of the Churches Rev. 1. 20. the seven heads are seven Mountains Rev. 17. 9. So Christ saith I AM the way the door c. So Zach. 5. 7 8. This woman is wickedness and a thousand such expressions How do you understand these places Pop. The sense is plain they signifie those things the Stars signifie the Angels and so for the rest Prot. Then certainly we have the advantage of you in this point for we take is for signifies as you confess it is commonly taken nor have the Jews as I have been assured by learned men any proper word for signifie as the Greeks and Lutines have but generally express it in this manner But you must take it if the Particle this denote the Bread as I shall plainly prove it doth for is converted into a sense which you cannot give one example of in all Scripture I see it was not without reason that you took the interpretation of Scripture into the Churches hands for if you had left it in Gods hands and left one Scripture to do that friendly office to expound another you had certainly lost an Article of your Faith And whereas you say that Christ would speak so as the Disciples might understand him that sufficiently shews that yours is not the true sense for they could never have understood it and would doubtless have been as much puzled then as all the World now is to apprehend that the body of Christ was contained under the species of Bread and Wine invisibly and undiscoverably after the manner of a Spirit to conceive of a body without bigness long without length broad without breadth broken whilest it remains whole all which you profess to believe This is to turn Christs plain speech into a bundle of Riddles and to call this the plain sense of the words which is as you see a heap of Figures is a greater figure than all the rest but they did well enough understand the words in our sense because they were well read in Scripture wherein as you grant that sense of the words is usual Pop. If we grant it is used so in other cases yet not in Sacramental Texts for there Christ would speak properly Prot. Yes It is usual even in the Sacraments Is not Circumcision called the Covenant This is my Covenant Gen. 17. 10. though proprerly it was not the Covenant but the Seal of it Rom. 4. 11. Is not the Lamb called the Lords Passeover Exod. 12. though all men knew it was not the Lamb nor the ceremony of eating it which was or could be properly the Lords passing over the houses of the Israelites thus 1 Cor. 10. The Rock that followed the Israelites is Christ though it was so only Figuratively and Sacramentally Moreover I am told that divers of your own brethren acknowledge figures here Tapperus saith It is not inconvenient to admit of Tropes here provided they be such as do not exclude the true presence of Christs body And that the Bishop of Eureux owns three Figures in the words of this Sacrament and that Suarez Bellarmine and divers others confess as much Pop. It is true they do say so Prot. Besides you cannot think strange if there be Figures in the first part This is my Body since it is most apparent there are Figures in the last part This is the New Testament in my bloud Here are not one but divers Figures in it The Cup you grant is taken for the liquor in it there is one figure The Wine in the Cup is taken for the Bloud which was not in the Cup there is a strange figure indeed Logicians call it Non-sense This Cup or Wine or Bloud if you please is the New Testament or Covenant whereas it was only the Seal of the New Testament as is most manifest because it is called The Bloud of the New Testament and the New Testament in my Bloud Besides other strange figures which I shall have occasion to speak to by and by Here is figure upon figure and yet you have the impudence to reproach us for putting in but one figure which you confess to be very frequent Wonder O Heavens and judge O Earth whether these men do not strain at Gnats and swallow Camels And nothing doth more confirm the truth in this point than to consider into what absurdities this Doctrine hath forced you even to say that the Bloud of Christ is properly the Covenant or Testament And that there are two sorts of Christs Bloud the one in the Cup the other shed on the Cross And that the Bloud of Christ is shed in the Sacrament and yet never stirreth out of the veins Did ever God or man speak of such bloud-shed therefore for shame never charge us with understanding this Text figuratively But again let me ask you Will you affirm that these words This is my body are to be taken properly Doth your Church understand them so Pop. Yes surely or else we do ill to reproach you for taking them improperly Prot. The words are not true in a proper sense nor indeed do you understand them so Pop. Make that good and I must give up this cause for ever Prot. First for the word this it is most evident that it is meant of Bread It is impossible for words to express any thing more plainly than that by this is meant the Bread It is said expresly that Christ took Bread and brake it and gave it and said Take eat THIS is my Body Where this necessarily relates to that which Christ took and brake and gave After Christ came the Apostles and particularly Saint Paul and he expounds the mind of Christ and I hope you do not think he was so bad an Expositor that his Comment was harder than the Text and he tells us thrice in a breath that it is Bread 1 Cor. 11. 26. As oft as you eat this Bread and whosoever shall eat this Bread and so let him eat of that Bread And again 1 Cor. 10. 16. The Bread which we break is it not the Communion of the Body of Christ And the participation of the Sacrament is called breaking of Bread Acts 2. 46. 20. 7. which your Authors undertand of the Sacrament and besides this whatever it is is broken as it follows but you dare not say Christs Body is broken Now then since it is most evident that this is meant of the Bread I hope you will not say this is properly Christs Body Pop. No We are not so absurd to say this Bread is Christs body for that is false and against common sense as Bellarmine well saith Prot. What then do you mean by the word this Pop. By This I understand neither the Bread nor Christs Body but in general this substance which is contained under this species Prot. What do you mean by that I pray you tell me Do you believe that there are any more substances under those species besides the Bread first and afterward the
