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
cōiunctiō 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 mor
•
, since the Lord
•
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 eare
•
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,
•
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 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
•
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,
••
ntra maxim lib. 3. cap, 2
•
▪
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 institutiō 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.2. Cor, 10▪ 3.
••
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.Ioan
〈◊〉
26. 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,
Ma
••
. 14 25.
while I drink it. laying this foundation
which I hope no man can denie, that
the breade is no other wayes his bodi
•
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
thē 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 we
•
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.
•
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.lib. 4. dist.
•
. in A.
Qui discordat a Christo, non manducat carnem
eius, nec sanguinem bibit: et si tanterei
sacram
•
n
•
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 thē. The
faith which beleeueth, or vnderstanding
which conceaueth anye other flesh of
Christ then this, beleeueth and vnderstandeth
the thing that neuer was. Of
the wicked,1, Cor, 11, 27 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,Ion, 6. 33 35, 40, 47 50, 51. 56, 58, 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
cu
•
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.1, Cor, 11. 17.
He that
•
ateth of this breade, and
drinketh of this cuppe vnworthelie, ea
•
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 trau
•
lled so faithfullye
and discreit ye
〈◊〉
Apostleshipe.
Heare thou hast seauen argumentes,
gentle reader, th
•
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 an
•
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 transubstant
•
a
•
ted, as the
Church of Rome laboureth
•
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 foūd
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.De resur,
•
arnis.
Tertullian who liued in the yeare
two hundreth, saieth, of the eating of
Christ in the Sacrament. Auditu deuo
•
andus
est, intellectu ruminandus, et fide digerendus.
That is, bee hearing he is to bee
eaten,Di variis locis in math▪ ho
•
9 be vnderstanding chawed, & bee
faith digested.
Chrysostom teacheth the same. Magnus
i
••
e panis, qui replet mentem non ventrem.
This is the great bread, which filles the
minde, and not the bellie.
And August.in Ioan tract, 25.
Quid dentem, et ventrem
para
•
? crede, et manducasti. Why preparest
thou thy teethe and thy bellie? beleeue
and thou hast eaten.
Cyprian saith,
De
•
oena dom
•
ni,
esus eius carnis e
•
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,
Psal. 33.
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 foull
•
stomache
of the receauer.
Of sacraments in generall, August.
saith,
contrae maximinum.
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,Super levite. 56, quest. 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 quod
•
vti
que
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.Ioa
•
,
〈◊〉
36.
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,Psal, 3
•
he and sundrie
other of the fathers acknowledges in
the sacrament. Ad▪ hib
••
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,contra ad
•
mant▪ 12
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,
Mat hom
•
3
cuius symbolum ac signum hoc sacrificium
est. Christ is not deed, of whome this sacrifice
is a symboll and a signe.
Theodoret saith,Dial, 1
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
•
oon megaloon
mysteerioon antitypa,
•
pitaph f
•
atris The figures of great
mysteries. And in another place tou
timiou soomatos antitypon, The figure of
his glorious bodie.lib. 3 cap 16
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
•
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.lib, 4
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,
•
omil▪ 7 in le
•
it quod dictum est, nisi manduca
•
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,
De consee
•
ift,
•
,
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,
Ioan hom 27.
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,Ioan, lib, 4, cap, 14,
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,
ad ioui
•
i anum, lib▪ 2,
sed vinum.
Christe in the type of his blood offered
not water,lib, 1, epie
••
6, 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,lib▪ 2▪ epi
••
3
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,lib, 5 cap 1
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.mat cap. 15
Ille cibus, qui sanctificatur,
iuxta illud, quod habet materiale, in ventrem
abit, et in secessum e
•
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:
lib. 9. cap 22
tamen virt
•
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,
Ioan, lib 11 cap 3
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,De peccat in spirit, sanctum
Quomodo vnius hominis
corpus vniuerso mundo sufficeret? Quod
tanquam in illorum cogitationibus versatus
Christus commemorat. A quibus cogitationibus,
vt eos auocaret, quemadmodum Paul
•
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
mentiō 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 Capar
•
aites, 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 homi
•
is ascendentem, vbi erat
Prius quid est hoc? hinc apparet vnde fuerant
scandalizati. Illi enim put auerunt illum erogat
•
rum
corpus suum
•
ille autem dixit se ascensurum
in coelum, v
•
i
que
, 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
•
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 presēce.
And wee will not learne such deep mysteries
at men, who may deceaue, and be
disceaued, that Christ can doe it, we deny
•
not: but that he will doe it, we will
beleeue no man but him self, of whome
we are sure,in paedagogio lib, 2, cap. that he will not lye.
Clemens Alexandrinus saith, Duplex
est sanguis domini, alter, carnalis, quo redempti
•
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,contr
•
nestor anathe
•
11
Num humanae carnis cōmestionē hoc nostrum sacramentū pronuncias, et ad
crassas cogitationes vrges irreligiose mentes
•
orum, qui crediderunt. Et attentas tu humanis
rationibus tractare ea, qu
•
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,
•
ide videtur:
Lue, lib 10,
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,lo
•
n tract 2
•
.
Dominus dixit se panem
qui descendit de c
•
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 he
•
uen. He
that bele
•
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.Dial, 2, c
•
p 24
Theodoret saith. Christus naturam panis
non mutat, sed naturae addit gratiam.
Christe changeth not the nature of the
breade:Dial, 1, cap
•
, 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,
De iis qui initiantur 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.contra eu
•
icha
•
Gelasius saith in sacramento manet panis,
et vini substantia. In the sacramentes
the substance of breade and wine remaineth.
Irenaeus saith
•
Quemadmodum qui est
aterra panis percipiens vocationem domini
iam non est communis panis, sed eiu haristia ex.
duabus rebus constans terrena et celest
•
▪ sic et
corpora nostra percipientia cucharistiam iam
non sunt corruptibil
•
a spem resurrectionis habentia.
lib, 4. cap 34
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
b
•
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 Sacramēt: 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 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
go
••
ah of that vncircumcised congregation
gathereth what euer hee could
•
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
•
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
vnderstād, 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 mo
•
th of
f
•
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 ye 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 apprehēd 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 frō 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 hādling of them, y•
no man thoght his eloquēce suf
•
iciēt to
amplify the presēce of Christ in ye sacrament,
& with high speeches to imprint
a reverent estimatiō 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 kitc
•
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 accidēt
•
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 dissēted in many things
from them that followed, and in sundry
thinges from themselues. At this tyme
and before this monster grew to a head
the Lord raised vp one Ioannes Scotus
besome tearmed Erigena paedagoge to
the worthye Emperour Charles the
great, a man of great learning, and well
red both in Greeke and Latine. This
man wrote a learned work, against this
erroure, and in the beginning of it began
to descry the firste conception and
whole genealogie of this mōster. Soone
efter followed an other called Bertram
a preist, or as some thinkes a monke of
Corsbie in saxonie, where Pascasius also
was bred. This booke is yet extant,
wherein hee learnedly cites the fathers,
mightely vrges the scriptures, and providently
preuents the whole matter of
transubstantiation. This worke and the
author also Tritemius highlie commendeth,
both for life and learning. It
escaped, I can not tell bee what diuine
prouidence, the fyrie purgatorie of verselles,
in the flames whereof the booke
of Ioannes Scotus was quite consumed.
