wheras the senses perceiue the Accidents which are naturally inseparable from that substance if there were not a higher Authority that affirms the substance is not there to whose testimony Reason is bound to yield against the euidence of the senses as when the Angel appeared to Tobias to acompany him in his voyage Tobias at his first appearance ch 5. prudently iudged him to be a Man wheras the senses did perceiue all the Accidents proper to human Nature and nothing affirmed him to be an Angel there Reason prudently concluded vpon the testimony of the senses but when in the 12. ch the Angel discouered him self to be an Angel then Tobias his reason was reclaymed and against the euidence of his senses which did see nothing but Accidents of Human Nature belieued it a Spirit vpon the testimony of an Angel The lyke passage wee read to haue happened to Abraham Gen. 18. whence wee vnderstand that God may separat the Accidents from the substance to which they are proper and also that when the testimony of our senses clashs with a higher Authority Reason must yield to the higher Authority against the euidence of our senses This is the present case our senses say its bread what wee see after the consecration the word of God sayes its his Body if the word of God did not oueraw the senses reason ought prudently to conclude its bread but the word of God being of a more infallible authority than the senses Reason must yield to the word of God and say its Christs Body against the euidence of the senses that saye its bread But replyed he God will not haue Reason go against the euidence of our senses but yeld to them euen in matters of Faith for after his Resurrection he proued it to his Apostles by the euidence of their senses saying Lu. 24.36 feele and see for a Spirit hath no flesh nor boans as you see me to haue I answer they did not belieue his Resurrection only vpon the testimony of their senses but also of his word and asseueration that said he was reuiued God will haue vs as I said formerly yield to the euidence of our senses when there is no higher authority that thwarts their euidence as heere there was none but the higher autority did rather assert what the senses did testifie but in the Mystery of the Eucharist it is not so Gods word does contradict the senses and therefore Reason must yield to it against our sensations Pag. 21. Mr Sall argues that no necessity vrges vs to belieue Christs real presence in the Sacrament neither for the effects that he promises by it not for the verifying of his words seeing our sauiour said in the same tenor I am the true vine without any alteration in the vine or his person not for the effects of the Sacrament Christ being able to conferr what spiritual graces he pleases with the worthy receiuing of bread and wyne without any substantial alteration in the Elements as in the water of Baptism he affordeth the soueraign grace of spiritual regeneration in the substance of water I answer its necessary for the verifying of Christs words in the institution of the Sacrament for let the words Body and flesh vine Rock c. be equiuocal as he will haue them to be indifferent to beare two sences figuratiue and real This is euident that when a word bearing an equiuocal signification is put in a Proposition it is determined to signify that of which only and of no other the Predicat can be verifyed as this word Man may signify a true or painted man in this proposition Man is a rational liuing creature it is determined to signify a true Man because the Predicat rational liuing creature can be verifyed only of him and not of a painted man So the word Body that may signify a true or figuratiue one in the institution of the Sacrament This is my body vvhich is giuen for you it s determined to signify Christ his true body because of it only and not of a figure it can be verifyed vvhich is giuen for you If you obserue this Principle you will cleerly answer any text that may be alleadged against this Mystery As to the instance of vine and such lyke mystical expressions spoken of Christ put them in a proposition with the word Christ and they will be determined to a figuratiue or mystical signification because that Christ that dyed for vs cannot be said of a vine or Rock in their proper signification Now to the second part of his argument that God might had he been pleased haue redeemed vs with out any real Incarnation of the second Person or real Passion of Christ vpon the Cross it s out of controuersy for his infinit wysdom and Power wanted not other means for to redeem vs is it therefore wee must say with the Heretick Marcion that the text And the vvord vvas made flesh must be vnderstood figuratiuly and deny any real Incarnation of Christ or Passion on the Cross but only a figuratiue one by your argument wee might because God might had he been pleased conuey vnto vs by a figuratiue body and Passion all the effects and grace that he conueyed vnto vs by a real Incarnation and Passion the spiritual regeneration conferred on vs in Baptism by water he might haue conferred it on vs by wine or Rose water is it therefore wee must say that true natural water is not necessary for Baptism but say you the text does distinctly express vvater yea and the text in the institution of the Eucharist does distinctly express Body and as the text does not add true and real Body so it does not add true and natural water by what rule must vvater in the text sygnify natural water and the word Body must not sygnify a real body Thus farr wee agree