no less than murder all your people by robbing them of that which is necessary to their life Pop. Not so for as I shall shew you you have the blood in the body or bread Prot. If it be so yet my taking it in that manner cannot be called a drinking it unless you will say that every man that eats rawish meat may be said to drink the blood which he eats in it but further I think we have as great right to the cup as your Priests we have Christs do this and you pretend no more in short we have both the legacy and command of Christ fortified with this strong reason this cup is the new Testament in my blood which is shed for many for the remission of sins whereby it sufficiently appears that the signe belongs to all that have interest in the thing and are capable of discerning the Lords body and this command of Christ is express and positive Mat. 26. Drink ye ALL of it it is remarkable that he doth not say eat ye all though they were to do so but drink ye all of it as foreseeing the sacriledge of your Church what can you say to this Pop. First I say here is no command but an institution only Prot. I understand no subtilties but if you say this was no command of drinking then it was no command of eating to say take eat and so the Sacrament is not commanded but people may receive or refuse it as they please and Christs do this is no more than do as you list for my part I shall never know when Christ commands any thing if this be not a command for no command can run in more express words Pop. If this be a command it concerns only Priests for such the Apostles were and they only were present Prot. Since it is evident that eating and drinking belong to the same persons if the one be restrained to the Apostles so is the other and because you confess the eating belongs to the people by vertue of this precept Eat of it by the same reason also doth the drinking reach to them also by vertue of that precept Drink of it Besides the Apostles though they were Ministers yet in this act they were in the peoples stead and Christ was the Minister or dispenser of the Sacrament and they only the receivers of it at this time Besides as they were Ministers he bad them do this that is take and distribute bread and wine to the people as he had to them If Ministers be under any command of administring and giving the Sacrament certainly it is here for no command can be more express and if they are commanded to give the bread to the people they are commanded to give the wine also for here is no difference at all Adde to this that St. Paul hath put this out of doubt and he expounds this of and applies it to the people for thus he writes to all the Corinthians Let a man examine himself and so let him eat of that bread and drink of that Cup 1 Cor. 11. 28. in four verses together viz. 26 27 28 29. eating and drinking are inseparably joyned together which you have so wickedly divided If it be a Command Let a man examine himself which none will deny then it is a Command which immediately follows so let him eat this Bread and drink this Cup. Pop. It doth not appear that there is an absolute command of drinking but only that as oft as they do drink it they should drink it in remembrance of Christ. Prot. If this be so then here is no command for the Priest either to Consecrate the Cup or to Receive it And further then here is no command for his Consecrating or receiving the Bread neither for there is no more than a Do this and that is for the Wine as well as for the Bread Pop. Here is a difference for he saith of the Body simply Do this in remembrance of me but of the Cup This do ye as oft as you drink it Prot. If you lay any stress upon these words as oft as you do it I beseech you make use of your eyes and you shall read that it is said of the Bread as well as of the Cup Vers. 26. For as oft as ye eat this Bread and drink this Cup. Well I am sorry to see that you dare oppose such plain Scripture upon such pitiful pretences But I pray you let me ask you I have been told that your famous Council of Censtance in their Canon for the receiving the Sacrament in one kind have these expressions Although Christ did Minister this Sacrament undâ—r the forms of Bread and Wine And although in the Primitive Church this Sacrament was received by the faithful under both kinds Yet they make a Canon that it shall be received under one kinde only Is this so Pop. It is true they are the very words of the Council Prot. This was a wise Council indeed wiser than Christ and all his Apostles but I should think we are on the safest side having Christ and all the Primitive Churches for our patterns and by this I see what to judge of your glorious pretences that yours is the Antient and Apostolical Faith and ours forsooth but a new Religion But I pray let me hear what you have to say for this fact of yours in taking away the Cup I see Scripture is against you and the Antient Church at least so far that for 1400. years together the people might drink of the Cup if they would as I am told your Becanus confesseth Pop. You are greatly mistaken we have Scripture for us we have examples there of receiving the Sacrament in one kind Acts 2. 