Yet there was an other prouided for it be
the Doctors of Louan, & be the counsel
of Trent called index expurgatorius, not to
consume all (for that would haue beene
a discredit to the holye Church) but to
raze such sentences as were vncureable
and where it woulde serue the turne to
charge no thing but the affirmatiue into
the negatiue, substance into accidents,
temporall into eternall, &c. That
is to saye, white into blacke, lighte into
darkenes, and truth into a lye. These
two book
•
were then published not in a
nooke, but in the open light and face of
the world, & the one of thē at the cōman
dement of the Emperour Carolus magnus.
They continued from aboute the
yeare eight hundreth to the troubles of
Berengarius, which fell out aboute the
one thousand and fiftie yeare, without
condemnation or accusation of heresie:
which wa
•
an argument that the weede
had not then ouerrshadowed the corne,
Bertram maketh mention of
〈◊〉
eate
contention the
•
in Fra
••
e aboute
this matter, which arg
••
s that the right
side was yet a partie. They who had
hard the reuerent Beda or his schollers,
for the moste parte, swaied that waye.
Heere Maister William Reinolds in his
booke against Maister Robert Bruce
seemeth to leaue his reader to thinke
that these two men, are either theirs, or
neuters. They wrote darkely (saith hee)
of the truth of this Sacrament, and so
doubtfully, that the Zuingliās vse their
authoritie, against the Catholickes, and
the Lutherans againste the Zuinglians.
In which wordes, hee woulde leade the
reader to thinke that Scotus, and Bertram
wrote for transubstantiation but
in such obscure tearmes, as might bee
drawne to
•
ny sense: so lothe are they
that wee haue the shadowe of any antiquitie,
before the dayes of Berengari
•
s.
•
t that time (because it is written in the
Reuelation, that after a thousand years,
the deuill should be let loose) he is content
to grant that opposition was made
to the veritie of Christs bodie, in the sacrament,
and cites for witnes, to blot it
no
•
withstanding with a note of newne
•
,
〈◊〉
Foxe whome hee tearmeth
the Martyr
••
ker. But to let him goe
with his tantes (for we must beare worse
then that, if neede bee) if that prophesie
be to be referred iuste to that tyme, let
them see if it maye not better be vnderstoode
of the Church of Rome. Which
at that time began to persue their brethren
with fire and fagott: and made
Lawes, to compell all men to beleeue
vnder paine of both deaths temporall,
and eternall, that a rounde wafer, with
the picture of Christe in it, was the very
essential body of Christ, that was borne
of the virgine Marye. This was more
like to haue beene the loose deuill and
the lying deuil to, which euer since hath
raged in these partes, then that of Berengarius,
which was soone bounde againe,
and vnder paine of burning compelled
to fing tongue thou lyed. If that
was the deuill, who is daylye rosted in
the eternall flames of the f
•
re of hell, hee
was fell fleed for a fire that woulde
haue beene done in one day. But if these
books were not plaine with vs, I would
aske of Maister Reinolds, why the pope
burned the one, & the index expurgatorius
mangled the other. But wee are
much beholden to him, how-be-it
he denieth vs this antiquitie: yet hee
would faine haue it beleeued, that our
doctrine was condemned of heresie, in
the very daies of the Apostles. To proue
this,Dial3 cap 19 he quotes Ignatius out of Theodoret,
who saith, that some acknowledged
not the eucharist to be the flesh of christ
that suffered for our sinnes. These some
heritiekes he woulde haue taken to bee
men of our minde, that in those times
denyed transubstantiation of the bodie
of Christ. Yet if he had marked with advised
iudgmente the drift of Theodoret
(for out of him the meaning of Ignatius
is to be gathered) hee might haue seene
that Ignatius spake of such heritickes
as Theodoret alledges him againste: or
else the allegation of Ignatius had been
impertinent. But Theodoret alleadged
him against Valentinian, Marcion, and
Manes, who denied Christ, to haue suffered
reall paines in a reall bodie. Ergo
Ignatius spake of heritikes, who denied
Christ to haue suffered reall paines in a
reall bodie. For as odious as wee are in
Maister Reinolds eies, it will be as hard
for him to conuince vs of this erroure, as
to make the place of Ignatius other
wayes to bee spoken of vs. This argumeut
of Ignatius was common amongst
the fathers againste that heresie: that if
Christ had not a true body, and suffered
not reall paines for our sinnes, the sacrament
could not bee a figure thereof.
As Tertulliā reasons before, because mē
vse not to make figures of phantasies.
And heare it will be harde for Maister
Reinolds, to clenge his hart, and hands
of falshoode, and forgerie, for alledging
Ignatius out of Theodoret against that
which Theodoret plainely & frequently
teacheth: that the sacraments are Tou
pathous typoi,
Dial, 3 cap 15 figures of the passion: and,Dial
•
cap 8
symbola cai typo
•
ou tees theoteetos, allatou s
•
matos,
cai haimatos. Signes and figures not
of his deitie: but of his bodie, & bloode.
But to returne to our storie. Wee reade
after Bertram, aboute the yeare nine
hundreth and fiftie, that their rose
•
greate controuersie likewise in Ingland
about this question, which is a proofe
that a hundreth and fiftie yeares after
the debate in France, which Bertram
maketh mention of, that the right side
was then also a partie, and that, the better
part. For transubstantiatiō (for now
that tearme was clecked) stoode Odo
Archbishope of Canterburie garded
with a greate armie of rascall ignorante
preists, who woone their dayly drink by
a disceatfull market of breade, for flesh.
On the other side, was the rest, & better
parte of the Clergie. The Bishope was
so armed with multitude, that maior pars
picit meli
•
rem, the greater part conquered
the better with arguments which in
those times were growen to a greate
hea
•
〈◊〉
, vniuersalitie, and false
miracles. A hundreth yeares after that
aboute the yeare one thousand and fifty
Berengarius deacon of Sainte Maurice
in Angieres, wrote a letter to Lanfrancus
abbat of Bec-heloin in Normandy,
declaring the abuses of the Sacrament,
and commending vnto him Ioannes
Scotus his learned work vpon that question.
