is to eate the breade of life that came downe from heâ—uen He that beleâ—ueth in him eateth him Bee these places you see that to eate Christ is to beleeue in Christ and pertake his puritie and that hee is eaten onely be faith not with the teethe Theodoret saith Christus naturam panis non mutat sed naturae addit gratiam Christe changeth not the nature of the breade but to nature addeth grace And againe Post consecrationem mystica signa non exuunt naturam suam manet enum prior substantia forma et species The mysticall signes after consecration puteth not of there owne nature for the former substance forme and shape abideth Ambrose saith Sunt que eraut et sn aliud commutantur they are the same thing they were before that is breade and wine and are turned to on other that is turned to an other vse to present to vs the bodie and bloode of our Sauiour to feede our soules spirituallie Gelasius saith in sacramento manet panis et vini substantia In the sacramentes the substance of breade and wine remaineth Irenaeus saithâ— Quemadmodum qui est aterra panis percipiens vocationem domini iam non est communis panis sed eiu haristia ex duabus rebus constans terrena et celestâ— sic et corpora nostra percipientia cucharistiam iam non sunt corruptibilâ—a spem resurrectionis habentia As the breade growing out of the earth receauing the Lords institution is no more common breade but the eucharist consisting of two things the one earthlie the other heauenly So our bodies receauing the eucharist are no more corruptible hauing hope to rise againe Be these fathers it is cleere that the substance of the bread abideth and that the eucharist that is the communion of thankes giueing consisteth of an earthlie and a heauenly thing To conclud this matter Chrysostom saith in Vasis sanctificatis non ipsum corpus Christiest sed mysterium eius continetur In the sacred vessels the verie bodye of Christ is not but a mistery thereof And August saith more peremptorily Non hoc corpus quod videtis manducaturi estis non bibituri sanguinem quem fusuri sunt qui me crucifigent sed sacramentum vobis aliquod commendaui You are not to eate the bodie which you see nor to drinke the blood which they are to shed who will crucifie me But I commended a certaine mysterie to you c. In these places which I haue quoted you haue plainely without any glosse al that we teach and beleeue of this sacrament That the words of the institution are figuratiue That the action of eating and drinking these mysteries is spirituall That the bodie of Christe is receaued bâ— faith not be the mouth That the wordes of the institution are to bee taken literallie That the body of Christe which suffered for our sinnes is in heauen not in the SacrameÌ„t That to eat the flesh of Christ is to beleeue in him That the substance of the breade and wine abideth and is not transubstantiated And lastly that the body of Christ is neither in the holie vessels nor eaten be them who receaueth this sacrament All these thinges I haue heere proued I saye in plaine categoricall wordes which the aduersaries can not avoide without most odious and absurd gloses which the actours neuer knewe nor thought Yet not-withstanding they vendicat these fiue hundreth yeares as the other fiue hundreth also vntill the dayes of Berengarius and beareth the ignorant in hand that all is theirs without contradiction They haue such a confident
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
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
neuer was Of the wicked Paull saith hee that eateth this breade and drinketh of this cuppe vnworthely eateth and drinketh his owne damnation He saith not hee that eateth the bodie drinketh the bloode of Christ vnworthely And heare I dare lay my heade which I will not giue for the popes heade and his triple Crowne too that all the Schooles in Roome and Remes shall neuer proue be the Scripture that the body of Christ can be eaten vnworthely Howe oft doth hee promise himselfe in Iohn eternall life sumtime to him that eateth his flesh sometime to him that beleeueth Whereof it is manifest that none eateth his flesh vnworthely seeing that all that eateth of it shal haue eternal life This besides the place quoted be Lumbard that worthy Fatder August in Iohn tract 26. striketh dead Sacramentum quibusdam ad vitam quibusdam ad mortem sumitur res vero cuâ—us est sacramentum omnibus ad vitani nulli ad mortem That is some receaueth the sacrament to life some to death but that whereof it is the sacrament bringeth life to all death to none Seuenthly in the fore cited wordes of Paull He that â—ateth of this breade and drinketh of this cuppe vnworthelie eaâ—eth and drinketh his owne damnation We find this argument The elements in the Sacraments remaine that which Paull be the spirit of God doth call chem But Paull be the spirit of god doth cal them bread and wine and that after the consecration or else they coulde not bee receaued vnworthely nor drawe on so heauy a iudgment as to be guilty of the Lords body and blood Ergo the elements in the Sacrament remaineth breade and wine and are not changed into the naturall bodie and blood of Christ. Heare the base shift that the Apostle vseth the names which they seeme for the names which they are will not houlde for that were to feede the errour of the fenses and to brangle the foundation of faith which thing bee farre from this Apostle who trauâ—lled so faithfullye and discreit ye 〈◊〉 Apostleshipe Heare