instances thus when I beginne to draw a circle and when I haue drawn only thus much of it C precisely when I say the word this I may truly say this is a circle wherby my meaning is not this c beeing a little part of a circle is a circle for that is no circle but this figure which now I am a drawing or shall presently draw is a circle Thus if one beginning to power wine into a glasse when he hath powred some few dropps or small quantity into the glasse should say this is a glasse full of wine it being only full when the last word wine is pronounced certainly the word this cannot signify that small quantity of wine which was in the glasse precisely when the word this was pronounced for that is not a glasse full but the wine which he is then a powring into the glasse till he haue filled it with wine must be signifyed by the word this In the same maner if one desirous to shew to another how quikly flax becomes fire holding flax in one hand and a candle in the other flax being in its own naturall substance in that precize instant when the word this is pronounced should say This is fire and as he pronounces the words he kindles the flax soe that when the whole sentence this is fire is pronounced the flax is kindled and changed into fire noe man can be soe simple to thinke that his meaning is this flax remāing as it now is vnkindled is fire but this which I am now a shewing to wit flax kindled is fire noe other wise happens it in our present case where our Sauiour by the word this intends not to signifie this bread remaining as it now is when I prunounce the word this is my Body but being consecrated and by consecration changed into my Body as flax by being kindled is changed into fire is my Body This supposed as a ground of this truth I answer to the whole discours of the obiection that when our Sauiour sayd this is my Body this is my Bloud his meaning was This which I am to giue vnto you and which yee are presently to eate and drinke is my Body and my Bloud which though it were not existent actually then when he pronounced the word this yet it was to be presently after no otherwise then when he sayd this is my command not of any command which was then giuen but of one which he was presently to giue when he had pronounced the word this That this was the meaning of our Sauiour in the institution of this Sacrament is most cleare to all such as vnderstandingly reade the text for he commanded his disciples to take and eate what he was instituting in this holy Sacrament Take eate this is my Body Therefore his meaning was to signify by the word this that which his disciples were to take and eate now his disciples were not to take and eate any thing but what was instituted and made a Sacramen◠before it was eaten neither was the Sacrament instituted but by the words of consecration This is my Body which I haue allready proued Therefore the word this according to our Sauiours meaning must signify somthing which was to be after the words of consecration This is my Body So farre from truth is it that by the word this our Sauiour intended to signify that which he held in his hands whilst he precisely pronounced that word this that he signifyed that which he was to giue out of his hands and put into the hands of his disciples and therefore he sayes not see behold but take eate This is my Body that is not what ye now see whilst I say the word this but what I command you to take and eate presently is my Body And yet this truth is made clearer in the institution of the chalice And he tooke the cup and gaue thankes and gaue it to them saying drinke yee all of this for this is the Bloud of the new Testament which shall be shed for many for the remission of sins where our Sauiour renders the reason why he commanded them to drinke of it because it was his Bloud c. So that he sayes not looke yee all on it for this is my Bloud c. which might haue beene done before the words of consecration were pronounced or the Sacrament instituted whilst he sayd the word it or this but drinke yee all of it which was not to be done till the consecration and institution was past as I haue already proued and the objection herafter acknowledgeth Objection There is not one word which Christ spake which we do not stedfastly beleeue to be true for we hold that this bread is the Body of IESVS Christ since he sayd that the bread which he brake and gaue was his Body Answer I doubt not of the sincerity of this profession for so much as concernes the petson that wrote this paper there is more want of true information of the vnderstanding then good affection in the will and zeale certainly there is of truth but such an one as S. Paul describes not according to knowledge For I haue clearly now demoustrated that the meaning of this proposition This is my Body is not this bread which I now hold in my hand whilst I say the words This is my Body but This which I am now to giue you and ye are to eate after it be made a Sacrament by the words of consecration is my Body Objection It is not our parts to glosse the word of God or ad any thing of our own since then we haue those two things in the Gospell the one that IESVS gaue bread the othet that that which he gaue was his Body we beleeue both the one and the other not as they who will beleeue the latter but the former they will not credit and though we could not comprehende how this may agree that it should be bread which we eate and yet the Body of Christ our Lord yet it were our dutyes to rest without any scruple Answer The good disposition expressed in these lines will no doubt haue a great influence to induce the person that wrote them to a right vnderstanding of these mysterious words of our Sauiour after a due and impartiall ponderation of what I haue sayd concerning them where by it may appeare that it was not bread remayning in the nature of bread as it was before consecration but bread made the Body of Christ by consecration which the Apostles did eate and our Sauiour called his Body and signified by the words this Objection But the Gospell in the line following instructeth vs and draweth vs out of all difficulty for Christ hauing sayd that that which he gaue was his Body added presently that it is a remembrance or commemoration therof Answer The opponent may please to remember that iust now we read in the former objection that it is not their part to glosse the word of God
any signes or figures of our Sauiours bloud as the opponent here imagines that hence is drawn a most forcible argument that as in Exodus there was shed and dispersed true reall bloud and not a signe or figure of it which was called the bloud of the testament so hcre also must needs be vnderstood the true bloud of our Sauiour as it is called by him both Moyses and our Sauiour vsing the same maner of speach as I haue shewed and such a solemne leâ—gue or testament as this was requiring no lesse but rather much more to be confirmed by true bloud then that in Exodus or in other ancient times And hence may clerly enough be gathered first that our Sauiour himselfe held the cup of his bloud to confirme this league or pact betwixt him and mankinde of his part as the Apostles tooke it and drunke it to confirme it of thâ—yrs and so it is called as it is his bloud of the new testamens that is whereby the testament of the law of Grace was stregthned confirmed and accomplished on both parts Secondly that as in a testameÌ„t an authenticall instrument drawn of any dying mans wili witnessed subscribed sealed c. is rightly and ptoperly called his last will and testament so in our present occasion the couenant or will of our Sauiour testifyed or confirmed by his bloud is rightly called the new Testament of Christ and that sacred bloud of his as testifying and confirming this will and decree is most properly termed by our Sauiour in S. Luke and S. Paul the new Testament in his his bloud that being the authenticall instrument wherby this will of his was confirmed and testifyed And hence euidently appeares how vaine false the explication here giuen by the opponeÌ„t is for if here by new TestameÌ„t be only to be vnderstood a signe of the new Testament then Exod. 24. by Testament should be only vnderstond a signe of the Testament then made betwixt God and the Isrealites the very same phrase being vsed in both places which were ridiculous Objection He called the cup is bloud in the same maner as he called the bread his body Answer Still more glosses additions and mistakes where did our Sauâ—our call the cup is bloud where read you these woades this cup is my bloud he saith indeede haiung taken the cup this is my bloud of the new Testament but neuer this cup is my bloud he sayd this cup the new Testament in my bloud but he neuer sayd this cup is my bloud no more then he euer sayd This bread is my Body Such propositions as these therefore are not to be put vppon our Sauiour vnlesse you can eyther shew them in Scripture or proue them euidently out of it Obiection And if the cup must be the Testament or signe of his bloud wy should not the bread be the Testament or signe of his body Answer The cup was iust now called the new Testament according to the opponent for that it is a holy signe of the new Testament now it is called the new Testament or signe of his bloud so that new Testament now signifyes a figure of the new Testament and then a signe of our Sauiours bloud what it pleases the opponent according to different apprehensions and phantasies framed of it without Scripture or ground so inconstant are Protestants in theyr assertions neither is therefore new Testamenr here a signe of tha new Testament nor a signe of our Sauiours bloud as I haue proued but his bloud is the bloud of the new Testament and the cup the new Testament in his bloud as he declares expressely in the Gospell and if that which he called here his bloud must needs be as I haue shewed his true reall bloud why should not that which he called his body be his true reall body whether his body here may be termed the new Testament c. seeing we haue nothing in Scripture or fathers concerning it I will not determine it is a curious and needlesse question and we see that the leagues betwixt persons were confirmed by bloud yet seeing it was the custome both in antiquity and in Exodus c. 14. now cited to kill and sacrifice the bodyes of those creatures whose bloud they sprinkled and that as it seemes in confirmation of the couenant betwixt them and that here our Sauiour made a true sacrifice of his sacred body putting it as Diuines tell vs mortuo modo in the maner of a dead body exhibiting it as separate from his bloud and his Apostles receauing it from his hand it might happily be termed his body of the new Testament or the new Testament in his body vnbloudily sacrificed but then will follow that here must be no lesse his true body then were the true bodyes of those creatures sacrificed in Exodus the 24 or then I haue prooued his true bloud to be there by the like argument but I will not be authour of any such new maners of speech and so conclude nothing in this particular as conducing little to the poynt in question Obiection They will not indure any figure or impropriety of speehe in these wordes this is my Body though in affect they themselues wrest them for whether by this word this they vnderstand vnder this or vnder those species or that they will that this word this signifyes nothing present c. Answer I am not obliged to defend euery mans different opinion each hath his particular reasons and wayes to maynteyne his own it is sufficient that I defend what before I haue answeared and demonstrated out of Scripture that our Sauiours meaning by the word this was to signify nothing precisely present by way of a Sacrament when the word this was pronounced but what was to be present when the Apostles tooke and ate it or presently before that is so soone as the wholl proposition this is my Body was pronounced which sense by way of instance may be gathered out of the expression vsed here by the opponent when it is sayd for whether by this worde this and or that they will by the worde this for when the obiection sayes this word not hauing yet set down the word which is meant by it but presently after to witt this certainly the opponent cannot signify any thing present precisesy when these two words this word were written but what was presently to be set down to witt this so that by the opponents own writing is conuinced that the word this may doth ordinarily signify something not present when it is pronounced or written but presently after to be set down or spoken Objection Or whether by this word is they vnderstand shall become or shall be transubstantiated surely these distractions can be no testimonyes of truth Answer Here again the objection puts the word this and that which is signified by it to wit is follows after it To this objection I answer that it is a mere calumnie forged by Caluin and from him
tymes after consecration for it follows no more that therefore it should be pure bread remayning as it was before the words of consecration then that the water remained in its own nature after it was made wyne because after the change it is called water Neither doth yet S. Paul if his words be well marked say that the consecrated hoast is naturall and common bréad such as it was before fit to be eaten at an ordinary table as the Protestants must grant it not to be for at the least it is sacramentall bread and consecrated to a religious and holy vse according to them and therefore though he had put the same word bread before and after consecration yet it follows not that the signification of that word after consecratiâ—n should be the same with the signification of the same before consecration for before it signifyes common ordinary naturall and vsuall bread but after sacramentall significant coÌ„memoratiue holy diuine bread according to Protestants and therefore if Ptotestants must confesse that though the word be the same yet the signification is not the same why blame they Romane Catholicques if they giue the same answer saying that by the word bread in S. Paul before consecration or blessing is meant the substance of naturall and vsuall bread but after consecration supernaturall heauenly spirituall diuine bread which our Sauiour termeth himselfe to be in the sixt of S. Iohn six or seauen different tymes and which euery Christian chiefly begs of God in the Pater noster or Lords prayer saying giue vs this day our dayly bread for it is to be noted that bread in greeke familiarly in holy Scripture is taken for all manner os meate and not for bread only as it is distinct from all other meates But to make it yet clearer that S. Paul did not meane naturall bread remaning in its own substaÌ„ce as it was before when he called the Sacrament bread after it was consecrated or designed for a part of that holy mystery it is particularly to be reflected on that in this acceptioÌ„ he neuer calls it absolutly bread but allways with in article determinatiue or restrictiue referring it to that which consecration had made it and so he calls it this bread this cup that bread that cup to wit which was held for a Sacrament and mystery amongst Christians by force of our Sauiours words and to put vs out of all doubt that it was not that naturall bread and wine which it was before it was consecrated he clearly calls it the bread of our Lord and the cup of our Lord v. 29. wherfore whosoeuer shall eate this bread and drinke this cup of our Lord vnworthily c. and as we gather Ioan. 6. v. 48. that when our Sauiour termed the bread whereof he spoke there the bread of life he meant not naturall and visible bread but supernaturall and diuine in the same manner are we to gather from the words of S. Paul that by the like phrase the like bread is signifyed and as our Sauiour