It fell out that Lanfrancus himself
was then absent, and his conuent opening
the letter sent it to the pope. There
the Pope summoned a counsel and condemned
the man being absent of heresie
and commanded Lanfrancus at that
tyme being his freind, to answere him
vnder no lesse paine then to be as great
an hereticke as he. Lanfrācus following
the swaye of the worlde, for afterwarde
hee was made Bishop of Canterburie in
England, performed the charge laide
vpon him, without all regarde
•
fformer
freindshipe. Berengarius not-withstanding,
abiding constante Pope Leo the
ninthe summoned him to a counsell at
Verseles and there damned▪ him againe,
being absent, and burned the
booke of Ioannes Scotus, which he had
cōmended to Lanfrancus before. After
this Victor the second seeing Berengarius
for all this in high estimation, and
account, both with the Nobiliti
•
, and
people, for he was a man of singulare
graces, g
•
ue direction to the French
Church to summon, & take order with
him. They therefore assēbled at Toures,
whether the Pope also sent his legate
Hilde br
•
nd, who afterwarde was Pope
himself, one of the cursedeft that euer
was clecked. Before them Berengarius
appe
•
red, and for as ill as the worlde
was, satisfied them & Hildebrand also,
prouing his doctrine be the Scriptures,
fathers, and counselles to haue beene
the ancient faieth of the Church. But
pope Nicolas the second, not contentented,
with this summoned him to
Rome againe, to a counsell helde in the
Castle of Lateran there: and drawing
him thither with faire promises, gaue it
him to his choise, whether he would recant
or burne. Where the cowardlie
man, now in his oulde age, for feare of
that, which was moste spent, made that
beastly recantation, which is yet extant
in Gratian, a perpetuall argumente
of his dasterdlye courage, and the
brutishe ignorance of that counsell, of
which the fyner papistes since hath
beene ashamed, and their owne glosse
saith in the decreits, that if it be not wel
taken, it is a fouler erroure, then was
that of Berengarius. Thus was that sillie
man counted before (as recordeth
Fuldebert bishop of Cenomanum) both
for life and learning, the flowre of his
age, compelled againste his conscience
bee a hersel of ignorant mules to condemne
and curse the truth, to his great
•
reife, and terroure in the houre of his
death. After this the truthe beganne to
sinke, and ignorāce ouerwhelmed almost
the whole Church. The knowledg
of tongues decayed and he was counted
the greatest clarke that coulde speake
most barbarous Latine: and teare out of
whole peces, such distinctions as would
haue troubled all the schooles in Athenes
to vnderstand. Notwithstanding this
cruell dealing with Berengarius Benno
Cardinall of Hostia recordes, that Gregorte
the seauenth, before called Hildebrand,
who at the commandement of
Victor the second, had hard Berengarius
him self in the counsel of Towres, remained
so vnresolued heereof, that hee
sent to Anastatius, to praye, and commanded
his Colledge to fast, to get
some secret reuelation from heauen, of
this mysterie. By which doubt of the
pope himself, it should seeme, that the
reasons of Berengarius were not lighte,
that sunke so deep into his heart (as hard
as it was) that the hole sea of rome
•
uld
not wash them awaye. After this, this
truth was still persecuted, till these our
times be the wolfes of Rome, that gote
the custodie of Christs sheepe, bee
hooke, and crook, and forged falshood.
The first that we reade of, to haue abide
the flames of this purgatorie (for now it
was growen hotter, & burned not onely
bookes, but both booke, and bodie,
was one Peter Bruce, aboute the yea
•
e
one thousand two hundreth. Hee was a
doctour in Tolouse of great account at
that time, and many flocked to his lessons,
of all degrees. Hee for his laboure
was burned quick, for that was now become
the stipend of truth, how-be-it it
had beene as cleare as the sunne, if the
pope of Rome allowed it not. Notwithstanding
the fall of his Maister, one
Henrie his scholer tooke the
〈◊〉
in hand, and boldely sustained i
•
. Their
followers, which were manye, and the
more bee the cruell handling of Peter
(for sanguis sanctorum semen ecclesiae, the
the bloode of the saintes, is the
•
eede of
the Church) were in dispi
•
e called Petro-Brucianes,
& Henricianes, as these
men are euer reddie to nik-name whosoeuer
dissents from them. Aboute the
same time, there was an abhot in an
other part of France, I cannot finde the
name of the place, and a prieste at Lismoore
in England of the same opinion▪
The centuries calleth them sacramentaries
that they might no more goe without
a nikname, then their fellowes. About
the yeare, one thousand one hundreth
& three score, there was in Lyons
one Waldus a Merchant, for welth and
wisedome of good account. This man
walking in the fields, for repast as some
writeth, or on the counsell of the towne
as other recordes, sawe one in the companie
fall downe deade. With which
spectacle entring into a deepe speculation
of the frailtie of this life, and the
vanitie of our cares s
•
t on a thinge so
fraill, hee turned his studies to prouide
for the life that lasteth without ende.
Wherefore hee got him a Bible which
booke in those times was rare in the
handes of the Laitie, & not so frequent
in the hands of the Cleargie, as worse
bookes: and like the man in the gospell
•
o buye the Iewell of the kingdome of
heauen, spent the rest of his trauels (for
hee was learned) to seeke out of it the
true water of life. The thinge which hee
learned him self, hee imparted to his familie
and catechised it. His maner of
teaching was so familiare, & effectual,
that sundrye of his neighbours, resorted
to his house to heare him. This congregation
grew frequēt, & the priests grew
angrie. Wherefore like dogs in a manger,
that neither can eate the haye, nor
will let the horse, they charged him, to
let that labour alone, and not to put
his hooke in their haruest, except hee
would doe worse. The man caried more
with conscience, which straited him;
then caring for their boaste, whome he
sawe doe no other good, but roare in a
Church: followed his godly course, and
his neighbours for all the feare refrained
not his house. Whereupon they
excommunicated and cursed him with
bell, booke, and candle, and al his followers,
and confiscated al their substance.
There they sundred some seeking this
waye, and some that, where they coulde
finde any succour: and woone where euer
they came the praises of good life,
and godly learning, being named commonly
in waye of pittie, pauperes Lugdunenses,
the poore of lyons, as they were in
deede stripped out of al and left as pure
as Irus. Some of them went into Lombardy,
some into Boheme, & some setled
at home in Prouince, Guien, Langue
•
ock,
&c. In Bohem being 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 Angroingu
•
. The Bishope
had accused thē 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 afterwa
•
de forbidden
be the King, as ouer c
•
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 ye
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 Sl
•
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 Piedmōt & 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
•
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
〈◊〉
anad
•••
t
•
ther meaning is of
•
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 othe
•
meaning. Ergo, these words of
the institution, are not of sufficient importance,
to leade the heart of a Cristian
to a persuasion contrarye to sens
•
, &
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
•
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,M, Iohn hammiltō con, and plaine wordes
without ambiguitie, but figuratiue
wordes, are not plaine and simple without
ambig
•
itie. Ergo, Sacraments shuld
not consist of figuratiue wordes. Firste
this argumente destroyeth vtterly the
na
•
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
•
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 mad
•
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
•
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.Ioan, 6,
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 wou
•
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) 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,De res
••
carnis 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,
Ioan
•
53
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 tee
•
h
•
, is not to eate the bread
of life, that thou neuer hūger nor thirst a
gain.