42. They continued in the Apostles Doctrine and breaking of Bread and Acts 20. 17. They came together to break Bread Prot. It is usual to express an whole Feast by this one thing Christ went into the Pharisees house to eat bread Luk. 14. 2. I suppose you think it was not a dry feast Ioseph's Brethren sat to eat Gen. 37. 25. so Act. 27. 35. Paul and the rest took bread and eat it yet none doubts but they had drink with it Besides here is as much said of the People as of the Ministers drinking of the Cup that is neither is here mentioned and if the silence concerning the Cup be a good Argument it proves that neither did partake of it if it be not then both might partake of it But what have you more to say Pop. You need not be troubled so much at the loss of the Cup since the blood is contained in the Bread that is in the Body by concomitancy Prot. This is in effect to tell Christ the Cup was a superfluous device Besides we are commanded to drink the Cup If I should dip bread in drink and eat it no man will say I drink the bread Again this destroys the main end of the Sacrament which is to shew forth Christs
in the species of Bread and Wine and the Bread and Wine are destroyed Prot. Call you this a destruction for one to remove from one place to another or to cease to be where he was before this is ridiculous and yet this fantastical and mock-destruction is all which you can bring instead of that real destruction which you confess necessary to the very essence of a Sacrifice And as for the Bread and Wine they were destroyed by Transubstantiation not by the Oblation or Sacrifice which comes after it And now having mentioned that let us discourse concerning your Doctrine of Transubstantiation And first tell me what is the Doctrine of your Church Pop. That the Council of Trent will inform you which declareth that by Consecration the whole substance of the Bread and Wine is converted into the substance of the Body and Blood of Christ Prot. How is it possible for the Bread to be converted into Christs Body which was made already before the Bread That Christ could turn Water into Wine was possible but that he should turn that Water into such Wine as was in being before that change this is impossible but let that go My next question is if a Christian did actually receive Christs Body and Blood tell me what profit hath he by it I cannot believe that God would work so many Miracles as you affirm he doth in this Sacrament to no purpose Scripture and Reason tells me and your Council of Trent confesseth that the Sacrament is a feast for my Soul and not for my Body Is it not so Now what is my Soul the better for eating the very Body of Christ When the woman cryed out to our Saviour Blessed is the womb that thee Christ replies Yea rather Blessed are they that hear Gods Words and do it nevertheless if you can solidly prove it I will receive it therefore bring forth your Principal Arguments for it Pop. I will do so and our Church proves this point especially from two places of Scripture John 6. and the words of Institution I begin with the sixth Chapter of John where our Saviour oft tells us that the Bread which he gives is his flesh c. Prot. I have heard that divers of your learned Doctors confess this Chapter speaks not of the Sacrament Is it so Pop. I will not dissemble with you That was the opinion of Biel Cardinal Cusanus Cajetan and Tapperus and divers others Prot. Certainly This Argument is not likely to convince a Protestant which could not satisfie your own ablest Schollars But I will not press that farther Tell me then do you judge that Christ speaks here of a bodily eating and drinking of his very Flesh and Blood Pop. We do so Prot. I confess some of the Antient were of your mind I mean the Jews But with submission I am rather of Christs Opinion who plainly destroys that gross and carnal sense telling them it is the Spirit that quickneth the Flesh profits nothing vers 63. Again doth not Christ press this as a necessary and present duty upon all the Jews that then heard him Pop. That must be granted Prot. Then certainly Christ speaks not of the Sacrament which was not then instituted and therefore they could not partake of it I demand further is this Sacrament of such efficacy that all that receive it are saved and of such necessity that all that do not take it are damned Pop. No our Church utterly condemns both those Opinions Port But this eating of Christs Flesh is such that Christ saith all that eat it are saved v. 24. and all that do not eat it are damned v. 53. Therefore surely he speaks not of a Sacramental eating besides the whole Laity are utterly undone if your sense of this Chapter be true for I find that drinking of Christs Blood is no less necessary to life eternal than eating of his Flesh and therefore woe to them to whom you do not allow to drink of the Cup in the Sacrament I am told this objection is so considerable that it forced divers of your Doctors sore against their will to forsake this Argument and therefore this will not do your work but I presume you have better Arguments Pop. We have so I shall urge but one which is of its self sufficient from the plain words of Institution This is my Body Methinks the very hearing of them read should