termes that bread wherof he spake Io. 6. v. 51.58 this bread to distinguish it from naturall and vsuall bread and to signify that he thereby meant his true body so also doth S. Paul here neyther can it more be gathered from the being tetmed bread by S. Paul that is naturall and substantiall bread then it can be gathered from the canon of our masse that wee beleeue it to be the substance of bread because it is often called bread in the said canon after consecration Objection If by this word bread so often repeated by the Apostle he should vnderstand flesh were not he worthy to be blamed to entertayne the people in errour since he knew that sense and reason giueth in euidence that it is bread which man naturally beleeues would he not rather haue aduertised vs to hold our senses in suspension and to beleeue that it is his flesh though it seemeth bread then to ioyne himselfe with the report of our senses calling it alwayes bread without any explication Answer We are not to prescribe to the holy Ghost what he is to disclose to the writers of diuine Scripture he could haue deliuered many other mysteries of our faith in clearer words in the holy Scripture then he hath done if it had seemed good in his diuine Prouidence and therefore though he command vs not here in expresse termes to deny our senses and to beleeue that it is his flesh though it seeme bread as some holy fathers haue done with in the first fiue hundred yares yet he calles it as expressly the body of Christ as he calls it bread and seeing we finde bread often to be taken in a spirituall sense in holy Scripture for the food of out soules but neuer finde the body of Christ which is giuen for vs to be any other then his reall true Body one would thinke that the darker or more doubtfull word should in any reasonable mans iudgement yeeld to the more cleare and certaine and be interpreted by it then the contrary which is here alleadged and though our Sauiour call his flesh bread twice as often as S. Paul calls that which was consecrated bread here Ioannis 6. yet no man dare from thence argue that his flesh was not true flesh but corporall and materiall bread And if S. Paul by calling it so often bread after consecration should ioyne himselfe with the report of our senses as the opponent here affirmes he would draw vs also to thinke that it is mere naturall and vsuall bread after consecration as it was before and therefore we may apply the same objection in almost the same wordes against Protestants which here is brought against vs in this manner If by this word bread so often repeated by the Apostle he should vnderstand a Saerament or mystery as it is beleeued to be amonst all Christians were he not worthy to be blanted to entertaine the people in errour since he knew that sense and reason giueth in euidence that it is vsuall and common bread which man naturally beleeues would he not rather haue aduertised vs to hold our senses in suspention and to beleeue that it is sacramentall and spirituall bread though it seeme vsuall bread then to ioyne himselfe with the report of our senses calling it always bread without any explication Thus whilst Protestants frame arguments fitter for Infidells then Christians against vs they neuer consider what force the like arguments haue against themselues But it is very vntrue that S. Paul called it bread without any explication or that he any way draws vs to what our senses would iudge if they were left to themselues but eleuates our thoughts vnto faith telling vs that it is panis calix Domini the bread and cup of our Lord which our Sauiour confesses himselfe to be Iohn the sixt and besides that he who eats this bread and drinketh this cup of our Lord vnwortily shall he guilty of the body and
bloud of the Lord which giues enough to vnderstand what kind of bread and cup he meant here for they cannot be properly sayd to be guilty of the body and bloud of Christ who receiue vnworthily an externall signe or remembranee of it though otherwise they may highly offend him as a subiect cannot be rightly said to be guilty of the body and bloud of his King who receiues not his seale or signet with that reuerence which becomes a subiect te shew to his Prince but in the opinion of Catholikes it is litterally and propetly true being a most high affront and iniury done to the very body and bloud of Christ there present and yet this is more clearly insinuated in the 29 verse for he that eateth and drinketh vnworthily eateth and drinketh damnation to himselfe not discerning the Lord's body where the Greeke word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifies a determinate iudging one thing from another which is cleare in Catholique doctrine but not easy to be vnderstood in the Protestant for how can one be sayd properly to discerne that which he acknowledges not to be present in that thing which he receiues Vnworthily and though happily in some improper and far fetcht sense this might be sayd yet according to the true rule of interpreting holy Scripture we must vnderstand the wordes of it in a proper sense when nothing compells to the contrary as the Opponent acknowledges Obiection And which is more attributing to this bread things which cannot agree to the Body of Christ to wit to be broken Answer I haue before answered to this and shewed that the word broken is familiarly taken for giuen by way of diuision or distribution amongst many which is vsed by other Euangelists so that giuen and hroken here may signisy the same thing But if by broken be vnderstood a breaking in peeces of that which was whol before who can deny that such a breaking agrees with the Body of our Sauiour absolutely speaking was not his sacred flesh all torne and broken with the nayles thornes and scourges as the Prophet foretolde ipse attritus est propter scelera a nostra he was broken for our wickednesses and though naturall bread be properly sayd to be broken yet it cannot be affirmed by any Christian to be broken for vs as the Apostle here sayd it was that is for our saluation as onother Euangelist affirmes of the chalice And therefote Christians must beleeue and confesse quite contrary to the Opponent here that S. Paul is attributing here to this bread that which cannot agtee with naturall bread but only with the true Body of Christ to wit to be broken for vs as that only was mystically in this Sacrament by may of an vnbloudy sacrice and visibly vppon the Crosse. Obiection And Christ himselfe called the cup. after consecration the fruit of the vine both in S. Matthew and S. Marke Answer But in S. Luke he calls the cup as much the fruit of the vine before consecration Therefore if you vrge S. Matthew and S. Mark 's authotity for the one giue vs leaue to vrge S. Luke's authority for the other and know that you haue concluded nothing vnlesse you proue that we are rather to stand to the narration of S. Matthew and S. Marke then of S. Luke which here you haue not done Certaine it is that there can be no contradiction nor opposition amongst the Euangelists therefore seeing S. Luke relates these words I will drinke no more of the fruit of the vine c. before the institution of the Sacrament and the two former Euāgelists after and yet none of them expressly affirme that our Sauiour sayd these words after or before the Sactament was instituted though one put them before and the other after we must gather by the context and other circumstances whether indeed they were spoken by our Sauiour before or after the consecration of the chalice That this may be vnderstood Nothing is more otdinary with the Euangelists as all Interpreters note then to set things down by transposition or anticipation somtymes putting things iust in that order they happened somtymes transposing them into a former or latter place This supposed it is more probable that S. Marke sets down those words out of their proper place then S. Luke for we haue a cleare testimony that S. Marke in this very institution of the chalice puts those words by way of anticipation and they drunke all of it out of their ptoper place the chalice hauing not then been consecrated nor any of the Apostles hauing then tasted of it therefore it is more likely of the two that S. Marke vses here a trāsposition then S. Luke who reckons all othet things in their proper places and orders as they happened and if there be a transposition admitted in S. Marke it must be also one in S. Matthew But though it were that our Sauiour sayd these words after consecration and that by this fruit of the vine he meant reall and materiall wine which I will presently discusse yet the argument proues nothing at all against vs. for our Sauiour hauing drunke in his last supper true and reall wine with his disciples before the institution of this holy Sacrament may very easily be vnderstood to haue referred words to that first dtinking in tyme of his last supper and so in relation to that say I will drinke no more of the fruit of the vine c. as if some person hauing first drunke wine after some other drinke at a banquet may vsually say I will drinke no more of the fruit of the vine till I drinke it in my own house referring those wordes only to that which he dranke first neyther can I see how Protestants according to theyr principle of beleeuing nothing but what is in Scripture can deny this explication for seeing our Sauiour sais expresly here I will drinke noe more of the fruit of the vine c. and that we haue noe place of Scripture which eyther affirmes or insinuates that our Sauiour then drank of the consecrated chalice he must necessarily referre his drinking the fruit of the vine to some other wine which he had drunk before the conscration Vnderstanding the two first Euangelists in this manner we clearly reconcile them with S. Luke for he must probably be vnderstood of that which our Sauiour dranke before the Sacrament was instituted as according to this interpretation the others also must vnderstand it but it will be much harder to reconcile them if those words be referred to the consecrated chalice for that hauing not been yet instituted according to S. Luke's setting down our Sauiour's words they cannot possibly be referred to them for our Sauiour according to the Protestant opinion would presently haue drunke wine in the Sacrament and so must haue falsifyed his own words as soone as he had spoken them promising then not to drinke any wine till his father's kingdome were come and yet presently after drinking it
Christian may be truly said both to haue eaten the flesh and drunke the blood of the sone of man and soe sufficiently to haue fullfilled this declaration of our Sauiour This imagination I say is wholy cut of by what I haue answered to the former opinion to omit the nouelty of this inuention for the community of Christians comply sufficiently with this command if some receiue vnder the forme of bread and others of wine this being amongst themselues to haue both eaten the flesh and drunke the blood of the sone of man though each in particular doe not both of them the command being giuen not in the singular but in the plurall number Now that I may conuince euen from the confession of our Aduersaries that communion vnder both kindes is not necessary to saluation 1. First whatsoeuer Luther holds in some places as he is most vnconstant in his assertions yet in very many others he clearly defines that communion vnder both kindes is not necessary to saluation nor was euer commanded by our Sauiour De capt Babylonicâ c. de Eucharist in Declar. in serm de Eucharist à se habito de formulâ Missae In assertionibus Artic. 16. Epis. ad Bohemos Tomo 2. Germanico fol. 100. In aliâ editione Tomo 7. fol. 360. libro de vtrâque specie Sacramenti Si veneris ad locum in quo vna tantùm species ministratur accipe tantùm vnam quemadmodum ibi accipiunt si praebentur duae duas accipe nec quidquam singulare infer nec te multitudini oppone If thou comest to a place where one only kinde is administred receiue one only if where both receiue both and induce noe singularity nor appose thy selfe to the multitude Thus Luther 2. The same is held by Melancthon in loc com edit 2. nu 1551. sol 78. 3. And in the English Statutes In the first Parlament vnder K. Edward the 6. pag. 818 In case of necessity communion vnder one kinde is permitted neyther is any way condemned the vse of those Churches where communion vnder the forme of bread only is practised Which clearly proue that those English Protestants held not communion vnder both kindes necessary to saluation And here I make an end of this whol treatis which had the spirit of Christian humility and obedience perseuered in the harts of Christians need neuer haue been begunne and was vndertaken for no other end then to let the miflead spirits of our age and country see how little reason they either had in the beginning or now haue to disobey the precepts and contradict the decrees of theyr noe lesse tender then powerfull mother the vniuersall Church that being noe other nor better then a weake pretence of Scripture mistaken the common plea of all sectaries against the generall consent of Christendome For this mistake of a few curious and disquiet Nouelists the mysticall body of Christ must be rent in peeces Kingdomes and Prouinces swinne in each others blood Churches and Religious howses the monuments of Christian pyety rased and defaced citties sacced and pillaged contries dispeopled and desolated castles burned families ruined parents bathed in their own teares theyr children half famisht like those of the Israelites crying out for bread and none found to giue it them and that I may shut vp all in those sad lynes of Vincentius Lirenensis Commonitorio 1. c. 6. speaking of the Arrian beresie and giuing noe lesse a true description of those then a presage of our tymes after he had declared how the whol Romane Empire was shaken the west and easterne Churches eyther by fraud or force dangerously infectcd and all things both sacred and Prophane distempred and distracted he vses these words Tunc temeratae coniuges depullatae viduae prophanatae virgines dilacerata monasteria disturbati clerici verberat◠Leuitae acti in exilium Sacerdotes oppleta sanctis ergastula carceres metalla Then maried woemen were abused widdows dispoyled of theyr purple mourning garments sacred virgins prophaned monasteries torne in peeces clergie men displaced Leuites beaten priests sent into banishment dungeons prisons and mettle mines fild with Saincts O vnhappy and accursed mistake what mischeefs hast thou allready wrought and art still a working in the bozom of Christendom how hast thou hoodwinkt the eyes bewitched the eares clowded the braines and set on fyer the harts of mistaken Christians who are soe deeply besotted with thee that like one in a frenzie they can neyther beleeue nor indure to heare that they are mistaken and yet are not to be deserted as wholy desperate and incurable there is still a sunne which can dart a beame of light into theyr souls to discouer these cymerion clouds a neuer erring truth to correct these mistakes and a most prouident wisdome to lead them to the certaine way of saluation Deare contrymen I haue only exposed before your eyes and more I cannot a cleare looking glasse wherin you may behold the foulest grossest and most dangerous of your mistakes and beholding loath them and loathing leaue them though you leaue the whol world and your own liues with them for being once discouured left they must be or God will leaue you FINIS THE INDEX A. ANgels haue been worshipped in Scripture pag. 34.35 Angels indued with supernaturall graces 16.17.18 How he Arke is called God 293. B. BEza Translates in all the Euangelists and S. Paul for is my Body signifies my Body 514. Beza sayes that these words which is powred out for you as they stand in the Greeke are crept out of the margent into the text 214.215 How our Sauiours true body is broaken 200.201.102.103 Christ neuer said this is my Body that is to say a cōmemoration of my Body 215.216.217 Nor could say soe 218 c 219. c. S. Paul cals the consecrated elements the bread and cup of our Lord. 253.255.256 Why the consecrated Hoast is called bread 265.266 c. The Hoast is called noe otherwise bread after consecration then wine was called water Io. 6.196 Bread taken but not giuen by our Sauiour 193.194 Naturall bread cannot be really the Body of Christ. 213. 257. True naturall bread cannot be the Body of Christ as his true flesh is called bread Io. 6.281 ad 285. The Apostles did not eate bread remaning bread but bread made the Body of Christ as in Cana of Galilee they did not drinke water remayning water but water made wine 150.251 C. How the Chalice is the new Testamēt 231.232 c. Whol particular Churches aboue 400. yeares agoe communicated publickely vnder one kinde How Circumcision is called the couenant 287.288 Commandements put shorter in one place of Scripture then in other 114.115 The diuision of the Comwandements more reasonable according to Catholicques then Protestants 118.119 Noe Commandement left out of the Romane Bibles 112.113 Council of Trents Doctrine of worshipping of Saincts and Angels 1.2.3.4 and how tbey pray to God for vs. ibidem Concerning Images 69.70.71.72.73 Concerning Iustisiccation 137.138 to the 143. Concerning merit of
