An ansvver to the calumnious letter and erroneous propositions of an apostat named M. Io. Hammiltoun. Composed by M. VVilliam Fouler

❧ THE XIII. PROPOSITIOVN. In the Sacrament of the Altar vnder the forme of bread and wine the bodie and blood of Christ is reallie and substancially co••teaned.

AD. This conclusioun is confirmit ••e thrie Euangelists, quha testifies that Christ i•• his latter supper said ••ak eat this is my bodie quhilk fall he geuin for ʒow, the quhilk words are so cleir and euident that no ••••n can doubt vnles he wald giue mair credence vnto his awin sense and iudgement nor to Christs infallabill words.

AN. I answer with S•• Hierome that the Euangell standeth not in the words of the scripteur but in the meaning,* 1.1 for gif in sic wechtie maters, we wald pretex the simplicitie of words Christ then suld be ane Lambe, an Porte, an Way, the trewe Wine, and an husband man, Quhilk forme of speaking onlye is figuratyue.

AD. Iustinus the marty••e to Antonimis saith that euin as we beleiue Christ had fl••sch and blood so we oght uo beleue that breacnd wine quhilk he con••ecrat was chan¦ged in his fleshe end blood.

AN. I answer that thir words are misticallie and sacramen∣tallie to be vnderstand, for in that secound apologie, he pro∣ueth against y^e heretiks be y^e sacramēt of the eucharist Christ for to haue had verry body and verry fleshe, and not phanta∣stik as they did think, in this maner, if Christ had neuer tre••e flesh this Sacraments suld be false, seing they neuer culd repre¦sent nor signifie that thing quhilk was neuer extant. Bot I wald not thou assumed him for ane patroun of ʒour transub∣stantiatioun, quhen he teachis in that saming apologie the bread and wine efter consecratioun to be changed in our bo∣die and nurisch the saming, quhilk plainelie Ireneus aprouis saying by the bread and Cup quhilk ar the sacraments of the ••odie and blood of Christ, ex quibusa••getur et consistir car ••is nostraesubstantia, of the quhilk the substance of our flesh

and of his precious blood ne••er institute be him nor obseruit in his kirk, les nor thou wild willingly close the eyes of thy cōscience against the treu••h. Bot I knaw thy stubbernes, that althogh good reasons may mak the acknawledge the veritie, ʒit thou rather will consent with ʒour superstitious mesmon∣gars, nor say treuth with the veritie now.* 1.2

AD This conclusioun is prouin because Christ has callit himself a Priest for euer ef¦ter the ordour of Melchisadek: we reid in the book of Genesies that Melchisadek offred bread and wine thairfor Christ being presigurat be Melchisadek of necessitie man hau anelyke maner of sacrifice to w••ttrubl••die.

AN This confusd reasoun is saxtymes repeted be ʒow, bot fa oft to answer, it w••ld be countit superfluous, thairfoir I wil contract the sume of all in an forme that I may derectlie an∣swer thair vnto.* 1.3 The figure of Melchisadek behouit in veri∣ritie to be accomplishe•• in Christs preisthood. Bot Melchisa∣dek offred to God the Father bread and Wyne. Thairfoir it behouit Christ not onlie to offer that, bot that the veritie of the figure might be performit in his body and blood also. I admit the propositioun, and denyis the assumptioun, because that in the Epistle to the Ebrewes many conferences and dy¦uers collations ar maid of Melchisadeks preisthod & of Christ quhairin na mention is maid of bread and Wine.* 1.4 To be short y^e figure of Melchisadeks preisthood dois consist in tha things quhilks ar not comon with Arons preisthood; bot the offring of bread and wine, was dayly in the sacrifice of Aaron, thair∣foir Christs preisthood rather suld be after the ordour of Arō nor Melchisadeks, if the offring of bread and Wine ware the principall things in Christs preisthood.* 1.5 Bot all this contro∣uersy floweth from the ignorance of the Ebrew word, for in the 14 of Gene it is writin, that after Abraham returnit from the battel with his souldiers being werie, Melchisadek quha was King causit bread & wine be broght furth quhairby A∣braham and his armie micht bene refreschit. The same King also being hie Priest blissit him the error of our aduersar con¦sisteth in this word (broght furth) quhilk be sum is exponit obtulit, bot wrang and be vthers as be Iero. pro••ulit, and be

vthers, educi fecit, causeth bread & wine to be brocht furh to refresche the stomaks of the wearie souldiers, quhilk he did lyberallie being King, and being hie Priest deuotelie he gaue him his benedictioun.

AD. Of this we collect that tha quha lawbours to abolich the sacrifice of Christs body and blood in the messe ar blasphemous against Christ and his eternall preisthood after the ordour of Melchisadek.

AN, I affirme bold••y that that quha imbraces sic horrible prophanatioun of Gods glorie, dois defile their soule with I∣dolatrie, and sa far as thay may, not only puts Christ to shame & approbre, bot also dois him crucesie. For inrespect if the sacrifice be iterat, Christ must be crucifyet, quhilk was bot on & singulair sacrifice. For S. Paul writing to the ••brews 6 ch. witnesseth, that nane can be offrit except him that dieth.

Notes

• * 1.1

  I••r. vpon 1. Galla.
• * 1.2

  〈◊〉〈◊〉. 14.
• * 1.3

  OBIEC¦TIOVN
• * 1.4

  ANS.
• * 1.5

  NOTE