that Christ might were he pleased haue giuen vs the effects of the Sacramēt by a figuratiue Presence only also that he might haue conferred them vpon vs by the real presence of his Body for there is no impossibility in that he should haue giuenvs his real Body vnder the Accidents of bread the question is what is it that he has effectually don and which of the two has he giuen the figure of his Body or his real Body I say that his real Body for that is requisit for the verifying of his words in the institution of the Sacrament But why does S. Paul call it Bread so often euen after the consecration as 1. Cor. 11.13 as often as you eat this bread vvhoeuer shall eat this bread he took bread in his hands he brake it and said this is my Body vvhich is broken for you These expressions denote that it remayns still bread No Mr Sall it retains the name of bread because it retains the appearance of bread and because that when a thing is changed into an other it still retains the name of what it was as in the Scripture wee read
the blind see the lame vvalk though they see they are called blind because they were blind and are restored to their sight And S. Io. 2.9 sayes vvhen the Ruler of the feast had tasted the vvater that vvas made vvine The liquor that the Ruler of the feast tasted was true wine yet the text calls it vvater because from water it was conuerted into wine So the bread which by the words of the consecration is conuerted into Christ his Body retains the name of bread because it was once bread because it has still the appearance of bread and because wee should vnderstand that true bread and wyne and nothing but bread and wyne is requisit for the due administration of that Sacrament as for the Baptism true natural water is necessary And that you may not be startled at S. Pauls calling it so often bread obserue you the rule I haue giuen and you will easily perceiue that the word bread so often vsed after the consecration signifyes not true and real bread but beares only a mystical or figuratiue signification for you will find that the Predicats that are said of that bread after its consecration cannot in any wyse be verified of true substantial bread and consequently that the word bread after the consecration cannot signify real but figuratiue bread for example Christ sayes of that bread that S. Paul speakes of the bread that I shall giue is flesh for the lyfe of the vvorld what was giuen for the lyfe of the world was not true bread but true flesh consequently when that flesh is called bread the word bread must not signify real bread Christ sayes of that bread this is my Body vvhich is giuen for you This Predicat vvhich is giuen for you cannot be verified of bread in its true and proper signification consequently the word bread after the consecration signifyes but figuratiue bread the appearance of bread But sayes Mr Sall wee all agree in calling the Eucharist a Sacrament a Sacrament is but a sign of a sacred thing why should not wee agree also in calling the Sacrament of Christ his body the sign of Christ his Body and heere he brings a rapsody of texts of S. Augustin S. Denis and others to proue that it is but a type a Symbol a figure and remembrance of Christ his Body which labor he might haue well spared for wee do freely grant that the Eurachist is a sign type remembrance and Symbol of Christ his body offered for vs on the Cross the Eucharist is a commemoration and representation of that bloody sacrifice but it is also Christ his true Body the vnbloody oblation of his Body in the Eucharist is a figure and representation of the bloody oblation of the same body on the Cross as a King that would act a Part in a tragedy of his own victoryes he would be the thing represented and the representation He alleadges the words of some Fathers of the Church that expresly say the Symbols in the Sacrament are not changed in their Nature but do abyde in their proper substance figure and form nay more distinctly they say that the Nature and substance of bread and vvyne remaine after the consecration thus speaks Saint Chrysost if you belieue Mr Sall in an epistle he writ ad Caesarium but if you belieue Bellarmin S. Chrysost neuer writ any such epistle also Gelasius a Pope sayes Mr Sall though Bellarmin sayes he was no Pope but som Monk and Theodoret dial 2. c. 24. And is it not a pretty thing that the Protestants would perswade vs that these Fathers and others did belieue only a figuratiue Presence and yet from the very first begining of their pretended Reformation they constantly auerr that all the Fathers fell into the errours of Purgatory real Presence Adoration of Saints c. whoeuer will read those Fathers will find the real Presence most cleerly asserted in seueral places of their works especially in S. Chrysost and for one or two obscure passages or expressions that our Aduersaryes meet with they must be for a figuratiue Presence Bellarmin and our Catholick Authors giue a Catholick sence to those words the Protestants giue an other the Fathers do not liue to speake for themselues and declare what sense they intended is it not necessary therefore that wee should haue an infallible liuing iudge who may deliuer vnto vs what wee must belieue in this Mystery This aduertisment I must giue my Reader that the Fathers in all ages of the Church some spoke nothing at all of the Mysteryes now controuerted and belieued by vs others spoke of them but briefly and obscurely others wrote in some places of their works plainly and distinctly but in other