haue had no punishment at all after this life and consequently he should not haue been rewarded according to his workes not suffering the condigne punishment which he truly deserued and God should haue proceeded vnequally in inflicting his punishments and haue had respect to his persone more then to that of Dauid neyther is Purgatory any way injurious to the iustice of God because though he forgiue the guilt of the sinne and the eternall punishment for which man is not able to satistisfie yet he reteynes a parte of the punishment which being finite and temporall may eyther by workes of penance and patience be remitted in this world or payed in the world to come or released by the prayers and penances of other faithfull Christians And this may satisfye for the point of Purgatory THE SIXT CONTROVERSIE Of the Reall Presence of the Body and blood of Christ in the Eucharist The Doctrine of the Church of Rome deliuered in the Council of Trent Sess. 13. Can. 1. SI quis negauerit in Sanctissimo Eucharistiae Sacramento contineri verè realiter substantialiter Corpus Sanguinem vnâ cum animâ diuinitate Domini nostri IESV Christi ac proinde totum Christum sed dixerit tantummodo esse in eo vt in signo vel figurâ aut virtute anathema sit If any one shall denie that in the most holy Eucharist is conteyned truly really and substantially the body and blood togeather with the soul diuinity of our Lord IESVS Christ and consequently whol Christ but shall say that he is in it only as in â— signe or figure or vertu let him be accursed Ibidem Can. 2. Si quis dixerit in Sacrosancto Eucharistiae Sacramento remanere substantiam panis vini vnâ cum corpore Domini IESV Christi c. anathema sit If any one shall say that in the holy Sacrament of the Eucherist remaines the substance of bread and wine togeather with the body and blood of our Lord IESVS Christ c. let him be accursed Ibidem Can. 4. Si quis dixerit peractâ consecratione in admirabili Eucharistiae Sacramento non esse corpus sanguinem Domini nostri IESV Christi sed tantùm in vsu dum sumitur non autem ante vel post c. anathema sit If any one shall say that the consecration being done in the admirable Sacrament of the Eucharist is not the body and blood of our Lord IESVS Christ but only in the vse whilst it is receiued and neyther before nor after c. let him be accursed Ibidem C. 6. Si quis dixerit in sancto Eucharistiae Sacramento Christum vnigenitum Dei Filium non esse cultu latriae etiam externo adorandum c. anathema sit If any one shall say that Christ the only Sone of God in the holy Sacrament of the Eucharist is not to be worshipped with the worship of latria or diuine worship euen externall c. let him be accursed This is part of the doctrine of the Council of Trent in this point the rest may be seen in the Council as drawn from this To dispose the Reader to a right conceipt of this high mystery and to informe him vppon what ground the Church of Rome teaches this doctrine I thought it necssary to cite those texts of the new Testament which deliuer the institution of this SacrameÌ„t that the Reader may with one vew see how largely and clearly the holy Scripture if it be vnderstood according to the proper signification of the words speakes for this doctrine of the Reall presence And that I may not be thought to haue cited the words otherwise then Protestants admit of them I will cite the texts as I finde them in the Protestant English bible Mat. 26. v. 26.27.28.29 And as they were eating Iesus tooke bread and blessed it and brake it and gaue it to his disciples and said take eate this is my body And he tooke the cup and gaue thankes and gaue it to them saying drinke ye all of it For this is my blood of the new Testament which is shed for many for the remission of sinnes S. Marke c. 14. v. 22.23.24.25 And as they did eate Iesus tooke bread and blessed and brake it and gaue to them and said take eate this is my body And he â—ooke the cup and when he had giuen thankes he gaue it to them and they all drank of it and he said vnto them this is my blood of the new Testament which is shed for many Luc c. 22. v. 19.20 And he tooke bread and gaue thankes and brake it and gaue vnto them saying this is my body which is giuen for you this doe in rememberance of me Likewise the cup after supper saying this cup is the new Testament in my blood which is shed for you S. Paul 1. Cor. 11. v. 23.24.25 For I haue receiued of the Lord that which also I deliuer vnto you that the Lord Iesus the same night in which he was betrayed tooke bread And when he had giuen thankes he brake it and said take eate this in my body which is broken for you doe this in remembrance of me After the same maner also he tooke the cup when he had supped saying this cup is the new Testament in my blood doe this as often as yee drinke in remembrance of me The Protestant discourse of the Eucharist begins thus Obiection 1. THe institution of this Sacrament is expressed in the 3 first EuaÌ„gelists S. Mathew Mark and Luke and also by S. Paul in all which they agree in these 4 thinges that IESVS tooke blessed brake and gaue bread for he that saith IESVS tooke bread blessed brake and gaue it saith plainely enough that he brake and gaue bread and not the species of bread as they hold Answer If this objection intend to proue as certainly it doth thar our Sauiour tooke blessed brake and gaue bread to his disciples so that that which he gaue them was bread remaining in the same substance of naturall bread which it had when he tooke it I deny that our Sauiour gaue bread to his disciples or that the three Euangelists and S. Paul cited agree in this the proofe that our Sauiour gaue naturall bread to his disciples because saith the objection he that saith Iesus tooke bread brake and gaue it saith plainly enough that he brake and gaue bread is grounded in a false translation or addition to the text of holy Scripture in the English Protestant Bibles for neither hath the greeke nor latin the word it and though the Protestant Bible of the yeare 1630. and 1632. haue these words Iesus tooke bread and blessed it and brake it and gaue it to his disciples all in the same letter and print as if the word it were no lesse in the originall then the others adioyned yet the latter Bibles and namely that of the yeare 1646. put the word it in a different letter to signify that it is nor in the originall but
added as they pretend for greater explication as appeareth in a thousand other places and in the Bibles of the yeares 1630. and 1632. S. Marke and S. Luke haue the words thus Iesus tooke bread and blessed and brake it and gaue vnto them where the word it is not ioyned to blessed and gaue but only to brake and then the word it is put in a different smaller letter then the other words All which conuince that the word it is not in the originall and so is not holy diuine Scripture but an addition of men and so no solid argumenr can be drawn from the word it as from the word of God not being the word of God but of men And hence also appeares how cunningly the Protestant translatours detaine the ignorāt readers by putting in words seruing as they thinke to their own purpose in the very same print and letter with the rest whieh are ioyned to them and are in the originall as if they were in the Originall no lesse then the others which notwithstanding in othet editions translations and places of Scripture they signify not to be in the originall nor Gods word by printing them in a lesser letter after they were conuinced of fraud and falsity in the former And thus in some editions putting this and such like words in the same letter with the rest and in others in a different the vnlearned which are not able to examine what is and what is not in the Originall may be in doubt which of these translations is the true word of God and cannot be infallibly certain of either of them seeing the translatours of theyr Church which are of equall authority some of them put a word in their text in the same tenour as if it were no lesse Scripture then the rest and others in a different letter to signify that that word is not Scripture but added by them as they suppose for greater clarity If it should be answered that whether the word it be in the sacred text or no yet the argument will haue force for though the text runne thus Iesus tooke bread and blessed and brake and gaue to his disciples yet it may seeme that he blessed brake and gaue no other thing then that very bread which he tooke remayning in its own substance and nature For certainly he must haue blessed and broken and giuen somthing to his disciples and what can that be imagined to be but what he tooke that therefore which he tooke hauing beene true naturall hread as the text expressly sayth Iesus tooke bread he must be supposed to haue blessed and broken and giuen true naturall bread to his disciples I answer that our Sauiour though he be supposed to haue blessed broken and giuen some thing to his disciples yet it follows not that he broke and gaue naturall bread for he might take bread remaining in its own nature and after breake and giue his Body wherinto the bread which he tooke was changed as in the marriage feast of Galilé after the vessells were filled with water and our Sauiour sayd draw now and beare to the gouernour of the feast certainly they drew and caryed and the gouernour of the feast drunk somthing yet it followes not that as they filled the vessells with water so they drew and carryed and the gouernour of the feast drunk naturall water but as it is sayd v. 9. water made wine or wine wherinto the naturall water wherwith the seruāts filled the vessells was changed yea though the word it had beene in the text or were supposed to be rightly ioyned to it could any one thence proue more that as our Sauiour tooke naturall bread so he brake and gaue naturall bread remayning the very same which he tooke then one can proue from the water of Galilé that as the seruants filled the vessells with naturall water so they drew and caryed and the maister of the feast drunk naturall water remayning the very same which was filled because the text sayes v. 8. and they caryed it and v. 9. the ruler of the feast knew not whence it was But the objection in preuention of this answer vrgeth the former argument yet further in this manner Obiection 2. For the actions of brake and gaue were before the words of consecration This is my Body and consequently not being changed it must be bread which he brake and gaue Answer This argument proceeds from misunderstanding and mistaking this text of Scripture for though it saith our Sauiour brake and gaue to his disciples and sayd This is my Body yet it sayes not as the objection would haue it say that our Sauiour after he brake and gaue to his disciples sayd This is my Body these being very different senses for though the Scripture first mentioneth brake and gaue and then sets downe that our Sauiour sayd This is my Body yet it may well stand with the truth of the words that at the same tyme and instant whilst he brake and gaue he sayd This is my Body and so gaue not bread till it was changed into his Body as if one should giue a peece of bread to a person in want one might say truly he tooke bread and brake it and gaue it to him and sayd take this almes though he spake these words take this almes at the very same tyme when he gaue it And that our Sauiour spake these words This is my Body whilst he was giuing what he gaue to his disciples and not after is manifest first because S. Luke affirmes it to be so he tooke bread and brake and gaue to them saying This is my Body that is whilst he gaue he was pronouncing these words and though in the institution of the chalice S. Marke sayes and he tooke the cup and when he had giuen thankes he gaue to them c. and sayd This is my Bloud of the new Testament which shall be shed for many Yet S. Luke saies Likewise the cup allso after supper saying This cup is the new Testament in my Bloud which shall be shed for you S. Paul also in the same manner also he tooke the cup when he had supped saying This cup is the new Testament in my Bloud Secondly because all as well Ptotestants as Catholikes agree that our Sauiour gaue his disciples a Sacrament and as they say a signe of his Body which was made a Sacrament by vertue of these words This is my Body therefore it were an impiety to say that our Sauiour gaue bread to his disciples before these words were pronounced for then he had giuen a meer peece of bread and neither Sacrament nor his Body nor signe of his Body Thirdly if our Sauiour had perfectly giuen that which he put into the disciples hands before he had pronounced the words of consecration the Scripture sayinge he tooke bread brake and gaue to his disciples and sayd This is my Body then it would follow by the same argument that our Sauiour gaue bread