〈◊〉
48, 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
•
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:
〈◊〉
, 63
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 spiritu
•
ll and
liuelie, that is effectual to life. In all that
cap. he that will marke attentiuely shal
finde that whole discourse with the c
•
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,vers▪ 53▪
that hee that eateeth
not his flesh hath no life in him,vers, 47, that
is,vers, 33. 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,cap,
•
▪ sect,
•
, 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.Exod 24, 8
〈◊〉
22 2
•
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 Testamēt,
as
•
whereof Moses spoke, was the
blood of the olde. But y• 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
wa
•
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 be
•
es in the olde
testamēt, 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 of
•
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.M, Iohn hammiltō of the L. supper They beare the worlde in hande
that wee denying Christe to turne the
bread into his bodie, are more incredilous
then sath
•
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
•
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 t
•
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 no
•
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,M, Iohn hammil
•
on ibid.
•
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 worde
•
, 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, expresse
•
: Ergo, the bread is
the bodie which was broken for y• elect,
which conclusion is true in a figure. And
heare it is a world to see the blindnesse
of these men: for of their li
•
erall sense,
this absurditie will followe without
a warde. The pronoune (this) demonstrates,
that which was broken for the
elect. But the pronoune (this) demonstrates,
the bodye of Christe vnder the
shape of bread. Ergo, the bodie of Christ
vnder the shape of breade, was broken
for the elect.
This is al to my remembrance, which
they can drawe from the scriptures.
with any shew of reason, or probability.
But heare to get more elbowe-roome,
and m
•
e startling holes, they appeale
to the Church, & all writers of all ages.
A large forrest in deede, where their is
many bushes to hide a lye. First for the
Church, they will prese vs to accept
the Church of Rome. If they had anye
such promise as Ierusalem hath manye,
that. The spirite of the Lorde shoulde neuer
departe from her: and that hee woulde
set his tabernacle their for euer: the
worlde woulde bee ouer little to holde
them. But seeing Ierusalem is fallen
not-with-standing these promises:
wee may well doubt of Rome that hath
no promise. And seeing Rome hath had
7. Kings, was set on seauen hilles, was
drunken and is drunken with the blood
of the saintes, and was the greate citie
which regned ouer the Kinges of the
earth: it is verie suspitious that she is the
seate of the scarlet whoore. And therefore
let them set their harts at rest: for
wee will not admit the shadowe of her
name. As for the writters of all ages we
will not refuse them on certaine conditiones.
We acknowledge the scriptures
the onely well of truth and life. If any
man bring vs water out of their cesterns
we haue example of him that sent vs to
the scriptures onely, to suspect poyson,
We will ken noe strange fire that is
no new doctrine in the Lords sanctuarie,
without the warrant of the wo
•
de of
truth. For wee count
〈◊〉
authoritie of
man, no not of all men sufficient to giue
lawes to the conscience. Onely God is
Lord ouer i
•
, and able to con
•
roll i
•
. He
that seeth not the hearte, can not binde
the heart to any lawe, if these men, who
woulde so faine laye on vs the yocke of
mans authoritie, can produce one man
with warrant from him, that made man
not to be a man, that is, in no thinge to
erre, and be disceaued. we will take his
worde. when wee haue seene, and tryed
his warrant. But if he dwelleth in neighboure
rowe among his brethren: they
must pardon vs to trye his golde with
the true tuich stone, which cannot deceaue,
nor bee disceaued. Of this minde
was August. that hee woulde trye all
mens writtinges,ad
〈◊〉
epist,
•
. were their names neuer
so Catholicke be the scriptures▪ and
wisheth others to doe the like with his.
On this condition then we will admitt
the testimonies of men, to proue that
this light (as I haue saide) be Christ and
his Apostles, once kindled in the
Church, for all that his enemies coulde
doe, was neuer extinguished since. For
the Church of God his true spouse maye
be banished to the wildernesse: but never
vtterly destroyed. It is true that our
aduersaries heare, musters the names of
the fathers, and bragges of al antiquity.
It woulde bee long and tedious to examine
all their particulare allegations.
Therefore to be shorte, I will set downe
two obseruations, which cutteth off
what euer seemeth to make for them
for six hundreth yeares after Christe, of
which I haue touched the one alredie,
declaring the causes, how transubstantiation
crap into the hearts of men. That
is, that it is our parte, when wee receaue
these holy mysteries, to lift our senses so
from the elementes, that we neuer let it
enter into our thoughtes, that wee receaue
breade and wine: but assure our
consciences, that Christ bee the secrete
ministerie of his divinitie doth feede
our soules with the true breade of his
bodie to et
•
rnall life.in Genel,
•
omil, 24, That is, that which
Chrysostom teacheth. Oculifidei. quando
vident haec in effabilia bona, ne sentiunt quidem
h
•
c visibilia. When the eyes of
•
aith
beholdeth these vnspeakable good
thinges, they no wayes feele the sensible
thinges, which are set before them.
This then being harde for our senses to
mount aboue their owne obiects, and
to set their intention on graces so vnsensible
to our corrupted instrumentes:
the fathers to stirre vppe this spirituall
consideration in vs, faleth out manye
times in hyperbolycall speeches, which
they neither ment them selues, nor any
man of indifferent iudgment considering
ye drift of their words can suspect to
haue bene their meaning. In this forme
Hierom saith.In Psal 97
Christus nobis quotidie crucifigitur.
Christ is dayly crucified vnto vs.
Gregory saith.De conse
•
distinct 2 quid sit▪
Christus iterum in hoc mysterio
moritur, eius caro in populi salutem patitur.
Christ dieth in this Sacrament: his
flesh suffereth againe for the life of the
people. Chrysostom saith, In his mysteriis
mors Christi per
•
icitur.
In Act hom 2
•
In these mysteries
the death of Christ is perfited. August.
saith, Vos estis in mensa, vos estis in calice.
You are on the boorde,De conse, dist
•
nct 2 quia pass, you are in the
cuppe. Chrysostom in an other place
saith, Ecce agu
•
m dei mactatum a principi
•
mundi:
De sace
••
lib, 3.