places in expressions subiect to misconstruction The reason was that the Fathers of each age professedly writ or altogether or for the most part of their works of those points of doctrin which were opposed by the Hereticks of those tymes and those they deliuered in their proper Notions expresly and carefully shunning any dubious words but of other Mysteryes and Articles of Faith that were vnanimously belieued no contradiction of Hereticks requiring an exact discussion of them either they omitted to speake of them or writing of them they were not so carefull in speaking with cleer expressions because they had no occasion of fearing a misconstruction of their words particularly when in other places of their works they had deliuered themselues in plain terms Hence it is that wee must not be startled if wee do not find any mention of Indulgences Purgatory or real Presence in some Fathers or if wee meet some words in some Fathers which may be wrested against our Tenets as in this of the real Presence which vntill about the yeare 800. had not any opposition among Christians then it was apposed by Iohn Scotus not the Franciscan fryer and by the Arch Bishop of Sens in France but this storm was soon and easily calm'd about the yeare 1100. Berengarius raysed much dust against this Mystery and drew many Abettors to his faction then the Catholick writters did declare the Mystery and defend it and Berengarius was condemned by fiue Councils successiuly assembled against him and his Partizans the Fathers who writ since that tyme speake so manifestly in fauor of the real Presence that you will hardly find any expression in their works wherat your vnderstanding may stumble It s most false what Mr Sall imputes to Scotus Ocham and other more modern Catholicks that the doctrin of Transubstantiation it not contained in the Canon nor was an Article of Faith before the Lateran Council they expresly teach especialy Scotus in 4. dist 11. q 3. that the doctrin was belieued before the Council continually in the Church but more explicitly declared by the Council who for that end introduced the word Transubstantiation which expresses better the doctrin belieued as the Council of Nice introduced the word Consubstantial to signify the equality of the son with the Father
to be called damnably vnbelieuers They would not belieue that corporal eating of his real flesh as you do not for the difficulties which reason dictated against the lyke expressions such as you and your fraternity proposes against them and therefore wee say that you are damnably vnbelieuers as they were and you and they are checkt by those wordes of Christ the flesh profiteth nothing it s the spirit that quickneth c which were not to check their vnderstanding for apprehending a corporal eating but to check their obstinacy that for the difficulties which natural reason did suggest against his expressions they would not belieue what he spoke and they vnderstood him to haue spoken the flesh profiteth nothing that was to say to them and to you that they must not iudge of this Mystery by the senses of the flesh nor by natural reason which is adquired by the help of the fleshy senses They cannot vnderstand how that can be It s the spirit that quickneth that 's to say it s the Diuine grace that must enlighten your vnderstandings to know and belieue how this can be Euen as when S. Peter confessed Chist to be the son of the liuing God Christ added it s not flesh and blood that reuealed that vnto thee but my Father that is in heauen Mat. 16 17. which was to say that it was not natural reason nor any knowledge of the senses of flesh or gotten by them but the grace of the heauenly Father that discouered that Mystery to him If you reade that passage in S. Io. 6. you will find that Christ as wee haue euidently proued proposed a corporal eating of his real flesh but did not at all then which is to be obserued propose the manner how he would giue his flesh to be eaten The obligation of the Iews was to belieue that he would giue it and not to dispute hovv that could be or in what manner but they began to think how it could be quomodo potest c. and their natural reason which only they consulted not vnderstanding that it could be otherwyse than by cutting his flesh in morsels to be giuen to them this appearing so absurd to human reason they absolutly denyed the possibility of the Mystery If Christ when he proposed to them his flesh for food had also proposed the manner that he intended of giuing it perhaps they would haue belieued but then he did not but only the eating of his flesh Their error was two fold the one that they denyed the possibility of giuing his flesh to be eaten for which they were called vnbelieuers the other was the cause why they denyed it because the manner of eating it which their natural reason proposed vnto them appeared absurd and therefore not conceiuing how it could be they denyed it therefore Christ checkt this their vnderstanding that the manner of giuing his flesh really to be eaten was in a spiritual way aboue what their natural reason could apprehend and sayd its the Spirit that quickneth the flesh profiteth nothing as wee haue expounded but they either because they did not vnderstand this expression or that they obstinatly adheared to their first denyal flincht from him I conclude with this reason you will not deny but that God might if he were pleased haue conuerted the substance of that bread which he took in his hands into his real flesh and Body as by his omnipotent word