which is an euident argument if we stand to S. Lukes relation according this explication that it was not materiall reall wine which he drunke in the consecrated chalice And hence followes another conuincing argument against Protestants in this particular for seeing our Sauiour sayd I will drinke no wore c. and that they referre these words against vs to the consecrated chalice and consequently must affirme that our Sauiour dranke of it for he could not say he would drinke no more of that whereof he had neuer drunk I demande of them whether our Sauiour dranke this as a Sacrament This they cannot deny hence it will follow that he tooke it as a memoriall or commemoration of himselfe in their opinion and thence it will necessarily follow that Christ had forgot himselue hauing need of a remembrance of himselfe Secondly that a man present to himselfe can without an absurdity take a momoriall of himselfe Thirdly this memoriall was to he taken by the mouth of fayth as they say and so our Sauiour should be depriued of his most diuine all-cleare and beatificall vision and knowledge of himselfe all things wherby S. Paul affirmes that faith is euacuated and led by the darke light of faith which no Christian can say without blasphemy Fourtly he commanded not himselfe but his Apostles to doe what he did in remembrance of him and so there is no ground in Scripture to say that out Sauiours receiued this Sacrament a a remembrance of himselfe and yet he must haue done so if that first Sacrament had been essentially only a signe and remembrance of our Sauiour as our aduersaries teach If therefore our Sauiour be supposed to haue drunke of the consecrated chalice and that he could not possibly drinke a remembrance or signe of himselfe or his Bloud he must needs haue drunke his own reall Bloud for according to the Opponent if it be not a rememhrance of his Bloud it must be vnderstood to be his reall Bloud but if he drunk that which was his own blood it was not wine therefore when he sayes I will drinke noe more of the fruit of the vine c. it cannot be referred to what he drunke after consecration but to what he drunke before as S. Luke relates it Hitherto I haue argued admitting not granting that when our Sauiour sayd I will drinke no more of the fruit of the vine c. he meant reall and naturall wine now I wil shew that though those words were referred by the Euangelist to the consecrated chalice and vnderstood of a reall and materiall fruit of the vine yet it is not necessary to vnderstand wine by them for there be many fruits of the vine which may be drunk beside wine the iuice pressed out of grapes not yet ripe is properly the fruit of the vine which may be drunke and yet is no wine nay should one presse the young branches and draw liquour from them it would be that which is here called in Greek a 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 genimen vitis the generation or the thing produced naturally by the vine and yet it would be no wine and euen wine corrupted and quite changed is the generation and effect of the vine and yet it is no wine so also in our present case the accidents or species of wine are genimen vitis the true effects or productions of the vine yet are not the substāce of wine Seeing therefore here euen after consecration according to the Romane Catholike tenet those species remayne our Sauiour might truly be sayd to haue drunke ex genimine or generatione vitis of the fruit or propagation of the vine though there had beene no substance of wine there but in place therof the Blood of Sauiour vnder those species so that the very literall sense of the words retayned and referred to the consecrated chalice conclude no more then this that our Sauiour spake of the species of wine which is properly the propagation or generation of the vine But the words beare and admitt as well another explication plainly suting with the Romane tenet as of the fruit or issue of a reall vine For our Sauiour stiles himselfe as the Opponent presently obserues the vine Why then might he not call his Blood here the fruit of the vine and so referring it to the consecrated chalice confirme that it was the chalice of his Blood proceeding and issuing from his Body as the wine or species of wine proceeds from the vine All these explications shew how little this place proues against vs or rather how much it aduantages our cause But if the text be considered entirely as it stands in the Euangelists it will neither hurt vs nor helpe them nor so much as tuch the matter in question for our Sauiout saith thus But I say vnto you I will drinke no more of the fruit of this vine till that day that I drinke it new with you in the kingdome of my Father Verily I say vnto you that I will not drinke of the fruit of the vine vntill that day that I drinke it new in the kingdome of God where he expressly affirmes that he speakes of such a fruit of the vine as he is to drinke with them in heauen which whether it be materiall wine or no I leaue to the Protestants to consider Obiection But it might be objected why might they not call it bread and the fruit of the vine in respect they had beene so before consecration as the serpent is called a rod and God sayd vnto Adam thou art dust because he was made of dust But if things be named by the names of what they were before it doth not follow that we should so take it of the body of Christ. for it is not only false but impious to thinke that the body of Christ is called bread for that it had been bread before the consecration the serpent indeed had been a rod but the body of Christ had neuer been bread So Adam was called dust because he had been dust but Christ is not made of bread The holy Scripture saith well that Moyses rod became a serpent but the Scripture doth not say that bread was conuerted into flesh Answer I answer first that we doe not say that the body of Chtist was bread before consecration at least I remember not euer to haue read any such proposition in Catholike authours because his sacred body still existent visibly and gloriously in heauen cannot be said absolutely to haue been bread it hauing been made of the sacred virgins most pure blood for that in its full sense would signifie if any such proposition were in vse that the thing which is affirmed to be made of an other is not existent in an other place whilst that whereof it is made is changed into it as neither Adam nor the serpent made of the rod of Moyses were for then only they began to be when the rod of Moyses and dust were changed into
them Secondly I answer that the objection proceeds vppon a false supposition for the rod of Moyses is not called a rod when it was turned into a serpent because the serpent had been a rod before nor Adam dust because he was before dust for though it be true to say that that which was become a man or a serpent was dust or a rod by reason of the subiect which remaines common to them both called in philosophie materia prima yet it is not true in any formall philosophicall sense to say Adam was dust the serpent was a rod for Adam neuer was nor neuer could haue been any thing else then what his essence made him viz a man and a reasonable creature nor a serpent any thing then what the being of a serpent requiers to wit to be a serpent when therefore in holy Scripture Adam is called dust and the serpent the rod of Moyses it is not because Adam was once dust and the serpent a rod for how can that be proued out of any place of Scripture but because Adam was made of dust and the serpent of the rod of Moyses which is cleerely testified in Scripture so that the supposition and fundation of the obâ—ectioÌ„ failing that which is built vppon it viz that the body of our Sauiour is called bread after consecration by S. Paul because it was bread before must needs fall to the ground For we say not that the body of Christ was euer bread but because that which was bread is now become the body of Christ bread casing to be vnder those accidents by vertu of Christs body coming in the place of it so that though this sacred body cannot be said to be made of bread ' as a house is made of wood and stones which remaine in their own substances to compose it nor as fire is made of wood where the matter common to them both remaines yet if there be vnderstood only that the body of Christ succeds to the substance of bread vnder the same accidents and so issues from it as the day issues from the night as from the terme from which it beginnes to be as one may say ex necte fit dies of the night is made the day so may one say ex pane fit corpus Christi of bread is made Christs body as it is mysteriously in this Sacrament and might be therefore called bread after consecration as the wine in Cana in Galilee is called water because it was made of water and the serpent called the rod of Moyses because it was made of the rod of Moyses or which is the same in other termes because that which became wine was water and that which became a serpent was the rod of Moyses which if it be resolued into philosophicall termes is nothig but this that the substantiall matter which was vnited to the substantiall formes of a serpent and wine was immediately before vnited to the substantiall formes of the rod of Moyses and of water which happens in other changes of one thing into an other Thirdly it is not the ordinary way of speach to say that all things which are made by substantiall changes were such things as were changed into them thus though fire be made of wood or wood be changed into fire yet it is an ordinary manner of saying to affirme this fire was wood neither say we these flowers were earth though they were made of earth changed into them In like manner when our own flesh is produced of the different meates we eate we vse not to say our flesh was beefe or mutton or hearbes or btead or drinke c. and yet it is made of all these when they are changed into our substance and hence is true the same proposition of our Sauiour in time of his nourishment for his meate was as truly changed into his flesh as our meate is into our flesh and consequently the bread which he did eate was changed by nourishment into his flesh and so it is true euen out of holy Scripture which speakes of his eating and drincking and increasing and by consequence of his nourishment that the flesh of Christ at least in some part was made of bread and yet it is not the ordinary manner of speech to say that those parts of the flesh of Chrtst were bread not withstanding it would be neither impious nor false to say that some parts of Christs flesh were once bread supposing it were true that the serpent had been a rod and Adam dust as the Opponent here affirmes to wit those into which bread was changed by naturall nourishment if then it might be truly affirmed of some parts of Christs flesh that they were bread in this sense for-named why should it be not only false but impious to affirme that the flesh of Christ as it is in the SacrameÌ„t for we affirme it noe otherwise was bread there being noe more difficulty in the one then in the other fourthly this change being made in a way wholy supernaturall where noe part of the substance of bread remaines to wit neither forme nor matter as we speake in the schooles which happens not in any naturall nor in many supernaturall changes where the matter and substance still remaynes now receiuing one forme now an other by reason whereof the thing that succeeds may be sayd as the opponent contends to haue been the thing that was changed into it by reason I say that noe such common subiect remaines here but the whol substance of bread is changed into the substance of Christs body it will not be so proper a manner of speech to say that the flesh of Christ was bread as the like would be in other naturall and ordinary changes if that manner of speech were allowable Fiftly the objection mistakes the compleat reason of Catholikes why S. Paul calls thc Sacrament bread after the consecration for it is not only because the bread is changed into the flesh of Christ for this might haue been done so inuisibily that neither the body of Christ nor the species of bread should haue appeared and then we should haue had nothing common to them both to haue continued the denomination of bread but the entire reason giuen by Catholike Doctors is that the bread is changed into the flesh of Christ which is put vnder the outward shewes or species of bread which giue occasion or ground of giuing it the same denomination it had before Thus we call the dead carkase of a lamme a lamme and the dead body of a man a man by reason of these outward organs and proportions which remaine the same they were before though the thing be quite changed from what it was Vnto that which is added that we haue noe where in Scripture that bread is conuerted into the flesh of our Sauiour as we haue that the rod of Moyses was conuerted into a serpent I Answer that it is not necessary to haue all things in Scripture in the like clearnesse and
explicitenesse of words for we haue noe where expressed in Scripture that the bread our Sauiour did eate was conuerted into his flesh as we haue that the rod of Moyses was conuerted into a serpent and notwhithstanding euen Protestants must beleeue it so though we haue it not in expresse termes that bread is changed into the flesh of our Sauiour in this Sacrament as we haue that Moyses rod was conuerted into a serpent yet we must heleeue it because the truth of Scripture cannot stand vnlesse this be granted for seeing our Sauiour sayd This is my Body and it is wholy impossible and implying contradiction that a piece of bread remaining in its own nature should be the true and reall body of our Sauiour as we haue shewed that those words must import it followes necessarily that the nature and substance of bread cannot be vnder those visible species and therefore bread must cease to be out of the force of Christs body which must succeed in place of bread vnder the same species which is nothing else then to haue bread changed into the hody of our Sauiour Objection Why should they only take these words This is my Body in a litterall sense and noe other doth he not as well say I am a dore I am a vine doubtlesse he was able to transforme himselfe into a dore or a vine but did he therefore doe so he said to his disciples yee are branches yee are sheep did they therefore become so in respect either of his power or words Answer I Answer that there is a maine difference betweene these propositions and the other where of wee treate This is my Body both in the subiect and in the predicate that is in the first and last word of them for the first word or subiect in the former is I yee which signifie determinately and expressely our Sauiour and the Apostles to whom he spake But in the latter the first word or subiect is This which neither expressely nor implicitly signifies bread but this which I am about to giue you as I haue already said the last words also doore vine vinebranches sheép in the former propositions are indetermined and fit to take a spirituall mysticall and metaphoricall sence for he doth not say I am a doore made of wood and boardes which is vsed to shut and open in visible houses nor I am a vine which visibily springes from the earth and beares such grappes as men vse to make wine of neither said he that his Apostles were such sheepe as feed in the fields as beare wool to make cloath of as are boyled and rosted to be eaten at the table nor such vine branches as are cut of from the vine and either rot or are burned or beare grappes in the vine visibly c. For it had been an impossibility and a plane contradiction to affirme that liuing men remaning in there own nature as they did should be such things as those truly and really and therefore those last words dore vine sheepe vine branches being not determined in Scripture to these materiall and visible things which we commonly vnderstand by these words giue full scope to interpret them of things in a spirituall and mysticall sense in which only these propositions are true but in these words This is my Body the last word body is not left indeterminate and applyable to a metaphoricall sense as it is in holy Scripture and the discours of our Sauiour expresly determined it to signifie his true naturall materiall substātiall body which was there present before the Apostles for if our Sauiour had only said these words This is my Body and added noe further explication some scope might seeme to haue been giuen to haue interpreted it either of his reall or mysticall body which is his church whereof S. Paul speakes but he takes away this liberty when he addes presently This is my Body which is giuen for you This is my blood which shall be shed for you which cannot b◠vnderstood of his mysticall body but only of his true reall body blood which only were giuen shed for our redemption so that the subiect or first word of the former proposition I yee being wholly determinate to those particular persons of Christ and the Apostles and the predicate or last words dore vine sheepe vinebranches being wholy indeterminate in themselues neither expresly naming corporall nor spirituall seeing it is contrary to all reason and wholly impossible that thereby those things in a corporall sense should be affirmed of our Sauiour and his Apostles as I haue faid those propositions must make this sence which is true and orthodoxe I am a spirituall dore or vine yee are spirituall vine branches or sheepe c. but on the contrary the indetermination or indifferency of the first word or subiect of this proposition This is my Body being considered in it selfe making it noe way limited to bread and the last word or predicate Body which is giuen you being expressly determined to the reall and substantiall body of Christ it must make this sense This which I am about to giue you is my reall and substantiall body which is a true and Catholike proposition and not this This bread is my true and reall Body which implies as much contradiction and impossibibility as this other that Christ is a dore of wood c. For it is as impossible that a peece of bread actually existing should be the reall body of Christ as that Christ should be a wooden dore nay if we consider it in greeke 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in Latin hoc disagreeing with bread in gendre 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 panis which are both masculine it cannot be referred to bread Now to shew out of Scripture it selfe that our Sauiour calls himselfe the dore in a spirituall mysticall and metaphoricall sense only is cleare out of S. Iohn c. 12. v. 9. I am the dore if any man enter by me he shall be saued c. which is not true of a naturall dore of wood for all such as enter in by such a dore are not saued but such only as enter by the spirituall dore of there soules which is our Sauiour so also when he calls his Apostles sheepe he shewes clearely that the speakes of metaphoricall or spirituall sheepe for he affirmes that they heare his voyce or know him and hence appeares also by the way another mistake contrary to theyr own English Bible which Protestants ordinarily vrge against vs mistaking the words of the Gospel they tell vs that our Sauiour said he was a dore a vine a way which he neuer sayes according to their English Bible but thus I am the dore the vine the way c. which determines the words to a spirituall and metaphoricall sense as when he sayes I am the bread of life I am the good fheapherd c. and when he calles his disciples sheepe he vseth alwayes this restraining and limiting particle my sheepe which
