changing countenance before Achis to wit an ignorant king to expresse one thing in vtter shewe of woordes and to conceale an other thing in a secrete mysterie before the Capernaites to wit a grosse ignorant people Wherevpon Augustine commaundeth vs to knock here bicause there is some hidden thing shut vp in this place and not to sticke too much to the letter which killeth but exhorteth vs to rayse our selues too the spirituall sense which doeth geue lyfe Because the spirituall vnderstanding sayth he doeth make him that doth beleeue to be safe And proceeding forward in the same comparison wherein he compareth Achis the king That is to saye the kingdome of error with the Capernaites Dauid with Christe hee inferreth on this wise when our Lorde Iesus spake of his bodyâ— except yee eate my flesh and drink my blood the disciples did abhorre this speache because they vnderstoode it not For the Lorde in the chaunge of his countenance seemed vnto them to bee halfe frantike when he spake of eating his fleshe therefore they supposed that the Lorde seemed besides himselfe knowing not what he spake and as it were halfe mad But he seemed so to be vnto Achis the king that is to say to fooles and to ignorant men and therefore hee forsooke them and went his way or rather they forsooke him because this speache seemed very hard vnto them when as notwithstanding the speach was not hard but they rather hard dul of vnderstanding not the speache Who if had not departed from him but abidden still with the Apostles hee had instructed them plainly howe they shoulde haue conceaued the sense of the woordes as hee taught the other Apostles when hee tolde them It is the Spirite that quickneth for the fleshe profiteth nothing My woordes which I haue spoken vntoo you bee spirite and life As though hee had saide according to the interpretation of Augustine Understande yee my wordes which I haue spoken spiritually This body which you see shall yee not eate nor drinke that blood which the Iewes shall shed out of my side I haue deliuered you a certaine Sacrament the same being spiritually vnderstood wil quickeÌ„ you Wherby no man can be so blockish except he be altogether void of sense what the purpose of the Lorde was in the Action of this Supper â—nd howe hee woulde haue our hearts minds affected towards these misteries with what mouth and by what instrumentes hee woulde haue vs too receiue this bread of his body Wherby his purpose was to make plain demonstration vnto vs of the spiritual efficacie of his passion and our faith on him which hee coulde not haue done by any so fitte similitudes as by setting downe these chiefe and pâ—incipall stayes and supportes as it were of this preseÌ„t life which do serue for the daily foode and necessary nourishement of the bodie I haue hitherto nowe manifested a cause sufficient enough except I be deceiued that moued our Lorde to institute this sacrament of his body and blood in bread and wyne Namely to represent the power and efficacie of his most ghostly and comfortable death not onely to our faith and remembrance but to our senses also by a most apte similitude Which similitude beeing not able to be made consonant by any meanes without bread and wyne hereof therefore commeth it to passe that reteining bread we doe admitte here a necessarie figuratiue speeche whereby wee doe most truely call bread by the name of Christes body and the body of Christe by the name of the bread of life For if it might bee lawefull for Lombard too vse this kynde of speeche In bread that is to saye in forme of bread in the sacrament that is to saye in the visible forme Againe wheresoeuer part of the bodie is there is the whole c. which can not be spoken of any man without a figure Why then shall it not bee as lawefull for vs by the same figure to affirme that bread is the body of Christe that bread doth signifie the body of Christ as well as Lombarde can winke in his owne proper conceit and saye The visible fourme is bread the forme that is to say the bread doth signifie the body of Christe It remaineth now that you holy father with your cowled cloysterers render vs a cause likewise why yee driue the bread out of the sacrament like a runneaway Why in this case you will not admitte a figure in any case For this is your doctrine that in the sacrament no bread is eaten but the very body of Christe simply naturally and really Go to what was the cause at the length why the Lorde him selfe should either deliuer vnto his