he created all things of nothing as he conuerted the water into wyne and as the bread which wee eat is by the heat of our stomacks conuerted into our flesh and blood suppose I pray that he intended at the last supper to make such a change or that now he descended from heauen to make it what words could he vse more significant to let vs vnderstand that he gaue vs his real and true Body vnder the Accidents of bread than those take eat this is my Body vvhich is giuen for you this is truly my flesh if in a serious discourse I promised you a horse would not you vnderstand that I intended to giue you a true horse would I perform my promomiss by giuing the figure of one since then that he might haue giuen vs if he had been pleased his true and real Body and that he spoke as if really he did intend it for he could not speake otherwyse if he did wee must vnderstand that he did intend it and gaue it If he did intend it when he spoke those words what could hinder him if he did not intend it was it sincerity and honesty to speake otherwyse than as he intended no more than if you hauing promised a horse would giue only the picture of one Let vs heare Mr Salls arguments he begins as the Iews with difficulties that reason proposes against so great a Mystery that the Accidents of bread should be without any substance to rest on that a Body would be at one tyme in many places that a well proportioned body should be confined to the smale compass of a wafer that the Accidents conuerted into vermin should produce a substance I would tyre my Readers patience if I did scan each triuial objection of these that has been a hundred tymes answered and our answers neuer replyed vnto You would haue shewen more wit Mr Sall and got more credit by replying to the answers that our writers giue to these obiections and especially Bellarmin from whom you borrow them than by repeating again a parcel of thrid bare tryfles against so great a Mystery in homage of which wee must captiuat our sence and reason as wee do to the Mystery of the Trinity which surpasseth all created intellects far more than this Mystery and yet not so cleerly expressed in Scripture as this is And if you must haue natural reason for to belieue this Mystery tell me what reason haue you for to belieue that the Bread and wyne giueth lyfe and grace to the worthy eater what proportion can reason find betwixt bread and Diuin grace what proportion betwixt the water of Baptism and spiritual Regeneration none if you do not appeale to the omnipotency of God by he same wee answer you also to shun tedious Tatalogyes that those difficulties you represent be impossible to Nature but they are possible to the omnipotent word of God But for the satisfaction of the Reader I will deliuer this argument in the terms of an ingenious man which once I discoursed with This Mystery said he is repugnant to sense and reason consequently it is not to be imposed on man if God will not haue him to renounce both It s repugnant to sense for what wee see tast and feel is but bread repugnant to reason for this ought prudently to conclude that the substance of bread is there vpon the testimony of the senses which perceiue the Accidents that by natural course are inseparable from the substance of bread I answer Reason prudently ought to conclude the substance of bread is there
assured this is our case in the adoration of the Host And hence wee cannot but condemn your intollerable rashness in saying that it s an intollerable boldness to auer that there is the same reason for the adoration of the Host as there is for the adoration of Christs Diuinity for if you vnderstand our Doctrin which is that there is as much reason for adoring an Host truly consecrated as there is for adoring the Diuinity of Christ it is most manifestly true wheras Faith teacheth vs that the Host truly consecrated is God and man Iesus Christ really present If you do not vnderstand our doctrin its intollerablerashness in you to censure what you do not vnderstand Half Communion We will declare our Tenet by a comparison of the Communion with the Sacrament of Baptism both are commanded by Christ if one be not born again by vvater and the Spirit he shall not enter into the King dom of Heauen Io. c. 6. and in the same chap. if you do not eate the sllesh of the son of Man and drink his bloud you shall not haue lyfe in you In the Sacrament of Baptism you must distinguish the substance and essence of it from the circumstances and manner of receiuing it The substance and essence of it consists in being regenerated by water for that is required by Christ expresly in the text the manner how this regeneration is made is by one total immersion of the Body in water or by three distinct immersions or without any total immersion but by sprinkling some principal part of the Body with water what concerns the essence of this Sacrament to be by vvater is indispensably requisit cannot be altered what concerns the manner of receiuing it Christ left that arbitrary to the Church and did not oblige either to one total immersion nor to three nor to sprinkling but to either of the three wayes Hence it is that though Christ did baptize the Apostles with a total immersion of their Bodyes as Ancient Authors do auerr if by three or one immersion wee know not though this manner of Baptizing by a total immersion was practised by the first age and some ages of the Church and that wee do not reade that Baptism should haue been administred in those ages by a sprinkling of the Body with water