is only true of spirituall sheepe for our Sauiour had noe other That which the objection said that our Sauiour was as able to change the Apostles into sheepe as to change bread into his body is true if the Apostles had ceased to be men and had been so conuerted into sheep as Lots wife ceasing to be a weomaÌ„ was conuerted into a pilar of salt but then the proposition which Protestants pretended out of Scripture yee are materiall sheep had not been true neither could the truth of that proposition euer haue caused that conuersion as conformable to it but this proposition only should haue been true yee are made or are become materiall sheep by vertu of a miraculous change of men into sheep noe otherwise then the water in the mariage in Gallilee is said to be made wine fot when one thing is affirmed of an other then that where of it is affirmed is supposed to be existent as when I say I am a man the person must be existent where of it is affâ—rmed that he is a man but contrariwise when one thing is said to be made an other naturally not artificially then that which is said to be made the other ceased to be what it was and is conuerted into the other as when it is said water was made wine water ceased to be and wine was made of it and hence it is a plane contradiction to haue any change or conuersion made in a pure affirmatiue and simple proposition in this manner Peeter is a reall and naturall sheepe for then this person Peeter is supposed to be and not to be at the some time to be because he is affirmed to be a sheepe not to be because he is changed into a sheepe and so ceases to be as water ceased to be when it was made wine And the same absurdity and contradiction had followed if our Sauiour had said this bread which I now haue in my hands is my naturall Body truly and really for bread should haue remained because it was affirmed to be his body and yet it should haue beene destroyed and so not remained because it should haue been changed into his body I am sorry that such speculations as these should be propounded to those who haue not ftudied but the objections require them yet I must adde to make this matter out of question if the propositions I am the vine yee are the vinebranches implyed any change of our Sauiour into a reall materiall vine c. then this proposition adioyned and my Father is the husbandman would haue implyed a power in God the Father to be changed into a reall hushandman and so God himselfe would be changeable wich cannot be affirmed without a blaphemy So then as God the Father is called only a Spirituall husbandman so also our Sauiour a Spirituall vine and the Apostles spirituall branches noe more change being implied in the one then in the other Now that many things affirmed of others are to be vnderstood of those thinges as spirituall not corporall is most euident 1. Cor. 10.3 cited herafter by the Opponent and they did all eate the same spirituall meate and did all drinke the same spirituall drinke for they dranke of that spirituall Rock that followed them and that Rock was Christ. So that as Christ is here called the spirituall Rock soe is he in the places cited in the objection called the spirituall way dore vine c. which he truly and really is without all impropreties of signes or figures for otherwise as Protestants make this is my Body to be this is a signe of my Body soe must they say I am a dore is as much as I am the signe of a woodden dore which were both blasphemous and ridicâ—lous being applied to our Sauiour Obiection And if he was in a figuratiue manner a dore a vine why may not bread be is body figuratiuely and why should they thinke it is a lessâ— change for our Sauiour to call his body bread then to call bread his body doubtelesse he called his body bread in respect of the nourishement which a faithfull soul receaues in the Sacrament euen so the bread is the body of Christ sacramentally and taketh the name of the body of Christ as being a sacred signe or Sacrament thereof Answer I haue before giuen the reason of this difference for certaine it is that in this proposition â—n protestant doctrine by the word this is â—ignified reall and materiall bread and by my Body the reall body of Christ where of they wil haue this materiall bread to be a signe now â—n the other proposition my flesh is meat or I am â—he bread c. though the words my flesh and I signifie really and truly our Sauiour and his sacred body yet the word bread cannot any way signifie true and materiall bread for he expressely calles it the bread that came down from heauen the bread that giues life to such as worthyly eate it and liuing bread which can by â—oe meanes agree with bread made of wheat or any other corne Hence therefore apeares that the flesh of our Sauiour or he himselfe are neither a SacrameÌ„t nor a signe of visible and vsuall bread â—or it would want little of blasphemy to say â—hat our Sauiour or his sacred body were a signe â—f a loafe of bread which seeing it is so there can â—e thence noe argument drawn that bread is called the body of our Sauiour because it is a â—igne of his body but rather the quite contrary our Sauiour or his blessed flesh are tuly and â—eally liuing bread life giuing bread heauenly â—read spirituall bread Therefore that which â—ur Sauiour gaue his disciples was truly and â—eally his reall and naturall body or thus that â—read of our Lord that heauenly liuing spirituall which the Apostles receaued from the hands of our Sauiour was his true substantiall body But if by the words this is my Body should be vnderstood true visible bread as in the objection they are there will be noe other parity or consequence saue this or Sauiour calls his flesh bread because it is true liuing heauenly bread therefore a peece of coÌ„mon bread is called the body of Christ because it is a signe of his body which is quite out of ioynt Now certainely to answer the question heâ—e propounded it is much lesse strange for our Sauiour to call himselfe meat or liuing spirituall bread c. then to call a piece of wheaten bread his true and reall body for he is truely the one but naturall bread can neuer be the other Concerning the other question first propounded why may not bread be his body figuratiuely if it had been set down in this manner why might not bread haue beene his body figuratiuely I would haue answered that there is no reason but it might as were the figures of the old law and amongst them the bread of proposition and of Melchisedech and many such like types of the old Testament but the
reason why it may not now be so in this Sacrament is because I haue shewed that according to the first institution it was our Sauiours will to change bread into his body and so not being at all it could not be his body figuratiuely neither can a figuratiue sense stand with the truth of this proposition This is my Body which is giuen for you That which is lastly added that bread is a Sacrament of his body cannot stand with the Protestant doctrine for they define in the little catechisme in the common prayer booke a Sacrament to be an outward visible signe of an inward spirituall grace now certaine it is that our Sauiours body was as outward and visible to the Apostles in the first institution as was the bread it selfe and so neither an inward nor spirituall grace and consequently it could not be a Sacrament of it and if noe Sacrament it could be noe signe of it for Protestants acknowledge noe other signe here then a sacramentall signe and though after our Sauiours ascension we cannot actually see his body by reason of the distance betwixt vs yet that makes it not an inward spirituall grace for then Rome and Constantinople would be spirituall to those that liue in these climates because for the same reason they cannot see them and yet much lesse could the body of our Sauiour either in the first institution or at any time after be termed an inward grace according to Protestants and yet we are not coÌ„strained to acknowledge that there is not a Sacrament for it signifies that heauenly anâ— diuine grace which by vertu of it is giuen to nourish our soules which is truly inward anâ— spirituall and that which sensibly appeares in it and is called by diuines Sacramentum tantum is a sacramentall signe of our Sauiour sacred body inuisibly but truly existent vnder those shewes or species in this Sacrament and nourishing our soules and bodyes and so may be truly and properly called a spirituall grace or gift and that inward also when it is sacramentally receiued And noe lesse is it now â— sacramentall commemoratiue signe of the passion death and sufferings of our Sauiour which are long since past and so become now inuisible working mysteriously and meritoriously in this holy Sacrament If here should be replyed that hence would follow that this Sacrament might also in the first institution haue been a signe of our Sauiours death sufferings representing them as presently to follow and so these words This is my Body might haue this sense this bread is a representatiue signe of my body as instantly suffering and dying vppon the Crosse which death and sufferings were then inuisible because they were not then existent I answer that our Sauiour might haue pleased according to his absolute power to haue instituted such a Sacrament but because we haue neither â—n Scripture nor tradition that he instituted â—ere any such and the words of the instituâ—ion This is my Body are properly and litterally â—o be vnderstood when there is nothing that â—onstraines vs to the contrary we denye that â—ny such typicall or empty signe as this was â—ctually constituted by our Sauiour in the inâ—titution of this Sacrament especially seeing â—hat the paschall lamme represented much â—ore liuely and perfectly the passion of Christ â—hen the bread and wine and that such typiâ—all representations were proper to the old â—aw which was the shadow of things to come And for Protestants they must confesse that â—hey haue noe ground in Scripture for any other signe of our Sauiours passion then by way of commemoration or remembrance which supposes his suffering and death past â—nd not to come as I haue already prouued And though it were gratis admitted that in this Sacrament such a prefiguratiue signe of our Sauiours passion was exhibited in the first institution yet this would noe more hinder the reall presence necessarily required by vertu of this proposition this is my Body c. â—hen it s being now a commemotatiue signe of his said passion as I haue declared and proued already Obiection In the old and new Testament it is vsual to call the signes by the names of that they signifie why then should it be thought strange that our Sauiour in this Sacrament calling bread his body and wine his blood should speake in the same manner Answer I haue now shewed against Protestants in these principles that there was noe sacramentall signe of the body of our Sauiout in the first institution of this Sacrament Christs body hauing been then as visible and present as the bread and consequently noe signe at all and if noe signe the true and reall body as the opponent hath granted Though therefore where the Scripture giueth cleare euideÌ„ce that there is a signe or that it may be clearely gathered thence that the signe should be called by the name of the thing signified yet there is great reason where noe such euidence is but rather to the contrary that our Sauiour should not speake in the same manner neither is it yet conuinced by all the textes alleadged presently by the opponent that signes are called by the names of the things signified or be that which they doe signifie as will appeare by the particulars Objection Circumcision is called the couuenant with God This is my couuenant betweene me and you now â—hat the word couuenant must be taken for a signe of the couuenant the line following â—heweth where God said And it shall be a signe of the couuenant betweene me and you Answer There were two couuenants or pacts made betweene God and Abraham in this chapter the first ver 1.2.4.6.7 8. which was of the fauour of God promised to Abraham and his seed The second v. 9.10.11 c. which was of Abrahams obedience and his childreÌ„s towards God whereto he obliged them in taking circumcision now this second couuenant was a confirmation signe or seale of the first on Abrahams part and so though being considered absolutely in it selfe it was a true and reall couuenant yet in regard of the former couuenant it was a signe or scale as S. Paul calls it and so it is called here both a couuenant and a signe of the couuenant that is of the first as if one should make a couuenant with an other of inferiour note first that he would fauour and patronize him in all things and then that the other might shew his gratitude and acceptation of this couuenant on his part he makes an other that once a yeare he should come and wayte on him at his table This second couuenant would be as true reall a part of the couuenant or agreemeÌ„t between them as the first and yet would be a confirmation ratification signe or seale of the former Now that this second was a true couuenant is euident out of the words for it is a true command obligation or iniunction of God accepted of by Abraham which being done God of his part obliged himselfe to