convince you if you would take the words in their plain and proper sense and not devise I know not what Figures and Tropes Prot. If it were true that Christ did turn the Bread into his Body by saying these words This is my Body yet how doth it follow that the Priest by reciting these words worketh the same effect any more than a Priest every time he reads those words Let there be light doth make light because God did make it by those words or than he raiseth a dead man every time he reads those words of Christ Lazarus come forth Moreover I have heard that divers of your most learned Doctors confess that this place doth not nor indeed any other place of Scripture prove Transubstantiation I have heard three Cardinals named viz. Cajetan and our Bishop of Rochester and Cameracensis and divers famous Schoolmen as Scotus and Biel of whom this is known and Durandus and Ocham and Melchior Canus and Vasquez and the great Cardinal Perron professeth that he believes Transubstantiation not by vertue of any necessary consequence or reason alledged by their Doctors but by the words of Christ as they are expounded by Tradition and Bellarmin himself confesseth This opinion is not improbable Methinks so many learned mens forsaking this Argument who doubtless would have been right glad if it had been solid and imployed all their wits to search out the strength of it is to me a convincing evidence of its weakness and vanity as also of the badness of your Cause that can find no better Argument yet I am willing to hear what you can say Pop. This then I say that these words This is my Body are to be taken in their proper and not in a figurative sense for surely Christ would speak plainly to the understanding of his Disciples especially when he was so near his Death and making his last Will and Testament and instituting the Sacrament in such cases men use to speek plainly Prot. I readily grant that Christ did speak plainly and intelligibly But tell me is not that plain enough when we take the words as they are commonly used in Scripture Pop. I must needs grant that but this is not the Present case Prot. But it is for we can give you scores of instances as you very well know where the word Is is so taken nor is any thing more frequent in Scripture the seven kine and so the seven ears of corn are seven years Gen. 4. 12 18. the Stars are the Angels
a dreadful hazard in the point of worshiping of Creaturers Images Saints and especially the Bread in the Sacrament in which you run other hazards besides those I spoke of I am told that your Doctrine is this That it is necessary to the making of a Sacrament and so to the conversion of the Bread into Christs Body that the Priest intend to consecrate it Is it so Pop. Yes doubtless Bellarmine and all our Authors largely dispute for that Prot. And can I be sure of another mans intentions It is sufficiently known that divers of your Priests are prophane and atheistical wretches others envious and malicious and some actually Jews What assurance have I that my Priest is not such an one and that he doth not either out of a contempt or hatred of Religion or malice against my person intend to deceive me and not make a Sacrament of it Sure I am they intend to deceive their people in the preaching of the Word and why they may not do so in the Administration of the Sacrament I know not VIII My eighth and last general consideration is this that your Religion destroys even the principles of morality which true Religion is so far from destroying that it improves and perfects it I confess the bloodiness of your Religion hath ever made me both suspect and loath it I find that Christ is a Prince of peace though he whipt some out of the Temple yet he never whipt any into his Church that he drew in his Disciples with the cords of a man of conviction and perswasion and so did his Apostles after him but your Religion like Draco's laws is written in blood I perceive you answer our Arguments with Fire and Faggot besides this your Religion destroyes all civil Faith and Society your principle is known and so is your practice of equivocation and keeping no faith with Hereticks Pop. I know where you are you mean because of John Husse who after he had the faith of the Emperour given him for his safe Conduct was contrary to that faith put to death in the Council of Constance Prot. I do so and what can you say for it Pop. This I say you must not charge upon our Church the opinion of some few private Doctors since others disown this and have written against it Prot. It seems it is a disputable point among you whether you ought to be honest or not but I have heard that Iohn Husse was condemned by the Council of Constance and that when the Emperour scrupled to break his Faith they declared he might do it and ought to do it Is it so Pop. It is true what was done in that point was done by the Council Prot. And you hold Councils especially where the Pope joyns with them as he did with that Council to be infallible and therefore this I may confidently charge upon you as a Principle of your Religion I cannot but observe your fine devices At other times when we alledge passages out of any of your learned Doctors which make against you you tell us they are but private Doctors and we must judge of you by your Councils Now here we bring an approved Councils testimony and you send us back to your private Doctors Pop. These discourses of yours are only general I had rather you would come to the other thing you proposed viz. to examine the particular points of our Religion wherein I hope I shall give you such solid grounds and