yet the Church in succeeding ages for iust reasons requiring it has seueral tymes altered this manner some tyme they ordained that Baptism should be giuen with three total immersions in hatred of the Heresy of them that denyed three persons in God and to signify that there was in God but vnity as well in Person as in Nature would not baptize but with one immersion Some tyme the Church commanded Baptism to be giuen with one immersion in opposition of Hereticks that would not baptize but with three to signify that the three Persons were of different Natures Thus you will find that in the 50. Canon of the Apostles three immersions are commanded in the 4. Council of Toledo but One S. Gregory writing to S. Leander sayes it may be administred either of both wayes and lastly the Church in consideration that many Infants especially in the Northren Kingdoms through the Coldness of the Climat dyed by the total immersion of their Bodyes commanded the Sacrament should be administred with the sprinkling of some principal part of the Body with water and this manner is vsed also by the Protestants who do not rebuke the Church for omitting the triple immersion practised by the Apostles Thus in the Eucharist wee must distinguish the essence of it from the circumstances That consists in eating and drinking the Body and blood either vnder Accidents of bread alone or wine alone or bread and wine together this is indispensably requisit to neither in particular did Christ oblige vs but left it arbitrary to the Church to determin as tymes and iust occasions required and that Christ did not oblige vs to any of those different manners in particular but left it arbitrary to the Church first the text it self declares it for when he gaue the Cup he did not absolutly command the vse of it saying Do this in commemoration of me but Do this as often as you shall drink in commemoration of me which is not a command of Drinking but when wee shall drink to do it in commemoration of him Secondly wee haue a positiue example of Christ himself that once gaue the Communion in the accidents of bread alone to his disciples in the way towards Emaus wee haue no positiue example in Scripture that Christ should baptize som tymes by sprinkling the Body with water sometymes by one total immersion and yet wee confess that Baptism may be administred any of these three wayes as the Church shall ordain wee haue no positiue example that Christ should haue giuen the Eucharist sometymes in Leuen sometymes in Azim bread and yet the Church may giue it in either and hauing a positiue example that he gaue the Sacrament once in bread and wyne and once at least in bread alone why cannot wee conclude that the Church may do so also Christ gaue the Sacrament at night is it therefore it cannot be giuen in the morning Christ gaue it after the corporal repast is it therefore it cannot be receiued fasting Christ washed his Apostles feet when he gaue it is it therefore needfull to wash the receiuers feet That non obstante of the Council of Constance that so much surprises poore Mr Sall as if the Council had been presumptious in prohibiting the vse of the Chalice hauing confessed that Christ and the Apostles gaue it to the faithfull argues nothing of presumption for as the Council knew that Christ and the Apostles gaue the Cup to the Layty so it knew also that sometymes they gaue only the Bread and therby did vnderstand that it was left in the power of the Church to giue the Sacrament in either of both kinds Vpon this ground did the Council of Constance and does the Church now prohibit the Chalice iust reasons mouing them to it First that if the Cup should be giuen that would hinder the frequent Communion to which the Church doth exhort vs much for wherethe wine is scant and deere and the Communicants thousands in number the expences would be great secondly People would conceiue a horror against the Communion if they were obliged to drink out of the same Cup with sickly Persons perhaps with contagious diseases Thirdly the Communion would be morally impossible to many that can not endure the tast of wyne Fourthly the danger of the effusion of some drops in a great multitude of Communicants these and many other reasons haue moued the Church to command the vse of the bread alone Heere indeed comes very pertinently Mr Salls argument against the real Presence The Communion vnder both kinds is not needfull neither for the verifying of Christs words in the institution of the Sacrament nor for the effects which by it
are conueyed vnto vs not for the effects conueyed wheras what Christ promised to the Receiuers of the bread and Cup he promises to the Receiuers of the bread alone He that eats this bread shall liue for euer Io. 6.38 which he repeats three tymes in that chap. is not this all that is promised to the Receiuers of the Bread and Cup not for the verifying of Christ his words for that text Io. 6. which is the strongest that our aduersaryes can alleadge if you do not eat the flesh of the son of man and drink his blood you shall not haue lyfe in you The particle and which seems to require the taking of the Cup as well as the bread Bellar. l. 4. de Euch. c. 25. and Suar. in 3. par disp 71. sect 2. do manifestly proue that it must be vnderstood disiunctiuly and signify or and the sence of the text is if you do eat the flesh of the son of Man or drink his blood c. And that in the Hebrew or Syriach language wherin Christ did speake it signifyes so and that the Apostle S. Iohn writing in Greek retained