and formes of bread in the Sacrament how shall wormes be generated from the hoast corrupted or putrifyed seeing they must consist of matter and forme and so be produced of some materiall substance Answer If there were nothing but humaine nature in Christ as man without humaine personality how could it performe the actions of a person seeing all other actions of men proceed from theyr persons and not from theyr natures as the compleate principle of them You will say the diuine personality supplyed the place of humaine personality in Christ and I say that diuine power supplies the place of nature in this Sacrament in producing a matter after the species of bread be corrupted and the body of our Sauiout ceases to be vnder them Obiection But how can an accident performe the office of a substance Answer But how can the personality of one persone performe the office of the personality of an other Obiection God vnited the diuine personality to humane nature and so it subsists by it as supplying the want of its own Answer God vnites a matter produced at the exigency of nature to thé accidents which were of bread which in the production of wormes from a putrifyed hoast supplyes the want of theyr own These to my best remembrance are the cheefe difficulties which according to the principles of naturall reason our Aduersaries commonly presse against vs in this mistery in answer wherof I haue playnly shewed that they themselues must answer as great or greater difficultyes which may be opposed by heathens and Infidells against other articles of our faith which they beleeue let them therefore eyther desist to moue any such heathnish objections as these against the reall presence or acknowledge that whilst they presse these against it they giue iust occasion to an Infidell to presse the like against themselues which when they haue solued in other mysteries they will haue solu'd theyr own against this Before I end this controuersie I will summe vp briefly what I haue said at large in this treatis that the Reader may haue a full sight of it at one Vew first I haue according to my former methode cited the doctrine of the Concil of Trent whence clearly appeares that it conteynes nothing grosse and Capernaiticall as Protestants commonly are made beleeue but a most heauenly pure mysticall liuing and ineffable presence Secondly I haue cited the words of the Euangelists and S. Paul touching the Institution which are not only most clere in themselues as I haue proued but are iudged soe to be both by Martin Luther in his first Tome printed at Iena an 1589. Concione 3. de Confessione Sacramento Eucharistiae parte 2. pag. 329. where after he had cited the words of the Euangelists he saith thus Haec sunt verba quae neque ipsi neque etiam Sathan negare poterit in quae figendus pes est vt firmiter in iis consistamus Sunt autem nuda planissima quae nullis interpretationibus eludi possunt Quòd panis sit Christi corpus pro nobis traditum calix Christi sanguis pro nobis effusus iubemur illa facere in commemoratione ipsius These are words which neyther they he meanes Romane Catholicques nor Sathan can denie vppon which wee are to fix our foote that we may stand immouuable in them For they are naked and most plaine which cannot be shifted of by any Interpretations That bread is the body of Christ which is giuen for vs and the cup the blood of Christ which is shed for vs and that we are commanded to doe them in remembrance of him Thus Luther which though he here affirmes to proue his errours of Consubstantiation and Communion in both kindes against vs yet withall he clearely confesses that the words are most plaine for the reall presence of Christs true body and blood in this holy Sacrament which he allwayes held These texts also are so vndeniably clere for the reall Presence that Zuinglius the first authour of the Sacramentaries changed the word in all the Euangelists and S. Paul 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in Greeke est in Latin in these words This is my Body this is my blood into significat thus this signisies my body this signifies my blood and so printed them in his Bible dedicated to Francis King of France and printed at Tiguris anno 1525. as witnesses Conradus Sclussenburgh a learned Protestant in Theologiâ Caluinistarum Ie. 2. ar 3. fol. 43. And Zuinglius himselfe approuues of this his translation to 2. de verâ falsâ religione c. 5. fol. 210. And Beza Translating those words of S. Luke qui pro vobis effunditur which is powred out for you puts them thus in greeke 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Hoc poculum quod pro vobis effunditur this chalice which is powred out for you and in his Latin translation he puts them thus hoc poculum c. in sanguine meo qui pro vobis effunditur which blood is powred out for you referring the word this to blood and not to chalice quite contrary to the Greeke construction which not withstanding he confesses to haue found in all the ancient Greeke copies which he had read and hauing noe other shift to auoyd the force of these words as they stand in all these Greeke copies acknowledging that they make quite against him he is put to that desperate insolensie as to say that these words which chalice is powred out for you haue crept out of the margent into the text by negligēce of writers and soe are not the word of God soe Bezaes translation Greeke and Latin printed by Henry Steenen anno 1565. Thirdly I haue discouered clerely the sundry grosse mistakes of Scripture in the words it take eate this doe this in remembrance c. Fourtly I haue shewed the mistakes in the parities brought of I am a dore a vine a way c. Fiftly I haue layd open the mistakes in the instances of other Sacraments and figuratiue speeches alleadged by the opponent in the old Testament and many such like misapplications The maine things where in I stand are that the words of S. Luke are soe clere that Beza hath noe way to auoyd the force of them then by saing that they crept out of the Margent into the text though he confesses to haue found them as he cites them in all the Greeke Copies which he had seene And secondly that seeing these words This is my Body which is giuen for you may most easily and connaturally be vnderstood in a most proper sense without violating any other article of our faith or plaine place of holy Scripture that they must be soe vnderstood onlesse wee will take away all force from Scripture to proue any thing and destroy the fundamētall rule not only of Interpretation of Scripture but of all humaine conuersation which is that euery one is so be vnderstood to speake properly when nothing constraynes to the
correspondent to those which are found in any or in all other meates and drinkes togeather so that not only habituall iustifying and sanctifying grace necessary to saluation and actuall Sacramentall graces correspondent to that of meat by way of spirituall nourishment in the host and of drink by way of spirituall exhileration in the chalice but both these graces are conferred by each kind apart that proper to meat primarily by the host and to drinke primarily by the chalice but yet secondarily and by way of a superabundant vertu and efficacy in this diuine refection the host exhilerates comâ—orts and the chalice nourisheth and strenghteneth correspondent to all corporall meates and drinkes and conferred separatly by them are ioyntly receaued by each of these apart and thus as that of the hymne of corpus Christi is most true dedit fragilibus corporis ferculum dedit tristibus sanguinis poculum he gaue the food of his body to the infirme and the cup of his blood to the sad whereby are designed the primary effects of the host by way of strenghtâ—ning and the chalice by way of exhilerating so it is also true which is affirmed in the same office Panem de caelo praestitisti eis omne delectamentum in se habentem thou hast giuen them bread from heauen hauing all delight and comfort in it whereby seemes to be assribed to the sacred host the essect of delighting and exhilerating such as worthily receaue it and noe lesse those other versicles which follow in the same feast cibauit illos ex adipe frumenti de petra melle saturauit eos he hath fed them with theâ— fattnes of wheat where the delightfull nourishmeÌ„t of the soule is expressed and satiâ—ted them with honny from the rock which expresseth the sweet feeding of the soul by the sacred chalice much more might be said of this particular were it to be disputed in the schooles but in this occasion I iudge noe more necessary seeing the question it selfe is not necessary for the defence of Catholike faith in this point Thus farre I haue answered the difficulties which can be drawn from the bare institution abstracting from the command of our Sauiour expressed either in the institution or else where concerning this Sacrament which I will now answer very breefly Objection Our Sauiour saith drinke ye all of it therefore he commands all Christians to drinke of the cup in this Sacrament Answer Our Sauiour saith Iohn 13. If I haue washed your feet your Lord and maister you must also wash one anothers feet therefore all Christians are commanded by our Sauiour to wash one an others feet or thus our Sauiour Marc. 16. Goenig into the whol world preach the Gospel to all creatures and Matt. 28. Goe and teach all nations baptizing them in the name of the father c. therefore he commands all Christians to teach the Gospel and baptize all nations or thus to come somthing nearer to this matter in the drinking of a cupp Luc. 22. our Sauiour saith before the Sacrament was instituted and he tooke the cupp and said take and diuide amongst you c. therefore all Christians are commanded to take and drinke wine which is noe sacrament yea before they receaue the sacrament as our Sauiour commanded the Apostles to doe here or lastly thus to instance in the institution it selfe Matth. 26. our Sauiour saith Take and eate this is my Body therefore he commanded all Christians to take the host into theyr hands and then eate it as he did the Apostles many such like instances might be giuen whence if we stand to the sole and bare word of scripture it will be as easily deduced that all Christians are commanded many things which Protestants say they are not bound to doe as from this command drinke yee all of this giuen to the Apostles can be drawn that all Christians are commanded to dtinke of the chalice because the Apostles were then commanded to doe it If it should be replyed that in the other commands alleaged is not found the word all drinke ye all of this as we finde here and therefore are not so generall to comprehend all Christians I answer that the word all as appeares hy S. Marke and they all drunke of it only signifies all the Apostles there present none excepted for our Sauiour said not let all Christians drinke of this but drinke ye all of this If it should be demanded why should our Sauiour say drinke yee all of this more then eate yee all of this adding the word all only to the chalice and not to the host but only to shew the vniuersall necessitie of drinking I answer first that all cannot possibly be added for that reason for Protestants confesse that there is as vniuersall necessitie for all Christians to eate the bread comprehended in these words take eate this is my Body without the word all as of drinking the cup in these drinke yee all of this Secondly I answer that the reason of adding the word all more to the chalice then to the host was because our Sauiour hauing broken the host into differeÌ„t peeces gaue to each Apostle one and so there was noe necessitie to command them all to eate of the same particle but hauing giuen but one cup amongst them it was more necessary for the full declaration of his minde which was that all the Apostles there preseÌ„t should drinke of that cupp to expresse himselfe in these termes drinke ye all of this Secondly I answer to the maine objection that if we stand ptecisely in these words of Scripture it can neuer be conuinced that any precept is contained either in these take eate or in these drinke yee all of this for they are capable to signifie a meere inuitation or intreaty as great persons ordinarily are accoustomed when they haue other inferiours at theyr table to say eate or drinke of this or that not commanding but inuiting and it belongs to ProtestaÌ„ts who stand so strictly to the bare expresse words of Scripture to conuince by the sole expresse words the contrary Thirdly if wee either by vniuersall tradition of Christians or by some other expresse commands in scripture of communicating grant that euen in these words eate drinke c. a strickt command was giuen seeing some commands oblige all Christians others all Bishops Priests and others the Apostles only we can notwithstanding giue a reason why these words drinke yee all of this binde the Apostles only and extend not themselues to all Christians for the declaration of this when the circumstances are such that the command can haue noe place but for that present time when it is giuen it is cleare that what our Sauiour spake to the Apostles is giuen to the Apostles only as when our Sauiour said to S. Peeter putt vp thy swod into the scabbard or to the three Apostles rise let vs goe c. and a thou sand such like Secondly when the common tradition of
that is to say put bread into the hands of his disciples before they tooke it into their hands which is impossible or that he bad them take what they had already taken which were absurd because S. Matthew relates the institution so that he mentioneth first gaue and then take Iesus tooke bread and blessed and brake and gaue to his disciples and sayd take eate this is my Body If indeed the Scripture had affirmed that our Sauiour gaue to his disciples after he had sayd This is my Body the argument had been of force but sâ—eing it sayes not so but only mentioneth first gaue and after the words of consecration as it mentioneth gaue before it mentions take and that common sense tells vs they must be done at the same tyme there is nothing against the reall presence by this rather mistake them argument Obiection 3. S. Paul obserues that after he brake and gaue he sayd This is my Body which is broken for you Answer S. Paul's words according to the Protestant translation are these tooke bread and when he had giuen thankes he brake it and sayd Take eate This is my Body where there is no expresse mention of giuing to his disciples at all and therefore what the obiection here affirmes that S. Paul obserues that after he brake and gaue he sayd This is my Body is very farre from truth Againe though S. Paul sayd This is my Body yet he sayes not that after he brake he sayd This is my Body as the obiection affirmes Neither sayd S. Paul when he had broken he sayd Take and eate as he sayes when he had giueÌ„ thankes This is my Body for that would haue some shew of proofe that he pronounced the words after he had broken but only affirmes he brake and sayd This is my Body which words may as properly signify that he brake and spake these words morally at the same tyme as that he first beake and then pronounced them As when it is sayd in S. Matthew In those dayes came Iohn Baptist preaching in the desert and saying Repent c. where though saying be put after preaching in the text yet no man is so senselesse as to thinke that he preached before he sayd somthing or that he preached before he sayd what the Euangelist affirme him to haue sayd as the subiect of his preaching Repent c. So also in Iob different tymes Almighty God Iob and his friends are affirmed in the English Bibles then Iob answered and sayd c. Then the Lord answered and sayd c. where though answered be put before sayd yet no child will imagine they answered before they spake or spake before they sayd what the text affirmes them to haue sayd Whence it is most euident that words which are set one after another signify not alwayes nor euer certainly meerely because they are set one before another that the actions done and signifyed by them follow one another iust as these words do And so