I am hauriture latere eius sanguis: I am
•
otus populus eius sanguine sparsus et r
•
bore
persusus est. Beholde the Lambe of God
slaine from the beginning. Euen nowe
the bloode is drawne out of his side: even
nowe the whole people is sprinkled
with his bloode and spotted with the
rednesse thereof. Who can bee so grosse
headed as to thinke that these men did
meane as they spake: That Christe is
crucified, that Christe is slaine againe:
that Christ suffereth in the Sacrament;
that the blood is drawen out of his side,
and that the people are sprinkled and
made red there with. Seeing then the
fathers are some-times extraordinarie
in this kinde of amplification: we would
pray the modest and discrete reader,
when he meeteth with such speeches in
them, either in his owne rerding, or alleadged
bee the aduersarie, to weigh
them with their owne circumstances,
and other places of the same authores,
to see if they haue anye hyperbolicall
weight, to settle them deeper into the
hearte of the hearer. The other thinge
which I would commend to the discretion
of the reader is the name (nature)
which is not alwayes taken for substance,
b
•
t sundry times for the naturall
power, vertue, or vse of thinges. So
Chrysostom saith of Elizaeus potuit vndarum
mutare naturam, vt ferrum sustinere
cogeret.
De virt
•
e
•
vit,
•
om, 5. He had power to change the nature
of the water, and to force it to
beare yron. Where you see that the
water was not changed into a more solide
bodie, but the naturall liquiditie
was altered that against nature it stood
together, and bore the yron. So
speaketh Ciril of the water in Baptisme.
Quem admodum viribus ignis intentius califacta
aqua,
In Ioan lib, 2, cap 42,
non aliter, quam ignis vrit: sic
spritus sancti operatione, aquae ad diuinam
reformantur naturam. As water who
•
e bee
the power of the fire burneth as sore as
fyre it self: so the water be the working
of gods spirit is changed to a heauenly
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 beg
••
le a wise and circumspect
reader. Harding against Iewell alleadges
out of C
•
prian these wordes. Panis
iste,
Articul 10 sect 2,
quem dominus discipulis porrigebat, non
effigi
•
, 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 chāging of the one
substance into the other.Cap 1 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,In octa
••
epiphan
Panis, et vini
creatura in sacramentum
•
arnis, et sanguinis
Christi ineff abili spiritus sanctificatione transf
•
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,Cap
•
sect 5 alleadgeth two
places out of Ambrose, which being
weighed in these confiderations will
proue no transubstantiation.De iis qui untiantur cap. 9 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,De sacr
•
, lib, 4, cap,
〈◊〉
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
•
rant, quanto magis operatorius est, vt sin
•
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 l
•
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 substāce. 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
thē knowne in the own complexion. To
conclude this matter of the fathers: it is
no wonder, that these men presum
••
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,Cap,
•
sect, 2 quoteth
out of Caluines instituti
•
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,Insti
•
u
•
. 4, lib cap, 17 sect, 10,
〈◊〉
, 11. 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.Ibid, sect 31, Againe, in his holy supper,
hee willeth me vnder the symboles
of breade and wine to take, eate, and
drinke his bodie and bloode: I no thing
doubt, but hee truely giueth it, and I receaue
it. The like
•
e playeth with Maister
Robert Bruce.Cap, 6, sect,
•
, To the ende (saieth
Maister Robert) that this sacrament
maye nourish thee to life euerlasting,
Thou must receaue in it thy whole Sauiour,
whole Christ, GOD and man,
without separation of his substance
from his graces,Ibid, sect
•
or of one nature from
an other. And againe, It is not ynough
to see Christ in heauen be faith: but he
must bee giuen to vs, or else hee can
not worke health and saluation in vs.
These places hee quotes, and sundry others
as pregnant as these, not that hee
woulde haue it thought that these men
did beleeue transubstantiation: but
producing other places of theirs, against
transubstantiation to stayne
their constancie with contradiction.
But if Ignatius had wrote these wordes
within one hundreth years after Christ:
Had they not beene as purpose-like, as
the words which I haue answered page.
40. Or if Cyprian or Ambrose had written
them what had they beene behind
the places▪ which I haue euen nowe answered
In which practise it may appeare
that al is not gold y• these men can make
glister. And y• al men meaneth not
•
ran
substantiation. whose wordes these men
can make sounde that tune. As for Caluin,
or Beza, or Maister Robert Bruce,
it is as easie for men of this facultie to
qualifie any thinge written bee them against
this heresie, sauing the denying
the name of transubstantiation, and other
newe the oremes, which the fathers
neuer harde of: As sundry places of the
fathers which our men hath alledged
against them. In which it woulde set
ones teethe an edge to see their shiftes,
August. meaneth not this: Cipryan
speaketh not that: nor no father what euer
he saieth, speaketh anye thinge. but
that which they put in his mouth, howbeit,
he neuer knew any such thinge as
they father on him. For example, Maister
Robert Bruce alledges in his Sermon
the place of August. which I haue
cited page, 20. to proue the wordes of
Iohn: Except ye eate of the flesh of the sonne of
man figuratiue. Out of which wordes
thus it may bee gathered. All script
•••
which seemeth to command a foule
deade, is figuratiue and not literall. For
that is August. drift, in all that place
teaching to knowe the scripture, where
it implyeth a figure, and where not.
But this scripture, Except you eate the fl
•
she
of the sonne of man &c. S
•
emeth to command
a foull deed. Ergo, this scripture,
Except you eate the flesh of the sonne of man
&c. Is figuratiue, and not literall. To
this Maister Rainolds answereth with a
boulde face, as if it straited them not.
Saint August.Cap, 19
〈◊〉
,
•
. wordes answereth them
selues: and so hee doth in other places,
and euen heare the seconde place an
•
wereth
the firste: because it notifyeth
how farre forth this speach is figuratiue.
Onely this may be added to the first &c
and the reste of it, no thinge to the purpose.
This answer woulde trouble as
good a witte as his that made it to vnderstand
it. For my parte I muste confesse
my ignorance except his meaning
be that August. woulde haue this place
partely figuratiue, and partlye plaine
for so his wordes soundeth howe farre
forth these wordes are figuratiue. If this
be his meaning, it is an other new lesson
such as nature neuer bred. August. that
sillie man had neuer beene at this
schoole. In all that booke De doctrina
Christana hee knowes no other senses of
wordes but figuratiue, or proper. The
wordes of Christe, Except you eate the flesh
of the sonne of man▪
he denyeth to bee proper,
and so concludeth them to be figuratiue.
Now commeth in Maister Wiliam
Rainoldes with howe farre figuratiue:
as if they might bee three or foure
inches in the tope, or the bottome figuratiue,
and all the reste of them proper.