reasons that when you shall understand them you will embrace them Prot. You shall find me ingenuous and docible only remember I expect not words but solid Arguments I think our best course will be to pick out some principal points of your Religion and examine them for the rest will either stand or fall as they do Pop. I am perfectly of your mind let us proceed accordingly Prot. First then if you please we will begin with the sacrifice of the Mass which you say is essential to the Christian Religion Pop. It is so and Bellarmine rightly saith that where there is no sacrifice as you Protestants have none there is in truth no Religion Prot. Therefore I pray you let me hear one or two for those are as good as an hundred of your chief grounds and reasons for that Sacrifice Pop. I approve your motion and I shall only insist upon two Arguments First the Sacrifice of the Mass was appointed by God or Christ in the words of Institution of the Sacrament do this in remembrance of me It is the great Argument of the Council of Trent Prot. I adore the fruitfulness of your Churches Invention It seems they think these two words do this contain no less than two of your Sacraments to wit that of Orders which makes Priests and that of the Supper Pop. They do so Prot. That no sober man will easily believe nor that Christs meaning in the words mentioned was this Sacrifice me in remembrance of me But let me hear how you prove the Institution of the Mass from these words Pop. Christ bid his Disciples do this viz. that which he did Christ did in that last Supper truly and properly offer up himself to his Father his Body under the shape of Bread his Blood under the shape of Wine and therefore they were truly and properly to offer up or Sacrifice Christ in the Sacrament The Argument is Bellarmin's Prot. How do you prove that Christ did in that last Supper truly and properly offer up his Body and Blood to his Father I read that Christ offered himself but once Heb. 8. 27. and 9. 25 26 27 28. and 10. 14. and that was upon the Cross nor do I find that he offered any thing at all to God in that Supper but only to his Apostles And what did Christ Sacrifice himself and imbrue his hands in his own Blood and did he eat up his own Body did he take his whole Body into his Mouth these are Monsters of Opinions But how prove you that Christ did then offer up himself to God Pop. Because Christ speaks in the present tense This is my Body which is broken Blood which is shed he doth not say which shall be broken and shed and therefore it must be broken and shed at that very time Prot. What a vain Argumet is this you know nothing is more usual in Scripture than to put the Present Tense for the Future Christ saith I do lay down my life when he means I will do it shortly Iohn 10. 15. I do go to my Father Iohn 16. 28. that is I shall go shortly Do that thou dost that is art about to do John 13. 27. And in Mat. 26. Christ saith of his Blood This is my Blood which is shed for many for the remission of sins and yet I suppose it was not shed at that time for you all profess the Sacrifice of the Mass is an unbloody Sacrifice But again tell me I pray you when Christ said do this did
they not obey Christs command at that Supper Pop. I cannot deny that Prot. Thence unavoidably follows that this doing concerns the Communicants as well as if not more than the Minister and so it is not meant of Sacrificing Christ but receiving of him and really if this Text do not there is no other which doth enjoyn Communicants to receive which he that can believe hath got a good mastery over his Faith Besides what Christ here commands his Apostles I finde St. Paul commands the Corinthians and expounds doing this by eating and drinking 1 Cor. 11. And moreover if the words do this were the words which did ordain both Priest and Sacrifice who can think that two of the Evangelists viz. both Matthew and Mark would have omitted them in mentioning the words of Institution and therefore this may pass I shall only adde that if our Divines should prove their Doctrines no better than by such wrested Scriptures and Arguments as this we should hiss them out of the Pulpit but I suppose you have some better Argument therefore let me hear it Pop. Consider then that irresistable Argument Christ is a Priest after the order of Melchisedeck Now Melchisedeck did offer up a Sacrifice of Bread and Wine to God Gen. 14. and thefore Christ was bound in agreement with this Type to offer up such a Sacrifice even his Body and blood under the species of Bread and Wine Prot. You tell me Melchisedeck offered up Bread and Wine to God I find no such matter it is only a dream of your own The History is Gen. 14. where indeed I read of his offering Bread and Wine to Abraham and his Souldiers to refresh them according to the custom of those times and places Deut. 23. 3 4. and Iudges 8. 6. but not a word of any offering to God It is the strangest relation of a Sacrifice that ever was here 's not one word of the Altar or Offering or Consecration or the Destruction of the Sacrifice You grant the thing sacrificed must be destroyed when it is sacrificed I pray you how is this bread destroyed save only by the Souldiers mouths which you say came after the Sacrifice Pop. The bread possibly was destroyed by putting it in the furnace and the Wine sprinkled upon the furnace as Vasquez answers Prot. I see it was otherwise in those dayes than now it is If I thought my Bread would be destroyed by putting it into the Oven I assure you I would never put it in Pop. It must be a Sacrifice that is there related for it follows And he was the Priest of the most High God Prot. Not at all for his being Priest evidently relates to that which follows and he blessed him and received Tythes of all Besides if Melchisedeck did here offer a Sacrifice was Jesus Christ obliged to offer the same kind of Sacrifice that he did for Christ was to offer up himself Heb. 9. 