meerely thence can be drawn no forcible argument in this particular And yet if we should grant for other reasons and circumstances that our Sauiour brake the bread before he pronounced the words of consecration whilst it was yet but bread what would this helpe our aduersaryes or hurt vs for then it would follow that bread was broken whilst it remained in its own substance but giuen to the disciples after it was changed into the Body of Christ or morally speaking whilst our Sauiour was giuing it vnto them Obiection Here wee see plainly both by theyr own rules and our Sauiours actions that it was bread which he brake and gaue and not the species of bread which was broken and giuen that is to say the bredth coulour and tast of bread but noe bread This word broken must needs haue relation to that bread broken before he sayd This is my Body because he did not break it againe after he said it was his Body Answer If we vnderstand by broken mentioned by S. Paul when he sayd He brake and sayd Take eate this is my Body that he brake the bread changed into his Body by consecration or in a morall vnderstanding whilst he changed and consecrated it by these words This is my Body it might happily containe no great absurdity to grant that this second word is broken may haue relation to the former he brake for in both of them according to this opinion his Body was mysteriously and sacramentally broken for vs. But if we vnderstand by brake as the Obiection supposes vppon a false ground as I hauc already demonstrated the breaking of naturall bread before he sayd This is my Body then it is wholy false and iniurious to our Sauiour and the worke of our Redemption to vnderstand that these words whith is broken for you haue relation to brake which was mentioned before For that were to say that a meere piece of bread before it was made either a Sacrament or his Body or so much as a signe of his Body was hroken for vs which neither Catholike nor Protestant nor Christian doth or can affirme without blasphemy for before these words This is my Body were pronounced all agree that the bread was neither made his Body nor any SacrameÌ„tall signe of it Neither can it possibly stand with the other Euangelists that broken here should be only a breaking of common and naturall bread before it was made a Sacrament by these words This is my Body for it is certaine that S. Paul here vnderstands by broken for you the same which S. Luke signifyes by this is my Body which is giuen for you especially seeing that by breaking giuing thinges belonging to eating whether temporall or spirituall the same thing is signifyed in many places of Scripture according to the Hebrew phrase Now to say that a piece of naturall bread vnconsecrated was giuen for vs is an intolerable blasphemy And yet this is clearer in the other species of the chalice for S. Marke relates it thus This is my blood of the new Testament which is shed for many and S. Matthew VVhich shall be shed for many for the remission of sinnes Which no hart truly Christian can imagine to haue any relation to pure and common wine before consecration To that which the Obiection adds that therefore broken for you must haue relation to that bread broken before he sayd This is my Body because he did not breake it againe after he had sayd these words I answer first that it can neuer be prooued from the words of S. Paul that the first breaking here mentioned by S. Paul was not presently speaking in a morall sense after these words were pronounced for though it be mentioned before yet it followes no more thence that it was not presently after then when S. Marke sayes speaking of the chalice and they dranke all of it before he mention the consecration of the chalice that the disciples dranke not after the consecration of
the sayd chalice and after it was made a Sacrament as all do and must grant they did and so there will not be two actuall breakings but one actuall or mystycall or Sacramentall togeather signifyed by these two words breake and broken for you which happened after consecration But if we say that the first breaking was before consecration and the second broken for you signifyed somthing done after consecration that is the giuing of Christs Body for the remission of sinnes as the Euangelists seeme to signify then it will not be necessary that either the bread should haue beene twice visibly broken or that broken for you should haue relation to the bread broken before he sayd This is my Body as the obiection contends Obiection But to proceed from his actions to the words IESVS added Take eate this is my Body The vnderstanding of these words depends principally vppon the explication of the word this we say by the word this Christ meant that which he held when he spake the word this because transubstantiation is not yet made till the words following This is my Body be fully pronounced They expound all the fower words This is my Body thus vnder the species is my Body but enquire of them what is it which was vnder the species when Christ spake only the word this and they confesse that it was as yet bread which is the same that we mayntaine against them It is bread then and by consequence this there signifyes bread that I hold and these words This is my Body are as much as this bread is my Body Answer The maine diffiulty here vrged is about the word this in the words of consecration This is my Body I demand first when our Sauiour changed water into wine in the mariage of Galilee whether he could truly haue sayd these words vppon the water this is wine and by vertue of these words changed the water into wine the water remayning when the word this was pronounced by him and changed into wine when the whole proposition this is wine was spoaken as wee hold it happens in the change of bread into the Body of our Sauiour in the Eucharist I scarce thinke that any Protestant will be se bold and temerarious as to deny that God can do this and yet all the difficultyes that are inuented and vrged against the word this in the words of consecration are the very same here as is manifest So that the obiection about the word this proues not only if it prooue any thing that the Body of our Sauiour is not de sacto put really in the place of bread by vertu of these words This is my Body but that it is wholy impossible for our Sauiour to worke any such change by vertu of these words for if whilst the word this is pronounced water being only there actually must necessarily be signifyed by the word this as the obiection contēds then it is impossible by vertu of this proposition this is wine that water should be changed into wine for the signification of this proposition this is wine would require the presence and continuance of water by reason of the word this which is supposed to signifie water and the change of water into wine would require the absenec or non existency of water it being supposed to be changed into wine and so water would be and not be at the same tyme which is a formall contradiction and acknowledged by all to be wholy impossible So bold are Protestants in restrayning and limiting the Omnipotency of God to defend their own groundlesse phantasies who oppose the Romane Church in this manner And therefore the more moderate and considerate amongst them grant this to be possible and soe vrge not this argument because it proues either too much or nothing Secondly demand when our Sauiour sayd this is my command that yee loue one another what was meant by the word this either somthing or nothing was meant by it if somthing that was either the cōmand which he gaue after the pronuntiation of the word this and so somthing which was not when he pronounced the word this was vnderstood by it And then in our present question why cannot by the word this somthing be vnderstood which was not at that instant when he pronounced the word this Or by the word this in the former speech of the command was vnderstood somthing which was not his command but this is absurd for then he should haue sayd that which is not my command is my command if it be sayd that nothing was vnderstood by the word this it will follow that the word this signifyed nothing and so his command was nothing or nothing was his command or the word of God signifyed nothing all which is absurd Hence therefore it euidently followes that the word this in the text This is my command that yee loue one another c. cannot haue any other sense saue this This which I am presently to say to you to wit that yee loue one another is my command and this sense and manner of speech is so ordinary both in holy Scripture and common discourse that there can be no difficulty in the vnderstanding of it for it is not necessary that the thing which is signifyed by the word this in such manners of speech be then existent or in being when the word this is pronunced for ir may be either past or to come thus it is ordinary to say in the day tyme I hope to sleepe well this night that is the night to come or in the morning I haue slept well this night that is the last night past and this not only by reason of the thing it selfe whereof we speake but also in regard of the meaning and intention of the person who speakes for words were not instituted to signify thinges and obiects only but also and that more immediatly the thoughts and affections of him who speakes and hence it comes to passe when the same word signifyes many things it is to be explicated and taken in that sense only which appeares to haue beene intended by them who speake hence therefore it happens that seeing things not yet in being when the word this is pronounced may be vnderstood by it we must gather that a thing not yet existent is to be vnderstood when it appeares by other cleare circumstances that the meaning and intention of the speaker is to signify somthing which is not actually when the word this was pronounced but after is to be Thus in the forenamed example where our Sauiour sayd This is my command that yee loue one another it is cleare that his meaning was by the word this to signify that which he was presently after to say and not what was iust then when he sayd the word this for then no command was giuen And that this signification of the word this is most common and familiar euen in ordinary discours is manifest in a thousand
of a person of me the other of a Body which is but one part of the person who consists both of soul and body vnited so that the whol proposition is quite different the one from the other Secondly though these propositions had not beene so different as they are yet our Sauiour cannot possibly be thought to haue meant by these words my Body a mere remembrance of his Body because this explication must be verified of the bread which was consecrated by our Sauiour in his last supper as it is euident For he speakes of that euen according to Protestants now that could not be a remembrance of his body for nothing is said according to Protestants to be a remembrance of a thing which is actually and visibly present as the body of our Sauiour then was to the Apostles being seene heard by them neither could it be a remembrance of his passion because we remember things past not to come as the passion of our Sauiour then was and so it should haue been a type of our Sauiours death as the ceremonies of the old law were before he dyed and not a remembrance or commemoration Therefore it is euident that by the thing which he called his body in his last supper could not be meant a remembrance of his body as Protestants would haue it and so this explication is very false Therefore when our Sauiour commanded his Apostles in these words doe this in remembrance of me he could not meane any action or thing then present or done at that time but an action which he enioyned the Apostles and their successors to doe afterwards in the Christian Church in remembrance of his passion principally which is cleerely deliuered by S. Paul 1. Cor. 11. v. 26.27 This is the new testament in my bloud this doe as often as you drinke in remembrance of me where the greeke word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifies shall drinke quotiescumque bibetis doe this so often as you shall drinke and so it is translated by Beza in his latin translation quotiescumque biberitis as often as you shall drinke and should haue been by our English Trāslatours had they closely followed the greeke text as they pretend to doe but here it made not for theyr pourpose and soe they put it eyther falsly or at least obscurely soe often as you drinke which euidently shews that our Sauiour meant by doe this not any action which was done in time of the last supper or institution and receiuing of the Sacrament by the Apostles but what they were to doe in the future and that our Sauiour in these words doe this in remembrance of me did not command the present action of eating and drinking when our Lord celebrated his last supper is euident because had it been of the present action it would follow that he twice commanded the same action to be done at the same time for he commanded his Apostles to doe what was then to be done when he said take eate drinke c. therefore to free our Sauiour from a nedelesse tautologie must be vnderstood the command of doing some thing else and at some other time to be conteined in these words doe this in remembrance of me especially considering that the mention of remembrance could not be vnderstood of any thing then visibly present or after to come as I said before These words therefore being to be vnderstood of the consecrating and frequenting of this Sacrament for the future only cannot possibly be an explication of the former words this is my Body which speake only of a thing that is then present as is euident and consequently those words according to the obiection are plainely simply to be beleeued as they sound without any glossing of the words of our Sauiour there being no ground in this place of Scripture for any such figuratiue glosse as I haue prouued and each Christian must beleeue that that thing which our Sauiour gaue his Apostles was his very body as his affirmed it to be If happily not withstanding that this were granted some Protestants should gather from these words doe this in remembrance of me that this Sacrament in times insuing after our Sauiours death was only to be a remembrance of his body and so not his body whatsoeuer is to be said of rhat Sacrament in the first institution I answer that though some ancient heretiques haue been of this opinion yet I neuer heard of any Protestant who held that the Christians after our Sauiours time receiued not the same which the Apostles did from his hands and so this obiection is to noe purpose for the Protestants Yet that I may cleare all difficulties which may probably occurre against what I haue said in this matter I answer that this is noe good consequence our Sauiour would haue this Sacrament celebrated and frequented in remembrance of him therefore the hoast after the consecration is only a remembrance of his body and not his true body or thus therefore that which Christ called his body in the institution is now amongst Christians only the remembrance of his body for if these words doe this in remembrance of me were not an explication of those others This is my Body in the first institution they will neuer be any explieation of them and so there will be noe reason to say that the meaning of thesc words this is my Body is this this is a remembrance of my Body by reason of these words doe this in remembrance of me for these words only signifie that the action here commanded doe this is to be in remembrance of me not that the thing conteyncd in the Sacrament was to be a remembrance of him now who can doubt but the same person may doe one action in remembrance of himselfe that is of some action which he had done before how ordinary is it for any one to write his own workes and what he himselfe hat done or suffered did not S. Faul doe this and was not this done in remembrance of himselfe doing or suffering such things and shall any thence make this consequence S. Paul writ this in remembrance of himselfe therefore he was a remembrance of himselfe therefore it was not S. Paul who writ it for nothing can be a remembrance of it selfe who sees not how false and childish this discours is may we not say the same of our Sauiour when he appeared to S. Thomas whom he put in remembrance of himselfe suffering vppon the crosse when he commanded him to put his hand into his side and looke vppon his hands and feet c. and shall we then say that our Sauiour was not himselfe or that is Body was not that which suffered because it did something in remembrance of his body crucified what Christian will dare to discours in this manner if then our Sauiours own body that suffered vppon the crosse can doe something to put vs in remembrance of the same body crucifyed once for vs why should we denie