This is strange diuinitie. It maye goe in
the Church of Rome, among their false
miracles: but wee admitt noe miracles
nowe, and therefore Maister William
Rainlods, muste make this place either
all together figuratiue, as doth August.
or else altogether proper which August.
denyeth. Let him laye his hande to his
heart, and take which hee will. Marie if
hee will take that which August. denyeth,
hee must pardon vs to follow Aug.
and let him goe.
Now hauing deduced this cause to
our owne times, and opened how these
men pulleth the mouthes of the fathers
aside, to make them speake their phantasies:
it remaineth, because I heare that
some men braggeth of Maister Will.
Rainolde his sharpnes against Maister
Robert Bruce, to lay open his quicknes:
For my part I wonder what sharpnesse
they see, except it be ye bitternesse of an
vncleane mouth, spitting not onelye on
the men that hee dealeth with, and neuer
sawe▪ the galle of an vncircumcised
heart
••
but also tantinglye scoffing at
Chri
••
es blessed ordinance,Cap, 3▪ sect, 1 calling it a
beggerly bitt of breade, which vnreuere
•
t
worde, coulde neuer haue fallen
from a hearte that reuerenced Christes
institution, how euer men might misuse
it. But to let alone his bitternesse, and
taste his sharpnes.
Maister Robert Bruce reasoneth
thus.Cap, 18, sect, 1, No finit body can be at one time in
sundry places. Christes bodie euen now
glorifyed is finite. Ergo, Christes bodie
now glorified can not be in sundrie places
at once. To this and other two arguments
takin from visibility, and palpability,
hee answereth without anye authority,
but his owne, That these things
are no more necessary to the bodye of a
man, then to eate, drinke, sleepe, reste,
increase, decrease, & weare to corruption.
Now marke his sharpnesse, to eate,
drinke sleepe, &c. are no longer necessarye
to a mans bodie, then it lyueth a
life subiect to alterationes. But to bee
finite, visible, and palpable, are necessarie
to a bodie being deade, risen againe,
and euen glorifyed in the kingdome of
heauen. Our Sauiour after his resurrection,
was seene of moe then fiue hundreth.
Thomas and sundrye others felt
him, and when he was at Emaus with
the two disciples: he was not in Ierusalem
with the other nyne, for as neare as
it was: and when hee was in Ierusalem
with the eleuen, hee was not in Ierico
nor no other place of Iudea nor of the
worlde. And heere the ingenious reader
maye see, that his sharpe answere
shutteth beside the marke, and hitteth
no part of the argument.
To three places of August.Ad Da
•
d In Ioan tract, 3, that the
bodie which is not in some place, is not
at all. That the bodie, in which the
Lord rose, must be in some place. And
that all bodies bee they greate or small
must be in some place. To one hee answereth,
that hee speaketh of common
bodies: to an other that he speakes no
•
of Christes bodie in the sacrament. This
laste is easie to bee beleeued. Augustine
neuer thoughte Christes
reall bodie as it was borne of the Virgine
Marie, to bee in the breade of the
sacrament: and therefore it is liklie that
hee spake not, of the thinge, which hee
knew not. Yet this man saith, that hee
euerie where acknowledgeth it, but
produceth no where. Thou hast harde
August.In Psal, 98 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,Actes,
•
vers,
〈◊〉
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,Cap, 1
•
sect,
•
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 aduersari
•
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.Cap, 1
•
sect, 3
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.Luk, 24 vers, 39 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)1
•
, 28,
•
17, 11, 14, 12,
•
, 16, 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
•
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
pa
•
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
•
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 ye
venome, of the whoores c
•
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
•
orporall presence, no spirituall effect
can flowe (for that is Maister Rob.
meaning) But the effect of the sacramēt
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 pa
•
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
eff
•
ct of that Sacrament. But sait
•
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 gr
•
sser, and greater
coulde be deuised. But to Maister Robert
his argumente. That which can
not nourish corporrallie, can not
bee a sign
•
of spirituall nourishmente.
But accidentes of breade and wine
•
an not nourishe corporally. Ergo the
•
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
•
inde any warrant
from God and his word.
The thirde is, if their had beene such
a wonderfull 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 plain
•
, more effectuall, and more
significāt. 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 hea
•
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 learn
•
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 bai
•
nelye obiection,
that it can not demonstrate breade.
His reason is for tharin Latine congruitie,
in (hoc est corpus
•
m
•
um) hoc can not
agree with Panis. And in (hicest sanguis
me
•
s, hic can not agree with Vinum. In
which obiection either he sheweth him
s
••
fe a meere ignorant, of the Latine
grammer, or else speaketh agai
•
ste hi
•
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 peruer
•
e resolution, that
woulde denye Animal to bee the antecedent
to Quem, because it accordeth
in gender with H
•
minem. And what may
we thinke of Maister William R
•
inoldes.
Who in the words of our Sauiou
•
den
•
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 ga
•
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
Christ
•
, vnder the shape of bread and
wine, much lesse Indiuiduū 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 m
•
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;
•
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;1, Cor, 11,
•
0. 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
••
te the Lords Supper. Deipnon Kyriacon that
is
•
aules owne wordes. Now he is doctoured
either hee hath forgotten this:
or aduising withsome other Doctour of
greater account then Paull was;Pag,
〈◊〉
in his
last booke hee condemneth both himselfe,
and Paull of heres
•
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 auctori
•
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 behold
•
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
•
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.Pag, 286 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,Pag, 34
•
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.Pag, 191
God (saith he) made all thinges with hi
•
worde. Ergo the wordes of Christ (This
is my bodye) turned the breade into the
bodie of Christe. This saith he the Centurion
confessed.Math, 8, 8,
Saye the worde, and my
sonne shall be made whole. And the de
•
ill
•
Math, 4
•
•
command that these stones be made breade.
〈◊〉
this argument Christe him selfe saying,Iohn 6 53
I am the bread that came downe from heauen,
is turned into breade,Iohn 15 and I am the true
•
ine, and my father the husband man. He is
t
•
rned into a vine, and his father into a
husband man, with a snedding knife
in his hande to prune him.Ma
•
•
〈◊〉
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,
Mat 12
〈◊〉
they were turned
into a nest of young vipers. A
•
for
the power of God, & might of his word,
we beleeue with the Centurion, that he
can doe what he will. But that hee will
doe al, that he can, was the faith of the
deuill, who persuaded him to make
breade of stones because he coulde. As
for this question, when Maister Iohn
Hammilton can proue to vs, that Christ
his will was to create him selfe a new
•
bodie of breade, bee the eternall worde
of truthe, we shall addresse our heartes
to beleeue it.
Secondlye he argues. It is blasphemy
to saye that Christes blessing worketh
no thing in the breade: and if it worke
anyething, it is no thing but transubstantiation.