10. which none of his Types did Tell me first Was Melchisedeck a Type of Christ in that action of eating Bread and Wine Pop. Yes doubtless and this was the principal thing in respect of which Christ is called a Priest after the order of Melchisedeck or else I say nothing Prot. Then tell me how can any man in his wits believe that St. Paul who spends so much of his Epistle to the Hebrews in comparing Christ and Melchisedeck and their Priesthood together and who picks up the very smallest circumstances as that he was without father c. Should not speak one word of this which if you say true was the principal thing Besides all this If Melchisedeck was a type of Christ in that action Did Christ offer Bread and Wine as Melchisedeck did Pop. No but he offered his own Body and Blood under the appearance of Bread and Wine Prot. Nay now I see there is no possibility of pleasing you for I expected this all along that Christ must needs have offered the same kind of Sacrifice that Melchisedeck did here But now you forsake your own argument and because Melchisedeck did offer Bread and Wine Christ must not offer Bread and Wine but something else under those appearances Now I have heard your two principial Arguments I hope you will hear mine also Pop. Good reason I should do so Prot. Then first I argue thus The Sacrifice of Christ was perfect and did perfect all Believers Heb. 10. 14. and therefore it need not and ought not to be repeated for the Apostle proves the imperfection of Levitical Sacrifices because they were repeated Heb. 10. 1 2. Where remission of sin is there is no more offering for sin Heb. 10. 18. Either then remission was not obtained by his once offering or there must be no more offering either Christs offering upon the Cross was insufficient or yours in the Mass is unnecessary Pop. It is not properly repeated for it is the same Sacrifice for substance which was offered upon the Cross and is offered in the Mass Prot. How is it of the same kind when you say the one is bloody the other unbloody the one offered by Christ the other by a Priest but if it were of the same kind so were the Levitical Sacrifices and all had relation to Christ as you pretend all Masses have and yet the Apostle makes their Repetition an evidence of their Imperfection Heb. 9. 10. And moreover the Apostle denies not only the repetition of other Sacrifices but also of the same Sacrifice and tells us as plainly as man can speak that Christ was to offer up himself but once Heb. 9. 25 c. whereas you wil needs over-rule the Apostle and force Christ to offer up himself thousands of times Pop. It is true there is but one Sacrifice of Redemption and Expiation for Sin and that was the Sacrifice of the Cross but there are other Sacrifices of Application to apply that to us Prot. I hope the Word and Sacraments and Spirit of Christ are sufficient to apply Christs Sacrifice must we have one Sacrifice to apply another who ever heard of one plaister made to apply another or a ransome paid the second time to apply the former payment And you seem to me quite to forget your selves to destroy the nature of your Sacrifice for the business of a Sacrifice is oblation to God not application to men Besides I have one Argument more which fully satisfies me if the Mass be a real and proper Sacrifice then the thing sacrificed must be really and properly destroyed Pop. That I readily grant as Bellarmin also doth and indeed so it was in all the Sacrifices that ever were offered to God Prot. But surely Jesus Christ is not destroyed in the Mass Is he And are your Priests the murderers of Christ Pop. He is not so destroyed for we tell you it is an unbloody Sacrifice yet he is in a manner destroy'd by the Priest's eating of him for thereby Christ ceaseth to be where he was before that is
Body of Christ Do not you profess that as soon as ever it ceaseth to be Bread it becomes the Body of Christ Pop. We do so Prot. Then surely if it be a substance according to you it must be either Bread or the Body of Christ but you allow it to be neither and therefore it is no substance at all In the next place for the word is I have shewed you do not understand that properly neither but for the word Body also do you understand that properly Pop. Yes without doubt Prot. I am told that your Church professeth to believe that Christs body is there after the manner of a spirit taking up no room that head hands feet are altogether in the least crumb of the Host. Is this true Pop. Yes we all agree in that Prot. Then sure I am the word Body is most improperly taken A learned man well observes that you plead for the propriety of words and destroy the propriety of things How can you say that it is properly a body which wants the essential property of a body which is to have quantity and take up room Take away this and the body may be properly a spirit for it is that only which differenceth it from a spirit So now I see you neither do nor can understand these words properly and upon the whole matter that this Doctrine is false and your Proofs most weak and frivolous you shall see that I have better arguments against your Doctrine than you have for it Pop. I pray you let me hear them but be brief in them Prot. I have only three Arguments your Doctrine is against Sense