thou hast seauen argumentes gentle reader thâ— weakest of all which if wee hade no more were sufficient to beare out this cause with greater probability then any that our aduersarie hath to the contrary The firste thirde fifth and sixth concludeth the negatiue that the breade and wine are not the reale and essentiall bodie of our Sauiour The second proueth that they are types anâ— figures of Christ exhibited for the ransome of our sinnes The fourth and seuenth that the bread and wine remaineth in their owne natures and are not transubstantâ—aâ—ted as the Church of Rome laboureth â—o earnestly to bring the worlde to beleeue And so of these seuen arguments four erefutes the aduersarie and three confirmes the truthe Nowe that the Church maintained this truth as she receaued it from Christ and his Apostles for more then fiue hundreth years after Christ I wil proue bee the the testimonies of the fathers who liued and taught the Church in that age And heare I woulde praye the reader not to mistake me I alleadge not these testimonies to confirme this truth as not sufficiently proued already or to ad more authoritie to the testimonies of the scripture for we acknowledge the authoritie of the word of God to haue that Maiestie that if all the world did say against it yet it remained the certaine trueth of the eternall God who is trueth it selfe and can not lye And wee greatly lament the miserie of this age wherein there is so many fouÌ„d and of them some who knew the truth to oppose them selues against so manifest a light But seeing bee the peruersnes of man and malice of the deuill it is controuerted in my simple iudgment the consent of the Church is no small inducement to indifferentmen and a great slap in the aduersaries saill who beares the world in hand that they saill before the wind and that all the fathers of the primitiue Church doth rowe in their bardge Which confident assertion how false it is I hope with gods good help to make it manifest and to proue be their owne wordes that none of the fathers did euer know that transubstantiated monster which was whelped in the counsell of Rome fiue hundreth yeares after them and after that fostered in the bosome of that Church To beginne Tertullian who liued in the yeare two hundreth saieth of the eating of Christ in the Sacrament Auditu deuoâ—andus est intellectu ruminandus et fide digerendus That is bee hearing he is to bee eaten be vnderstanding chawed bee faith digested Chrysostom teacheth the same Magnus iâ—â—e panis qui replet mentem non ventrem This is the great bread which filles the minde and not the bellie And August Quid dentem et ventrem paraâ— crede et manducasti Why preparest thou thy teethe and thy bellie beleeue and thou hast eaten Cyprian saith esus eius carnis eâ—t quadam aviditas et desiderium manendi in Christo Quod est esus carni hoc est fides animae non dentes ad mordendum acuimus sed fide sinceva sanctum panem edinms The eating of his flesh is a certaine gredinesse and desire to dwell in Christe As eating is to the flesh so is faith to the soule We sharpe not our teethe to bruse but faith to eate that sacred bread Basilius saith est quoddam spirituale os interni hominis quo pascitur recipiens panem vitae qui descendit do caelo There is a spirituall mouth of the inward man bee which he is fed who eates the bread that came downe from heauen Be the testimonies of which fathers it is most cleere and apparant that the Church then tooke the eating of Christs flesh and drinking his bloode to bee a spirituall action of the soule not a bodily action of the mouth that it is eaten be faith not with the teethe and digested into the minde not into the bellie and foullâ—stomache of the receauer Of sacraments in generall August saith in sacramentis videndum est non quid sint sed quid ostendant signa enim rerum sunt aliud existentia aliud significantia in sacraments it is to bee noted not what they are but what they meane so they are signes of thinges signyfiing one thinge and in deede an other Of figures that they are vsuall in the scripture and that the name of the figure is set for the thinge figured and contrariwayes of the thinge for the figure he saith Solet res quae significat eius rei quam significat nomine appellari Hinc dictum erat petra erat Christus Non dixit petra significat Christum sed tanquam boc esset quodâ—vtique per substantiam non erat The thinge which signifieth vseth to be called many times be the name that it signifieth Hereupon it is saide that Christ was the rocke he saide not that the rock signifieth Christe but as if
it were the thinge which it was not in substance To the same effect he saith Non dictum est petra significat Christum sed petra erat Christus it a enim scriptura solet loqui It is not said that the rock did signify Christ but that the rock was Christ for so the scripture vseth to speake This forme of speach he and sundrie other of the fathers acknowledges in the sacrament Ad hibâ—â—t Iudam ad conuiuium in quo corporis sui figuram discipulis commendauit Christ admitted Iudas to the Supper in which he commended to his disciples the figure of his bodie And againe Non dubitauit dicere hoc est corpus meum cnm daret signim cerporis sui Hee doubted not to saye This is my bodie when hee gaue to his disciples the signe of his bodie Chrysostom saith Christus mortuus non est cuius symbolum ac signum hoc sacrificium est Christ is not deed of whome this sacrifice is a symboll and a