To this it maye be replyed,
that Christ hath not left vs in the worde
that powerfull forme of blessing, and
that no other, not the Pope him selfe,
can supplye that want, with wordes
〈◊〉
. As for the words
〈…〉
thanks, or (to giue him that) blessing
the bread, it containeth onely an assertion
that he blessed it, not the forme how
he blessed it Which thing it may seeme
the Lorde left out, foreseeing that these
men woulde haue misconstrued it, if
they had gotten it. Further they are not
yet agreed on it, whether the wordes of
the institution, or the blessing, if they
had them, worketh this miraculous
change. When they are all agreed let
M. Iohn Hammilton, if hee like not this
answere sende vs word, and wee shall
shape him an other.
Thirdely he saith, we giue Christ the
ly
••
Pag 295,
•
enying the breade to be turned
into Christes bodie. Be that rule (as is
saide alredie) hee giueth Christe the lye.
that saith he is not a vine, nor a doore.
Alace that M. Iohn Hammilton should
set his faith vpon such grounds as these.
Fourthlye he woulde proue bee the
institution,Pag, 298 that Christ saide masse in his
owne person: sitting at the table with his
disciples. Masse at a table!
•
ye man
•
oulde he not get an altar, twentie to
one that Masse was not Catholike, that
w
•
nted an alter hallowed hee some
pope. For seeing it is a necessarie instrument
to that action, it was no harder
for him to haue raised vp a
〈◊〉
to
that ende; then to turne the bread into
his bodie, nether hauing two bodies,
nor changing the formes of the
•
reade:
This doubtlesse was a great ouer-sight.
B
•
t heare I woulde aske an other question
also: whether he saide masse sec imdum
ordinem sarum, vel Romanum. And
what was the forme of his masse
•
loths:
whether in the consecration hee keeped
the iust number of Crosses, beckes,
binges, Ioukes; and turnes prescribed
in that action, whether in his memento
he prayed for his father and his mother,
and in the oblation offered sacrifice for
them. And to omitt the rest, for I can
no
•
stand on all, whether hee repeted
the fiue wordes, hoc est enim corpus meum,
with out taking his breath. For if hee omitted
these murgines, or anye of many
moe then these: he was not so catholike
a preste, I meane so Romane catholike
(and for all my correction pardon
my comparison) as for M. Iohn Hammilton
and ten thousand moe, that is
•
and was farre more formal, to mummill
〈◊〉
Romane Masse, then hee. Heere also
might be asked, whether the Masse
which Christ saide was perfect, or imperfect.
And if it was perfect as perhaps
they may grant, whether all the crosses,
and kisses in the rubrick of the canon
of the Masse, and the rest of the ceremonies
prescribed there, be vnnecessary
additions: and if they be, what they
were that durste presume to ad to that,
which the eternall wisdome of God had
praescribed such trashe, and make their
inuentiones as necessarie, as his institu
•
ion.
For now it is growen to that heade
that if M. Iohn Ham. for as catholike
as he is, or the highest headed Bishope
within the Popes precincts woulde acknowledge
no other Masse, then Christ
ordained,
〈◊〉
298 he woulde soone be as odious
an heritike, as either Martine Luther,
or Iohn Caluin. But to his syllogisme.
That Christ said Masse thus he reasons.
The Masse is no other thing hut the giuing
and offering of Christes precious
bodie and bloode, contained vnder the
externall formes of breade and wine,
after the order and ri
•
e of melchisade
•
to theliuing God for the people. But
Christ Iesus after that he had consecrated
the breade and wine in his precious
bodie and bloode, gaue the same to
God the father for his Apostles, sitting
with them at the institution of this holy
Sacrament. Ergo Christe saide Masse at
the institution of the Sacrament. To the
〈◊〉
of this syllogisme I haue answered
that if M. Iohn Hammilton would saye
no other Masse then that, he woulde be
condemned of heresie for imitation of
Christe. The minor I vtterly denye. The
text saieth not that Christe gaue th
•
breade and wine consecrated to his father
for his disciples: But to his disciples
for a remembrance of his blessed passion.
That which hee gaue to his disciples
for a remembrance of him selfe: it will
passe M. I. his intandement to proue
it giuen to God for them. But to finde
the Masse in these wordes beholde, how
many leapes he takes. Firste that Christ
gaue this Sacrament to his father. Secondly
that (he gaue) is that hee offered.
Thirdely that hee offered it euen then,
when he gaue it. Fourthly that h
•
offer
••
a sacrifice fo
•
his disciples:Pag, 287 Fistly that
•
ee o
•
fered it for them, that is not for
their redemption (for that woulde bee
derogatorie to his bloodie sacrifice) bu
•
to adore GOD for their! redemptioni
And therefore as if their were noe mor
•
doubt of these wordes, then the worde
•
of the Masse booke Iube
〈◊〉
perserri, per
•
ianus
•
sancti angel
•
t
••
&c. Hee runneth
out vpou vs as blasphem
•
ers of this holy
sacrifice, & pernerters of this holy text
•
To conclude with him in a place he
•
proueth that the wicked eateth not,Pag, 369 no
•
dri
•
keth the bodie, and blood of Christ
His argument is the foundest syllogisme
in all that worke. But that men may se
•
how lo
•
h h
•
is to speake truth,Pag, 380 or reason
for it:
〈◊〉
••
teth vp that assertion argument
and all at once, and calleth it an
impious he
•
e sie, and proueth it bee the
in
•
tance of
•
udas, who with the reste of
the twelue Apostles rece
•••••
the Sa
•
rament.
In which reason the ingeniou
•
reader maye take vp an inc
•
anted, and
besotted head with the sot
•
sh poyson
of the Romane dregges. The question is
whether the wicked in the Sacramente
•
eceaueth the reall bodie of Christ: And
for proofe hee alleges the euang
•
listes.
Mathew, Marke, and I uke, to proue
that I
•
das receaued the Sacramente.
That Iudas receaued the Sacrament it
is a thing that might haue beene, and
some affirmeth, and some denyeth. But
that, Iudas did eate the flesh, and drinke
the bloode of Christe, it will passe all
the schooles of Rome to proue bee the
•
racles of truth. Of that Augustine saith
〈…〉
panem dominu
•
••
das did eate not the breade the
Lorde: but the breade of the Lorde.
This much to giue the reader a taste of
M. Iohn his doctourall learning. For anye
thing that appeareth in his writtinges
he might haue beene vndoctored
this dozen year
••
, 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 vnlea
•
ned books
〈…〉
I red: of all the vnconstante,
and wand ring stiles running a
•
the
••
ubiect
on euerie
•
ighte occasion I giue it
the first place.
Hetherto I
•
aue laide downe what
little reason they haue to denye the
wordes of the institution to bee
•
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. H
••
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
•
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 s
•
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,
Mar
•
424 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 SauiourIohn 6
•
6
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,
Actes 32
•
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 anne
•
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,W, R. Cap 19, sect, 1,
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-beit
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,Tho Aquinas in 3 quest 76 art 30 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 wa
•
er.