guestes his owne naturall fleshe to be deuoured or why doe ye suppose that we ought to beleeue the same to bee true you will aunswere that hee did it to the ende hee might feede our frayle weake and vncleane fleshe with his most holy fleshe Of the very same opinion were the Capernaites wandring in the same mismaze long before your dayes and being offended as Cyrill reporteth with the wordes of the Lord reuolâ—ed from him The same answere therefore which they receiued of the Lorde be yee satisfied withal at this present The flesh saith hee profiteth nothing at all that is to saye Christe did not meane here his naturall flesh simply which being borne for vs crucified for vs and risen againe doth profite very much in deede but hee did meane of our eating his body According to which kinde of eating if Christ do plainly confesse that his flesh is altogether vnprofitable will you grounde all the commoditie and profit of the sacrament in the eating of his fleshe And after this will exact of vs also that forsaking the very meaning and open exposition of Christ him selfe who doth testifie that his wordes be spirit and life should accept this your childish grammaticall construction of the fleshly deuouring naturall fleshe for sounde and catholike diuinitie But here againe will some one of you steppe foorth like a tall felowe and saye when the Lorde spake those wordes of his body he vttered no sillable or terme of signifying Neither did he speake thus This doth signifie my body but did professe simply without all figure this is my body But this trymmetraâ—â—ne so nicely conned out Augustine will easely vnlose vnto vs. Who writing against Adimantus doth amongest other rules recited in the nature of a signe reckoÌ„ vp this same very speech in the Gospell The Lorde saieth Augustine doâ—ted nothing to saye This is my body when hee gaue a signe of his bodye Uerily if he gaue a signe of his body he could not choose but giue somewhat wherein hee might signifie his body although there bee no woorde significant expressed In like maner neither was any woorde significant vttered by the Apostle when hee spake of the Rocke as the same Augustine witnesseth for the Apostle sayed not
eate not the blood for the blood is the life therefore thou maiest not eate the blood with the fleshe Nowe therefore what maner of â—uersion not obseruation of Gods lawe is this what a disagreemente and vnlikenesse is this betwixt the olde Testament and the newe That which the father forbiddeth the sonne commaundeth that which not onely nature doth vtterly condemne but also the fathers commaundement by most special law hath abolished shal Christ the sonne of God the most seuere keeper of the lawe bring the same againe into vse God forbid hee neuer did it hee neuer willed it he neuer thought it neither was hee able to commit so grosse an absurditie without great prediudice of the law and nature it selfe neyther doe thou imagine euer any suche thing in thy minde gentle Reader Christâ— did neuâ—r bryng in any suche enormitie but the Paâ—ists a deteâ—table and sauadge kinde of people altogeather contrary to Christes meaning and contrary too all lawe and rule not only of all nature but of Scripture it selfe They doe gnawe vppon the woordâ—s as vppon the fleshe of the letter which if be construed in their right sense nothing can be more heauenly but yf carnally nothing câ—n bee more damnable But if wee will needes bee so precise about the woordes of Christâ— Why then by the same Argument of Christes omnipotencie let vs turne Peter into a Rocke of Stoneâ— and a Stone into Christe and Christes fleshe into Table meate For neither when he called bread his body which hee woulde geue for vs noting thereby the power and effâ—cacie of his passion did these woordes tende to that ende to institute some transmutation of Creatures by any hidden myracle or that departing out of the earth with his body to leaue his body behinde him or else why shoulde hee commaunde it too bee eaten if his will had beene too haue it reserued for a token but Christe did vnderstande by these woordes an other maner of thing being matter of farre greater and deeper mysterie For he deliuered a Sacrament which being vnderstoode spiritually doth geue life but beâ—ng carnally vnderstoodeâ— doeth kyll For flesh according too the testimonie of Christe him selfe doeth not proâ—ite any thing at all But howe can it bee apâ—ly saide that this moste holy fleshe doeth proâ—ite nothing at all What