signe Theodoret saith Qui seipsum vitem appell at ille symbola et signa quae videntur appellatione corporis et sanguinis honor auit non naturam mutauit He who called himselfe a vine honoured the signes and symbolles which are seene with the name of his bodie and bloode not changing their nature Nazianzenus calleth them â—oon megaloon mysteerioon antitypa The figures of great mysteries And in another place tou timiou soomatos antitypon The figure of his glorious bodie Tertullian to proue against Marcion that the bodie of Christ is not a fantasie taketh an argument from the Sacrament in these wordes Acceptum panem acdistributum discipuilis corpus suum illum fecit hoc est corpus meum dicendo id est figura corporis mei figura autem non â—uisset nisi veritatis fuisset corpus That is taking breade and diuiding it among his disciples hee made it his bodie saying This is my bodie That is this is a figure of my body Now it coulde hot haue beene a figure of his bodie if his bodie had not beene a very bodie because men vseth not to make figures of phantasies August de doctrina teaching in a long discourse that the scriptures alwayes implyeth some figure when they seeme to command facinus or flagitium That is as he him self expoundeth it an ill turne to him selfe or to an other in the ende bringeth for example the place out of the 6. of Iohn The letter whereof these men vrge so instantlie and concludeth it to be a figure in dispite of the pope the counsell of Rome which did in cannon it eight hundreth yeares after him to be catholick doctrine to grinde and rend the sacred bodie of Christ with sacrilegious teeth Nisi manducaueritis carnem filii hominis et sanguinem biberitis c. Facinus saith he vel flagitium videtur iubere figura ergo est Except thou eate the flesh of the sonne of man and drinke his blood seemeth saieth August to command a foull turne and therefore is a figure In these places of August Chrysostom Theodoret Nazianzen and Tertullian and many moe that might bee alledged to this effect it is manifest that these fathers and the Church in their times tooke the wordes of the institution this is my bodie figuratiuely Origen saith Si secundum literam accipis id quod dictum est nisi manducaâ—eritis carnem filii hominis litera illa occidit If thou vnderstand after the letter the wordes of our sauiour except you eate the flesh of the sonne of man c. that letter killeth Hyeronimus saith De hac quidem hostia quae in commemor atione Christi mirabiliter fit edere licet de illa uero quam Christus in ara crucis obtulit secundum se nemo potest edere Of that oblation which was made wonderfullie in remembrance of Christe a man may eate but of that which was offered vpon the alter of the crosse of it self no man can eate Chrysostom saith Si carnaliter accipis nihil lucraris If thou receaue it carnallie it will doe thee no good Of these places it is plaine that the flesh of Christe is not eaten with our teethe and that the eating the flesh of the sonne of man is not to bee vnderstood literallie Cyrillus saith Christus credentibus discipulis fragmenta panis dedit Christ gaue to his beleeuing disciples peeces of bread Hieronymus saith Christus in typo sanguinis sui non obtulit aquam sed vinum Christe in the type of his blood offered not water but wine Cyprianus saith Dominus sanguinem suum vinum appellauit de botris et acinis plurimis expressum The Lorde called wyne pressed out of many clusters grapes his bloode And againe Inuenimus vinum fuisse quod dominus sanguinem suum dixit Wee finde that it was wine which the Lorde called his bloode Of these places it is cleare that it was bread and wine which Christ gaue to his disciples bittes of bread wine wrong out of grapes Irenaeus saith panis eucharisticus carnis nostrae substantiam auget The bread of the eucharist that is of the Lordes supper turneth to the substance of our flesh augumentes it Origenes saith Ille cibus qui sanctificatur iuxta illud quod habet materiale in ventrem abit et in secessum eâ—citur That meate which is sanctified that is consecrated to a holie vse according to the matter or substance of it goeth downe into the bellie and is cast out into the iakes Be these two fathers it is plaine that the breade in the Sacrament doth nourish the body passeth through the belly and auoydeth into the draught which were an absurd thinge to speake of the precious flesh of our Sauiour Cyrill saith Christus cum discipulus suis etsi non corpore tamen virtâ—te deit atis semper futurus Christ will be with his disciples howbeit not bodilie yet bee vertue of his diuine power alwayes And in an other place Christus non poter at in carne versari cum apostolis post quam ascendisset ad patrem Christ coulde not in his flesh conuerse with his disciples after that hee was ascended to his father Athanasius saith Quomodo vnius hominis corpus vniuerso mundo sufficeret Quod tanquam in illorum cogitationibus versatus Christus commemorat A quibus cogitationibus vt eos auocaret quemadmodum Paulâ— ante suae descensionis de coelo mentionem fecit ita nunc reditus sui in coelum How can the body of one man suffice the whole world which thinge hee recordes as if hee had beene in their heartes From which thoughts to drawe them now hee maketh mentioÌ„ of his ascending into heauen as hee had done before of his descending from heauen By these two fathers yow maye see that Christ is ascended into heauen as concerning his bodie And to perswade the Caparâ—aites