Eleuenthly that the preist is the creatore
of his owne creatore,Stella cle
•
icorum 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,Anto
••
〈◊〉
a
•
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
•
nsume.Pe
••
us de plaud In this kinde one
highlie commendeth one Goderanus a
preist for lapping vp the vomet of a leper
man,Hug of clunice 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
might stand very well with demonstration
of the breade) hee saith it demonstrateth
a thing which he calleth Indi
•
duum
vagum, and to expounde him selfe
to the capacitie of the simple he calleth
it also Indiuiduum in genere, or Indiuiduum
entis, Induiduum insignitum, Indiuiduum
Iudiuidui. vnum substantia, and
〈◊〉
entis.
Which deepe diuinitie I can not expounde
to men that hath noe other but
their mother tongue except Indiuiduum
vagum maye bee some wandring vagabounde.
In this matter there is much more diversitie
of opinions: which woulde bee
tedious to reckon vppe particularlye.
Some saieth that the bodie of Christe is
rent with the teethe,Gratian de cons, dist, 2, can
•
go Be
••
n
〈◊〉
and some saith no.
Some saith that the accidents of bread,
& wyne doth nourish: & some saith no.
Some saith that as soone as it commeth
to the toothe the bodye of Christ returneth
bee a miracle, and some saie no.
Some saie that Christe is in the Sacrament
in quantitie, and qualitie,Caie
•
a
•
et alii, as hee
was on the Crosse, and some saie no.
Some sa
•
e that hee did consecrate be a
diuine power, and some saie no. Some
saie that he consecrated bee his blessing,
and some saie no. And some saie that
he did consecrate bee vertue of the
•
iue
wordes hoc, est, enim, corpius, meum, and
some saie no. To make them siue they
added enim of their owne, because the
poet testifieth that numero deus impare
gaudet God delighteeth in an odde number,
how-be-it the poet ment three, not
fiue. But to goe fordwarde. Some saieth
that the naturall bodie of Christ is in the
Sacramente naturallie, and some saie
no. Some saith that the substance of the
breade, is turned into the substance of
Christes bodie, and some s
••
e no: but
that it vanisheth to no-thing and that
the bodye of Christ
•
succedeth into the
place of it.
There are manye moe doubts which
I would aske of the Maisters of this theologie,
to bee resolued me be cleare
〈◊〉
timonie of scripture.
First whether the breade be changed
materia, et forma, or materia onely.
Secondlye if the forme bee changed.
whet
•
er it bee changed into the forme
of Christs bodie.
Thirdelye if the essentiall forme of
breade be that, which maketh bread to
be called breade, and distinguisheth it
from flowre, and wheate: whether colour,
•
auer, taste, substance, friabilitie
and vertue to feede be not that essentiall
forme.
Fourthly whether the breade be turned
into whole Christ God and man.
Fifthly if into his manhoode onelye,
whether that bee not a separation of hi
•
vnseparable natures.
Sixthly if into his diuinitie also, how
a peece of corruptible bread can turne
into the incorruptible, and eternall essence
of the deitie.
Seuently if the deitie assumes the humane
bodie made of breade, as hee did
the fleshe borne of the Virgine Marye:
whether there be now as many Christs,
as hath beene hostes consecrated since
the firste which Christe did con
•
ecra
•
e
him selfe.
Eightly if not, what can become of
them being all immortall, and incorruptible.
Nynthelye whether they haue vniuersall
knowledge of all thinges, paste,
present, and to come.
Tenthlye whether Gregorie the seuenth
that sweete birde did sinne asking
of it certaine secret matters, and
casting it into the fire, because it would
not answere.
I coulde here moue many moe questions:
As whether the bodie of Christe
in the wafer cake be formatum, or informe.
If it bee formatum, whether it hath the
forme of a liuing or deade bodie. If of
a liuing bodie, whether it liueth vitam
vigetatiuam, without which sensitiua and
rationalis can not continue vn fed without
a miracle. With manye moe such
strange conclusiones vpon this strange
assertion. But these I will superseede till
I haue gotten a resolute answere to the
former ten out of the vndoubted truthe
of God.
These strange concequences made
Cuthbart Tonstall Bishope of Durham
a man in his time amongst the learnedest,
and wisest, to thinke, and write de
modo, quo id fieret (meaning the bodye of
Christ in the Sacramente) fortasse satius
esse curiosum quen
que
suaerel
•
nquere coniectur
••
De eucha
•
ist,
sicut liberum suit ante conciliū later anum. In
which words thou mayest first note that
before the counsell of La
•
eran no man
was troubled for denying the reall presence:
and secondly that this wise man,
how-be-it, hee dare not condemne the
Church of Rome: yet he thinketh it had
beene better to haue left it free, as it
was before, then to haue bounde men
to vnnaturall inconueniences. Scotus
subtilis one of the greatest auctoures of
the Romane faith, plainelie attributeth
this head of their beleefe to the Church
of Rome: and proueth it because the
scriptures may haue an easier and in all
appearance a truer meaning. De sacramentis
(saith he) tenendum sicut tenst sancta
Romana ecclesia. Na
•
verba scriptura possent
saluari secundum sensum faciliorem,
sentence 4
•
ist 13
et veriorem
secundum appareatiam. Wee muste
houlde the Sacramentes as the holye
Church of Rome doth houlde. For the
scriptures maye bee salued in an easier
sense,De captiv
•
babil. and truer be appearance. Fisher
Bishope of Rochester one of their Martyres
confesseth the like that the scriptures
hath nullum verbum quo probctur in
missa veram fieri carnis, & sanguinis pr
•
sentiam.
Not one word to proue the true
presence of Christes flesh and bloode in
the Masse. Thus thou seest gentle reader
that these men who were of greater account
in he Romane Church, then M.
Iohn Ham▪ or M. Gilbert Broune, or any
of our apostat doctours, who neither
for
〈◊〉
nor letters are worthye to beare
their bookes, confesseth that, which I
haue beene all this while prouing: that
the Romane Church neuer receaued
this truth out of the scriptures. And
therefore seeing this poynte is so cleare
that the enemies of it confesseth it: I
woulde request all men that hath a care
to liue in Christ, & be Christ: to avoide
the poysoned doctrine of these masters,
who can not denye but that the soule
of their religion that is the sacrifice of
their Masse is a deuise of mans braine,
without witnesse, or warrant from the
authore of life, and truthe. Lorde opon
our eyes to see the truthe, and
〈◊〉
leeue it: to professe it and obeye its
to loue it, and liue bee it
through Iesus Christ
our Lord and
Sauiou
•
.
Amen.