did not the fleshe of Christe borne for vs baptized for vs and slaine for vs profite Yes truely very muche But our treatise heere concerneth not the very substaunce of his flesh nor yâ—t his heauenly Actions in the fleshe but only our fleshly eating of his naturall fleshe in this Sacrament which shoulde auaile vs nought at all too eternall life tâ—ough wee eate thereof with our mouthes a thousande times whereof the Lord himselfe meaning to aduertise the Capernaites not altogether obscurely who did wrest these wordes to the carnall and fleshly sense and meaning of eating saide vnto them these wordes My woordes are spirite and life The fleshe doeth not profite at all Which wordes doe tende too this construction at the last You doe conceiue of these woordes which I spake touching the eating of my fleshe too too grossely and carnally and farre otherwise then my meaning is for I did neither speake them in any suche sense as that I would inuite you to the deuouring of my person for what can bee more absurde Neither did I take vppon mee this fleshe too any suche ende as too fill your throates and belies therewith For what commoditie shoulde thereby redownde vnto you that was not my meaning but too the ende I shoulde geue the same to bee slaine for your sakes which slaughter of my fleshe beyng apprehended of you spiritually by faith and inwardly disgested within your heartes shall refreshe you much more effectually then Moyses refreshed your bellies with his Manna for it shall reuiue you with a liuely life not perishable and temporall but eternall and it shall satisfie your hunger not that hunger which will bee hungry again but which shall replenish you being full fed with euerlasting felicitie in such wise as that you shal from thence foorth neuer bee hungry any more Whereupon those his woordes are not without cause called spirite and life not wherewith he turned bread into fleshe but whereâ—ith he represented the efficacie of his fleshe which was slaine for vs and of his blood which was shedde for vs vnder the mysteries of bread and wine And on this wise in deede the fleshe of Christ not in that sense as it is eaten but in that whereby our faith is reposed in him is become altogiâ—her profitable vnto vs. It seemeth vnto me nowe that I haue spoken sufficiently of this matter if I anâ—exe one thing more Whervnto I woulde verie faine heare what aunswere these Laterane breade flesh makers will make who thinke it not sufficient to turne breade and wine into a Sacrament of the bodie and blood by the diuine power of the woorde vnlesse by a certaine kinde of Alcumie they poure foorth substaunce of things from out one substance into an other and so produce out of the substaunce of breade and wine a certaine contrarie nature of mans flesh and blood and make thereof some certaine quinte essence And goe to nowe to yeelde thus much to their Alcumistical chaunge to wit that nothing remayneth in the Sacrament besides the onely substaunce of the bodie and blood I come nowe not to enquire in what mynute of time in what instant of pronouncing the woorde this transubstantiation taketh his first commencement of being created For the Popes themselues cannot yet agree vpon this poynt This thing do I demaund After that this same bodie of our Lorde being once deuoured by vs doeth passe once downe into the bowels and resteth within our bodies whether it remaine whole there without all kinde of disgestion or whether the substaunce of that fleshe doe growe through naturall concoction into and increase the substaunce of our fleshe If they graunt this it must needes then come to passe thereby that the vndefiled and pure fleshe of Christ swallowed vy vs and conuerted into the substaunce of our mortal and corrupt nature must become one and the selfsame flesh with our corruâ—t flâ—sh For as bread and wine according to the testâ—monâ—e of Damascen by eating and drinking is transposed into the bodie blood of the person that eateth and drinketh euen so the flesh and blood of Christ if they bee receyued really as they tearme it into our bodies must needes be transubstantiatâ—d vnited into our owne flesh and blood Hereof therefore must it folow of verie necessâ—â—ie that the â—lesh of Christ being nowe made our fleshe shall be sinfull flesh which were horrible to bee spoken yea not onely sinfull but also as our fleshe doeth corrupt and waxe rotten withall so the same corruption must of necessitie happen vnto the flesh of Christ as well as into ours if according to Dâ—mascene we bee concorporate and