the Hebrew Phrase Now that the particle and which vsually is Copulatiue somtymes in Scripture signifyes disiunctiuly they proue it by seueral examples of Scripture as when S. Peter was asked an alms Act. 3. he answered I haue no syluer and Gold meaning that he had neither syluer nor Gold otherwise the excuse was friuolous Ex. 15. and 21. He that vvill kill his Father and Mother let him dye the sence is Father or Mother Psal 1. the impious shall not ryse in iudgment and the sinners in the Council of the Iust The sence is nor the sinners So in that text if you do not eat the flesh of the son of Man and drink his blood c. The word and must be taken in a disiunctiue sence and signify he that vvill not eat his flesh nor drink his blood which is declared by Christ his subsequent words He that eats this bread shall liue for euer signifying that eating alone and consequently or drinking alone was sufficient But say you Christ Mat. 26. after giuing the bread and commanding to Eat gaue the Cup and said drink ye all of this If the Apostles only were commanded to drink they only were commanded to eat and so as the Layty is excluded from drinking they must be also excluded from eating and if the command of eating did reach to the Layty the command also of drinking did extend to them For to answer this Obiection you must obserue the difference betwixt a sacrifice and a Sacrament a sacrifice is a worship of God by the oblation of some visible thing which wee offer in homage of his greatness so that a sacrifice is directed to God and consists in an Action exhibited to his honour A Sacrament is a sensible sign giuen to a Creature for some spiritual inuisible effect so that the Nature of a Sacrament consists in the Reception of a visible sign by Gods Creatures and is directed to them for a spiritual effect The Eucharist is a Sacrifice a Sacrament It s a sacrifice of Christs body and blood vnder the Accidents of bread and wyne offered to God in representation of Christs body sacrificed on the Cross and that the representation should be full and compleat it was ordained in bread to signify his body broken for vs and in the liquid species of wyne to represent his blood effused This sacrifice is offered not only by the Priest and for the Priests that consecrats but by and for the whole congregation but because each Person of the multitude is not the immediat Minister of the sacrifice but all do offer it by the hands of consecrated Persons on whom Christ layd the commend of sacrificing Do this in commemoration of me commanding them to do as then he did it is not need full that each particular of the congregation should receiue either the bread or the vvyne consecrated as it is a sacrifice but that the immediat Minister who offers it for all should receiue both Hence I confess that Christ in the institution of this Sacrifice in the last supper directed his commands of eating and drinking only to the Apostles and their successors which he then consecrated Ministers of the Sacrifice and that neither the word Drink nor eat in those texts extend to oblige the Layty But the Eucharist is also a Sacrament for that very body and blood of Christ which he ordained to be a sacrifice to God vnder the accidēts of bread and wyne he ordained them to be giuen vnder the same Accidents to man for the spiritual nourishment of his soule I say vnder the same Accidents not that both kind of Accidents of bread and vvyne are needfull for the perfect receiuing of a Sacrament but either for the Eucharist in the Accidents of bread alone is a sensible sign containing the body and blood of Christ which nourishes the soul and giues lyfe euerlasting He that eats this bread shall liue for euer therefore its a perfect Sacrament whence I conclude that since it is giuen to Creatures as a Sacrament and not as a Sacrifice its sufficient they receiue vnder the sensible signs either of bread alone or wyne alone for in either its a perfect Sacrament and only in both a perfect Sacrifice If you ask where then if not in the words of the last supper was there any obligation layd on vs to receiue the Eucharist Sacramentally I answer Io. 6. if you do not eat the flesh of the son of Man c. Mr Sall concludes that by Suarez his confession 3. p. disp 42. s 1. the Accidents of bread and wyne are the constitutes of the Sacrament consequently by taking away the Cup wee depriue the Layty of the Sacrament Suarez sayes that the Accidents of bread and wyne and either of bread or vvyne are constituts of the Sacrament and throughout the whole disput 71. largely proues in three sections that the whole essence of the Sacrament is contained in either kind VVorshipp of Images Mr Sall sayes the worship of Images is expresly prohibited in the 20. Chap. Ex. which text also expresly prohibits the making of grauen Images or the lyknefs of any thing that is in heauen aboue and on the earth or vnder the earth or in the vvaters and then adds in a distinct verse thou shall not adore nor vvorship them If Mr Sall will admit no interpretation of that text but vnderstand it literally the Protestants are also transgressors who make pictures of the King Queen and seueral other things and yet the text prohibits the making of the likness of any thing If he will interpret the text to signify no image must be made to be adored wee say the text does not only prohibit the adoring of them but the making of them if notwithstanding he will still insist vpon his interpretation then he must giue vs also leaue to giue our interpretation