against Reason and against Scripture Pop. Let me see how you will make these things good Prot. For the first I ask you if I am as sure that your Doctrine of Transubstantiation is false as you are sure that the Christian Religion is true will you desire more evidence Pop. If I should I were an unreasonable person Prot. And have you any greater assurance now of the truth of the Christian Religion than you could have had if you had lived in Christs dayes Pop. That were impudence to affirm but what do you mean Prot. If you had lived then what greater evidence could you have had of it than what your senses afforded for since the great Argument for Christianity as all agree was the words that Christ spake and the works that Christ did how could you be sure that he did so speak or so work if you may not credit the reports of your eyes and ears This was S. Lukes great evidence of the truth of what he writes that it was delivered to him by eye-witnesses S. Luke 1. 1 2. and St. Johns what we have seen with our eyes and our hands have handled of the Word of life 1 John 1. And St. Paul for Christs Resurrection that he was seen of Cephas then of the twelve then of the 500 1 Cor. 15. 5 6. Even Thomas his Infidelity yielded to this argument that if he did thrust his hand into Christs side he would believe John 20. 25. Christ judged this a convincing argument when the Apostles thought he had been a Spirit handle me and see for a Spirit hath not flesh and bones as you see me have Luk. 24. 39. Are these things true Pop. I cannot deny it they are not yours but Scripture assertions Prot. And do not all my senses tell me that this is Bread Pop. I must grant that but your sense is deceived Prot. Then your senses also might have been deceived about the words and works of Christ and so the greatest evidence of Christian Religion is lost but for my part it makes me abhor your Religion that so you may but seem to defend your own opinions you care not if you shake the pillars of Christianity My second Argument is that your Doctrine of Transubstantiation is against reason Tell me I pray you do you think any of the Articles of Christian Religion are contrary to reason Pop. No they may be above reason but God forbid I should be so injurious to Christianity to say any of them are against reason Prot. But your doctrine is as much against reason as sense for it makes you believe things absolutely impossible and gross contradictions Pop. You may imagine many things impossible that really are not so but if you can prove any real impossibilities which this doctrine forceth us to believe I must yield for we joyn with you in condemning the Lutheran opinion that Christs Body is every where because it is an impossibility and we therefore expound those words I am the Vine I am a door c. figuratively because it is impossible for him who is a man to be a vine or a door Prot. And it is no less impossible for the Bread to be Christs Body Why might not the Vine as well as the Wine be by Transubstantiation converted into Christs Substance I think the Mother is as good as the Daughter and especially since Christ saith I am the true Vine you might as well have devised another transubstantiation to make Christs words good I know what work you would have made of it if he had said This is my TRVE Body or my TRVE Blood But to give that over I will shew you that there is such an heap of contradictions as never met together in the most absurd opinion that ever was in the world I profess when I set my wit at work I cannot devise greater absurdities than you believe Tell me do you hold that the whole Body of Christ is present in every crumb of the Bread and in every drop of the Wine Pop. Yes doubtless Christ is there entire and undivided Prot. I suppose you believe that Christs Body is in Heaven in such a proportion or bigness as he had upon Earth Pop. No doubt of that Prot. Then the same Body of Christ is bigger than it self and longer than its self and which is yet worse Christ is divided from himself I know not what can be more impossible than to say that all Christ is at Rome and all at London and all in Heaven and yet not in the places between Pop All this is by Gods Almighty Power Prot. Then I suppose by the same Almighty Power it is possible for any other man to be in so many places for it matters not that Christ be invisibly in so many places and another should be there visibly or that Christ is there in so little a bulk and another must be in a greater Pop. I must needs grant that and I affirm it is not absolutely impossible for any other man to be at several places at once by Gods Power Prot. Then mark what monsters follow from this suppose now Iohn to be by divine Power at the same time at Rome at Paris and at London where ever Iohn is alive I suppose he hath a power to move himself Pop. That must needs be else he were not a