of the Apostles I perceaue hee dooth not deny it I proceede then and demaunde further whether Saint Peter were one of the same number of Apostles to whome it was spoken Go yee intoo the whole world preaching to euery creature If you grauÌ„t it as yee can not wel deny it I aske now whether the order Apostolique be the self same estate which beareth to name Bishops If the functions bee seueral howe coulde both the estates bee giuen to one selfe person to wit that Peter shoulde exercise the office both of an Apostle and of a Bishoppe Then doo I desire to knowe If Christe did sende out Peter togither with the other Apostles into the whole worlde howe shall it appeare that the Lord allotted him to some one certaine place where hâ—e might sitte who without any mention of place at al was sent of the Lorde to goe not to sitte into the worlde not intoo a City vnlesse peraduenture wee ought too recompte the City of Rome to â—ee the whole worldeâ— and that wâ—oe so sitteth at Rome may be supposed to goe abâ—â—â—de into the whole worlde Not so But you wil say That Peter did enstalle Lynus to be Bishop of Rome It may be so and what hereof at the length So also did the selfe same Peter teach â—â—ch and long tyme at Ierusalemâ— in the which City Iames 〈◊〉 the Iuste is reported too haue beene 〈◊〉 Bishop by Peter Iames and Iohn Yet was no man eâ—â—r so madde to affirme that Iames was for this cause Peters suâ—cessor Semblably neither Timothe nor Tiâ—e wâ—re theâ—efore accompted Paules successors bicause Paâ—â—e â—ade them both Bishopsâ— no more â—hen iâ— the Popâ— of Rome would at this present ordeine Arâ—hbishoppeâ— biâ—hops or Cardinals at Rome it should be any way 〈…〉 make them successors of the Pope But of the succession hath beene sufficiently spoken before Nowe bicause this treaty concernâ—â—â— not the succession of Peter but his doctrine let vs â—ompare the orders of this Romish sea which is now wiâ—h the 〈◊〉 of Peter deliuered then Which howe â—ouly haue â—allen from that right â—quarier of Apostolique dâ—sciplyne may euen heereof appeare euidently That wheâ—eas Peter dooth vâ—ry grauely fatherly exhort them that mynister the woorde of the Gospel that withal â—umblenesse and reuerence they shoulde submitte them selues too them whoe beeing authorized by GOD doo beare rule ouer them whether they bee kinges set in hyghest authoritie or princes or rulers sent of GOD to gouerne the people Too countermaunde this Canon of Peter the practise of Rome coÌ„maundeth on this wise That they submitte themselues in deede vnto kings to al lawful magistrates so far foorth as their commaundements be not repugnant to Gods commaundementes or the Popes decrees Out of which obedience notwithstaÌ„ding the Popes holines with his other prelates haue so sâ—ipped the coller that I shame to vtter how treacherously they haue not onely shaken from their shoulders the yoake of their due obedience to kinges emperours but also how arrogantly they haue bene imperiouse ouer theÌ„ how they haue troaâ—en â—pon their necks with their feete forced them from out their kingdomes translated their sceptâ—rs crownes after their own lâ—st and pleasure But passing ouer this and many other enormities I come now to the sacraments In the which wheras many things are chopt in place to colour the credit of their doctriâ—e without the authority of the pure and sacred scriptures amoÌ„gst al other I can not tel how this peruersenes of men being so poore blind in matters of them self most manifest hath in any our thing bewrayed their blockishnes more notably then in the supper of the Lorde Heere is such an huge heape of monstruouse mockeries peeuish shiftes of most absurd errors thrust into this one sacrament as that the posteritie can neuer wonder sufficiently at the view of them For what can be more grossely absurd then to â—ake from out the sacraments the likenesse mutual resemblaunce out of which only groundwoork aryseth chiefly al the whole substaunce building of sacraments what can be more repugnant not only to al the very true proportionable relation of the scripture but also more disagreable too all conâ—eniency of reason common sense theÌ„ to tourne that to worshipping kneeling which was deliuered for a thankful remembraÌ„ce by most agreable application what can be more blockish then to embrace signes for things them selues what caÌ„ be more deuoide of shame then to enforce to beleeue contrary too that which the eyes doo see and whereof al the senses haue absolute feeling and perseueraunce for proofe wherof is neither any maner of necessitie too be vrged no not so much as any neuer so little probabilitie I doo acknowledge the omnipotent power of Christ in working miracles But where did he euer woorke miracle or exacte a miracle where the senses them selues beare no witnes thâ—â— it is a miracle In Cana of Galilee when he turned water into wine it was not beleued to bee a miracle before the senses bare testimony thereof The Apostles did see with their eyes Christ ryseâ— out of his graue they hearde him speake they felt him wiâ—h haÌ„ds finally their senâ—e perceaued him to be Christ before their faith did apprehende him Euen so we at this present though we see him not yet do beleeue that hee is rysen againe but not otherwyse then beeing â—ndured by the testimony of the Aposâ—les which saw him rysen or els we should neuer haue beleued But nowe wheras nother reason nor any other cause material hath made demonstration wheras the senses also do vtterly gainsay wherasâ— neither scripture nor Christ himself did euer coÌ„maund to beleue but to eate only what extreeme madnes were it to tourne that to matter of faith and to enforce a miracle there where neitherâ— any cause at al can enduce nor demonstration can discouer a miracle lastly for as much as nothing is more figuratiue or sette downe in darker figures â—hen the holy scripture is in explaning the mysteries of faith what â—rosse ignoraunce is this to apply that wholy to the bare letter which ought to be referred to the figuratiue aâ—d tropical interprâ—aâ—ion namely â—â—â—henes the Apostle Paul doth geue vs to vnderstaÌ„d that the letter killeth Christ also pronâ—uÌ„ceth that Fleshe auayleth nothing Lykewise Augustine affirmeth that the carnal sense of the letter is perillous especially in the figuratiue speeches which are vttered in the scriptures in so much that no manner of death can bee more aptly called the death of the soule which is also named by Bernarde The death in the poâ— Nowe if there bee any place in the scriptures meete to aâ—mitte a figure in what one place through all the whole scriptures may it be more properly applied then in the mysteries of sacramentes When I cal it a figuratiue speeche sayeth Ierome I doo shewe that the woordes ought not too bee
another Lib. 4. dist 8. If the senses must be credited in establishing the accidents of brâ—ad and wine why should not the same senses be beleued also in affirming the substance of bread and wine which we do see A double â—rror of the Papâ—sts in the matter of the saâ—ramâ—nt An obiectioÌ„ out of Ambrose being wrongfully taken The woorking woorde The refutation of the obiectioÌ„ All whatsoeuer was created God did create by the power of his word Ergo god doth chaÌ„ge the bread intoâ— the pâ—rson of the sonne of God The Argument is denyed The wordes of Christ must be considered not according too the letter but according too the true sense meaning of the sentence No transubstaÌ„tiation can bee gathered by the woordes of the supper * Hesychiuâ—inâ— Leuit. lib. 1. cap. 2. We do eate this meate receauing the memory of his passion Esay the 25. â—hap And in this mountaine shall the Lorde of hoastes make vnto al people a feast of fattlings eueÌ„ a feast of neare and fined wynes and of fat thinges full of marrowe of wynes fined and purified c. * Why woulde Christe conuey away his body into heauen in the open sight of his disciples but that they should â—ease to looke for him any more heere on earth Aug in Ioan. tracta 27. When yee shal see the sonne of man ascende vppe where he was before truly euen then shal you see bicause hee doth bestowe his body not after the maner that yee thinke Certes then shal ye vnderstand it that his grace is not thereby consumed with teeth c. The obiection of the aduersaries An answere * Beda in octauis Epiphaniae The creature of bread and wyne is by the vnspeakeable sanctification of the holy Ghoste transposed intoo the sacrament of the fleshe and blood of Christ. * August de Consecrat dist 2. Thiâ— is it that the heauenly breade which is the fleshe of Christ is called after his maner the body of Christ whenas in deede it is the sacrament of Christes body * Rabanus Maurus lib. 1. Cap. 31. The sacrament is one thing the efficacy of the sacrament is an other thing The sacrament is turned intoo the nourishement of the Body By the efficacie of the sacrament the