living Creature Prot. Then Iohn at Rome may walk towards London and Iohn at London may walk toward Rome and so they may meet shall I say one the other and you may be sure it will be a merry meeting It were worth enquiry how long they will be e're they come together Then again at Rome all the parts of Iohn may be excessively hot and at London excessively cold and at Paris neither hot nor cold This is beyond all the Romances that ever were devised Besides Iohn may be sorely wounded at Rome and yet at London he may sleep in a whole skin Iohn may be feasting at Rome and fasting at London in the same moment I might be infinite in reckoning the horrid absurdities of this Doctrine he that can believe these things will stick at nothing Pop. You talk at this rate because you measure God by your selves whereas he can do more than you or I can think Prot. There are some things which it is no dishonour to God to say he cannot do them because they are either sinful so God cannot lie or absolutely impossible God himself cannot make a man to be alive and dead at the same time God cannot make the whole to be less than a part of it he cannot make three to be more than threescore he cannot make a Son to beget his Father he cannot make the same man to be born at two several times as your Authors confess and therefore in like manner he cannot make the same body to be in two several places for this is not one jot less impossible than the other Pop. These indeed are great difficulties to humane reason but reason is not to be believed against Scripture Prot. True but this is your hard hap this Doctrine of yours is against Scripture as well as Reason and indeed against many Articles of Religion And first it is against the Scripture in as much as it is highly dishonourable to Christ whose honour is the great design of the Scripture What a foul dishonour is it to him to subject him to the will of every Mass Priest who when he pleaseth can command him down into the Bread What a dishonour is it that the very Body of Christ may be eaten by Rats or Worms and may be cast up by Vomit and the like as your Aquinas affirms And that your Church in her Missals hath put this amongst other directions that if worms or Rats have eaten Christ Body they must be burned and if any man vomit it up it must be eaten again or burned or made a Relick and yet this is no more than your Doctrine will force you to own for if you will believe Christs words in one place as well as in another he assureth us that whatsoever without exception entreth into the mouth goeth into the belly and is cast forth into the draught Matth. 15. 17. Pop. This is no more dishonourable to Christ than that the Fleas might such his Blood when he was upon earth Prot. You mistake wofully for though in the dayes of his flesh it was no dishonor to him and it was necessary for us that he suffered so many indignities and died and was crucified yet now that he is risen from the dead he dies no more Rom. 6. and it is a dishonour to him to be crucified again and to be brought back to those reproaches which he long since left and all this to no purpose and without any profit to us as I shewed Again the Scripture approveth and useth this argument that a body cannot be in two places at once it is the Angels argument He is not here for he is risen Mat. 28. 6. sufficiently implying that he could not be here and there too or must we say that the Angels argument is weak or deceitful that yours may be strong and true Pop. He meant he was not there visibly Prot. It seems if a man being sought after should hide himself with you in some corner or hole in your room and the pursuers should ask for him you could answer with good Conscience He is not here because he is invisible Our Blessed Saviour every where makes these two opposite his being in the world and going to heaven Joh. 13. 1. The hour was come that he should depart out of this world unto the Father It seems you could have taught him the art of going thither and keeping here too I promise you I durst not venture to buy an Estate of any of you for it seems you could tell how to sell it to me and keep it to your selves You may remember once you and I made our selves merry with a passage that one used in a speech that since he could not give content neither by going nor staying hereafter he would neither go nor stay It seems you have as good a faculty as he had for you know how a man may both go from a place and stay in it at the same time I know not what can be more plain if you did not shut your eyes Christ saith expresly me you have not alwayes that is here Mat. 26. 11. Besides your doctrine destroyes the truth of Christs Humane Nature I read of Christ that he was in all points like unto us sin only excepted his Body was like ours and therefore it is impossible it should be in a thousand several places at once as you pretend it is this turns Christs Body into a Spirit nay indeed you make his body more spiritual than a Spirit for a Spirit cannot be in several places divided from it self The soul of man if it be entire both in the whole and in every part of the body yet it is not divided from it self nor from its body nor can it be in two several bodies at the same time as all confess and much less can it be in ten thousand bodies at once as by your Argument undoubtedly it may When ever an Angel comes to earth he leaves heaven and so this every way destroyes the truth of Christs Humane body Pop. Much of what you say was true of Christs Body in the dayes of his infirmity but when he was risen from the dead then he received a Spiritual Body as it is said ours shall be at the resurrection 1 Cor. 15. Prot. To this I answer First that you ascribe these monstrous properties to Christs Body before its Resurrection for you say The Flesh and Bloud of Christ were really in the Sacrament which the Disciples received while Christ lived Secondly Christs Resurrection though it heightned the perfections yet it did not alter the Nature and Properties of his Body nor give it the being of a Spirit for after he was risen he proves that he was no Spirit by this Argument Handle me and see for a Spirit hath not flesh and bones as you see me have Luke 24. 39. By this it appears that your Doctrine destroys the Truth of Christs Humanity at least it destroys the main evidence of it