honour of euerlasting life is obteyned * Cyril cathechis mistagog 4. Doo not esteeme it as bare bread The bread of the Euchariste is no more bare and naked bread * Chrysost. sermo ad Infantes The bread is remoued by the substaunce of Christes body That is to say That it become nothing in respect of the body Ambros de sacr lib. 4. cap. 4. Origen vppon Mat. cap. 15. Aâ—gu de consec distinct 2. Hoc est quod c. Rabanus Maâ—â—â—s lib. 1. cap. 31. * Iren. lib. 5. The substance of our flesh is nourished and increased by the bread which bread is the body Chrysost. in operâ— imperfâ—â—om 11. * Origen in Mat. cap. 15. And thus much of the typical symbolical body c. * Chrysost. ad Caesarium Before the bread bee sanctified wee doo cal it breadâ— But by the sanctification of the diuyne grace and the prayers of the Priest it is delyuered from the name of bread But is reputed woorthy too bee called by the name of the body of Christe though the nature of bread remayne stil c. * Chrysost. 1. Cor. hom 24. Ascende therefore vppe euen too heauen gates and there enter intoo dewe consideration nay rather not the gates of Heauen but of the Heauens of Heauens and there shalte thou see that whereof wee doo speake Chrysost. in Genes Hom. 24. When the eyes of fayth doo beholde these vnspeakeable treasures they doo not perceaue these visible thinges indeed but only the difference betwixt these thinges There was nâ— cause why Christ should change the substance of bread into his flesh A threfolde reâ—son wherâ—by Lombard establâ—sheth his transubstantiation li. 4. dist 11. â—â— 5â— LoÌ„bards reasons discouered and refuted The first reason of Lombard In matters of faith mans reasoÌ„ hath no place Ergo. TransubstantiatioÌ„ must be beleeued though it bee quite against reason the Argument is denied The second reason of Lombard â— * Ex August de conse dist 2. sub figura There is nothing more reasonable for vs theÌ„ to receiue the likenesse of blood that so both the trueth may not cease that no occasioÌ„ be giuen to the PagaÌ„s to scorne vs bicause we drink the blood of a slain maâ—â— August de cons. dict 2. cap Sub figura Ex citatione Lomb. lib. 4. dist II. Ambros. De sâ—â—cramento liâ— 8. cap. 1. Hilarius De coÌ„sec dist 1. 2. Corpus Christi The third reason of Lomb. li. 4 dist 11. cap. 5. Lombard doth not agree with him selfe The loathsomnes of eating iâ— not takeÌ„ away by the accideÌ„ts Iohn .6 The flesh profiteth nothing Lombard is iniurious to the sacrament two maner of waies * Ambros. de sacra lib. 4. cap. â— As thou hast receyued the likenesse of his death euen so thou dost drinke the likenesse of his precious blood that there may bee no loathsomnesse of blood * Ambros. lib 6. cap. 1. You doe receyue the sacrament in a similitude but you doe attaine the grace and power of the true nature * Ambros. 1. Cor. ca. 11. The testament is perfourmed with blood bicause the blood is a testimonie of Gods liberalitie In the Type wherof we do take and r eceyue the mysticall cuppe the blood The Papists can neuer take away the horror from the holy supper except they first grauÌ„t the bread whole and sound Transubstantiation of the doctrine of sacramentall formes in the Lordes supper is described 1. Cor. 11. De consecra dist 2. corpus Christi Cyprian lib. epist. 6. Origen in Mat. cap. 15. August in Iohnâ— Tract 26. Whether the operation of bread remaine in the Sacrament togither with the kindes and names of bread yea or nay No likenesse betwixt the accidents and the body of Christ. Lib. 4. dist 8. 1 The Sacrament onely 2 The Sacrament and the thing 3 The thing and not the Sacrament The visible formes cannot be the SacrameÌ„t of a double thing to wâ—t of the bodie and of the mysticall bodie An argument agaynst Lombarde who doth affirme that the natural bodie of Christ is a Sacrament of his mystical bodie that is to say The church What thing is that thing of the SacrameÌ„t and the SacrameÌ„t of a thing and howe it is both according to Lombard 2. Cor. 10. August de Sacramentis fâ—deliâ—m Looke into August coâ—â—ra Donatist lâ—b 7. cap. 50. Eight Sacraments hatcht out of Lombards diuinitie The thing and not a Sacrament The substance of the Sacrament is not the vnitie of the mysticall body but the death of his naturall bodie Lib. 4. dist 8. An argument againste the assertion of Lâ—mbarde The sacramâ—nt was not instituted to signifie the vnion of the Church An other Argâ—ment The thirde Aâ—gument Lombardes threefolde error Lombardes viii Sacrament