dispersed amongst the vulgar that any Romane Catholicque Doctours by the word is vnderstand shall become or shall be transubstantiated for though they gather as a necessary sequel transubstantiation from the reall and proper signification of these words this is my Body yet they all vnderstand the word is in its own natiue common and ordinary signification and none of them take it for transubstantiated or become my Body neyther indeede can they vnlesse they destroy their own principles for if they should by is vnderstand become or transubstantiated then they must vnderstand by the word this bread seeing they all affirme that bread only becomes or is transubstantiated into Christ's body but that were plainly to contradict themselues it being one of the maynest points in this controuersy betwixt Caluinists and vs they affirming that hread is vnderstood by the word this and we denying it That which is added that those distractions can be no testimonyes of truth that is the diuersity of opinions amongst vs here reckoned vp about the vnderstanding of these wordes this and is seemes to me to haue something of that eye condemned in the Gospell which sees a mote in anothers eye and discouers not a beame in it selfe The opponent summes here vp fower differeÌ„t opinions whereof the last I haue proued to be a false imposition and no opinion of ours the first and second of the word this signifying vnder this or vnder these species are one and the same opinion set down by the opponent in different words for seeing by vnder this none of our Authours vnderstand vnder this bread they must needs meane by it vnder these species of bread to omit that no Catholicque Authour sayes that the word this precisely signifyes vnder this or vnder these species c. but that which is vnder these species is my Body the third opinion that by the word this is signifyed nothing present if by nothing present be meant nothing present after consecration it is another imposition vppon Catholicque Authours making them speake like Caluinists against themselues but if therby be meant nothing present precisely in that momeÌ„t when the word this was pronounced it is true and Catholicque as I haue shewed but then it is not opposite to the former opinion for seing no Catholike teaches that the body of our Sauiour is vnder the species of bread till the substance of bread be transubstantiated into it agrees well with their opinion that nothing in particular be vnderstood by the word this which is existent when that word was spoktn bread being then vnder its own species Thus vppon a iust examination we finde that in truth there is but one only opinion of Catholicques in the whol reckoning and therefore vnderseruedly termed distractions or no testimonies of truth But had the opponent put some reall diuersity of opinions amongst Catholicque Authours about the vnderstanding of these words and brought them to the number of fower as here is a shew made yet seing they all agree in the proper and natiue signification of these words This is my Body without all figures or improprieties which exclude the reall presence this variety can be no more termed no testimony of truth in this poynt controuersed then are other different opinions of Schoolemen in many other mysteries of faith being nothing but diuers wayes which learned men take to explicate or defend the same point of faith wherin they all agree against Infidells or Heretiques But had the Opponent known or considered the diuersityes of opinions risen vp within the space of few more then a hundrcd yeares about the vnderstanding of these words this is my Body amongst Protestants and that in the mayne signification of them which Luther confesses to haue amounted to the number of ten before his death and another not many yeares after rekons vp to the number of two hundred there had beene iust occasion giuen to say these disâ—ractions can be ne testimonyes of truth Objection In the middest of these discords they make these words this is my Body but halfe true for they all hold that there were two things in the hands of Christ when he spake these words his Body the species of bread wherof it followeth that these wordes are true but of the halfe of that he held in his hands and if he had sayd this is not my body hauing regard to the other halfe of that he held the species of bread he had also spoken the truth Answer This difficulty arises from want of knowledge in Philosophy to distinguish an accident from a substance so that it cannot well be so explicated that the vnlearned will be capable of it and so will be better vnderstood by a familiar instance euen in this present matter then by a philosophicall discourse The Opponent cannot deny but our Sauiour might haue sayd of that which he had in his hands this is bread when he sayd the word this now I demand seing according to all there were two thinges as the Opponent termes them the substance of bread and the species of bread whether these words this is bread had been only halfe true or no if it be answered that they had been but halfe true it will follow that whensoeuer we demonstrate any thing in ordinary conuersation saying this is a man a horse a tree a stone c. we speake but halfe truly because there is always the substance and species or accidents of those things yea when S. Iohn Baptist sayd behold the lamb of God or the heauenly Father this is my beloued Son our Sauiour hauing both substance and species those propositions had been but halfe true if it be answered that this proposition this is bread is absolutely and entirely true then I answer the same to all that is here opposed for species or accidents are not different thinges absolutely speaking but relatiue appendixes dependances adjuncts or exhibitions of thinges which are so absolutly denominated that is substances as when we see a person cloathed it is absolutely and wholly true to say this is Peeter or Iohn for though there be two things the person and the cloathes yet the cloathes being only adjuncts or meanes to demonstrate the person whose they are are not intended to be included in this demonstration and so if one hauing only regard to the cloake of a person should say this is not Peter meaning this cloake is not Peeter though he should speake true to such as know his meaning yet in ordinary conuersation vnlesse by some particular signe he gaue to vnderstand his meaning he would either not be vnderstood or vnderstood to speake false because the demonstration this is instituted in such circumstances to signify the person or thing demonstrable and not their adjuncts ot accidents Apply this to our present purpose and all is solued Objection Now let any iudge which opinion is lesse forged and more naturall ours who say tbis signifyes that which Christ held or that of theyrs who say
vnder this or vnder these species if they grant that the word this signifies bread as they must needs being spoken before consecration will they make it signify nothing after consecration can it both be somthing and nothing If the word this signifie bread then we must vnderstand that this bread is my Body but no other thing can they make it signifie but bread not the species of bread why because yet it was not when he sayd this not his body for his body could not signify his body neyther as yet was it consecrated when he sayd this they must therefore confesse it to signify bread or nothing if bread then of bread he sayd This is my Body which is as much as to say this bread is my body Answer Here is only a repetition of what hath been objected before wherfore I referre the reader to my former answer wherin I auoide all these difficultyes by replying that the word this iust when it was pronounced by our Sauiour neyther signified the species of bread nor vnder the species of bread nor bread nor that which he precisely then held in his hands before he pronounced the other words nor yet nothing but this which I am presentely to giue you and you are to take and eate is my Body and this well considered let any man iudge whether opinion is lesse forged and more naturall ours which puts a plaine proper obuious signification both to the word this the subiect the word is the copula and the word body the predicate of this proposition This is my Body agreeing with the wholl context and intention of our Sauiour or theyrs which will haue signifyed a mere peece of naturall bread not yet made a Sacrament by the word this â—nd by is my body is a commemoration of my body â—nd that not only without all ground in Scripture but contrary to the plaine text contrary to the mystery here instituted and contrary to common sense discourse all which I haue already proued Obiection Now that it is discouered what our Lord brake and gaue what he bad them take and eate and what he sayd was his body none need doubt but that the disciples did eate that which he tooke blessed brake and gaue and which he bad then eate it was bread by their own rule for as yet he had not sayd it is my Body if they did eate that which he sayd was his body what can any conceiue it to be but bread for what sayd he was his body was it not bread which he tooke blessed brake and gaue and bad them eate saying it was his body if they could disproue the Protestant church in this poynt they could neuer maintayne transubstantiation by the words of institution which in all circumstances words and actions of our Sauiour is agreeable to what we beleeue but we may safely conclude that the Apostles did eate bread and that it remaynes bread after consecration both by that which hath beene sayd c. Answer Here the same thing seemes to be repeated twice or thrice ouer and altogeather is nothing but a new repetition of what hath been answered before only here seemes another objection to be pointed at which may be framed as it is more clearly by other Protestants in this manner That which our Sauiours tooke blessed brake and gaue was bread for certaine it is that which he tooke was bread and is confessed to haue been so by both sydes but that which he tooke he blessed that which he blessed he brake that which he brake he gaue therefore from the first to the last that which he gaue his disciples was bread I answer that all this is true for it was bread in denomination both which he tooke blessed brake and gaue but the bread which he tooke was bread remayning in its own nature the bread which he gaâ—e was bread made his body and yet it was the same bread in denomination for the very same bread which was yet in its own nature when he tooke it was made his body when gaue it Now if one should reply that this is sayd gratis and seemes to be a mere shift for obscuring and inuoluing the matter to escape the difficulty or rather an explication destroying and contradicting it selfe I will shew that this is sayd with great ground euen in Scripture it selfe for if an Infidell should oppose the change of water into wyne in the second of S. Ihon with the like argument say that that wherewhith the seruants filled the vessels at our Sauiours command was that which they drew out of the vessels that which they drew out was that which they carryed to the maister of the mariage-feast that which they carryed to him he drunke but that which the seruants filled the vessels first withall was water therefore that which the maister of the feast drunke was water A Christian vnto such an objection may answer that all this is true if we respet only the name or denomination of the thing for that which was put into the vessels the maister drunke and as it is true that water was put into them so is it true to say that the master of the feast drunke water but the very same water which remayned in its own nature when in was put into the vessels was denominated water made wyne when the maister drunke it And that this may appeare to be no fiction of myne all that I affirme herof is plainly deliuered in the Protestant Bible the words are these Iesus saith vnto them fill the water-pots with water here behold water was to be put into them and they filled them to the brimme see here is water put into them by the seruanrs and he sayd vnto them draw out now and beare to the gouernour of the feast and they bare it marke yet here the seruant bare it that is that which they had put into the vessells which was water when thc Ruler of the feast had tasted the water which was made wyne and knew not whence it was behold it is still called water not water remayning in its owne being but water made wyne but the seruants which drew the water knew still it is called watcr and the water that is the very same that it was in denomination when it was put in but changed into wyne Apply this in each particular to the present mystery and it will appeare how light the objection is fit only to deceiue vnlearned people who are not acquainted with such subtilityes and sophismes as such like objections conteyne Obiection And likewise that S. Paul called the consecrated bread bread three tymes after consecration for as often sayth he as you eate this bread and so let him eate of this bread and whosoeuer eates this beead vnworthyly but we do not eate till after consecration it is then bread after consecration Answer I haue giuen iust now a full answer to that which is objected here that S. Paul calls the hoast bread three
be broken for vs. Obiection In the same sense the arke the signe of the presence of God is called God for when the arke was brought into the camp it is said God is come into the camp Answer It is said so indeed but not by the Israëlites which were the faithfull people of God but by the vnbeleeuing philistines who esteemed the Israëlites to haue an idoll for their God as well as themselfes and the philistines feared much and said God is come into the camp and by this argument the opponent may proue as well that it was a signe of many Gods because the philistines called it Gods who will saue vs from the hands of these high Gods these are the Gods c. Objection So the rock is called Christ because it is a figure of Christ. Answer The words are these They dranke of the spirituall rocke which followed them but the rocke was Christ. where seeing that the text speaks expressely of a spirituall rock and sayes that rocke was Christ it speakes not of any rocke which was a signe of Christ for that must haue been a materiall visible rocke but of that which was Christ himselfe for he is truly a spirituall rocke without all signes and figures as he is our spirituall phisician our good shepheard c. and this spirituall rock only from which as the true supernaturall cause that water flowed and which alone can truly be said to haue followed the childeren of Israel in the desert was properly our Sauiour Obiection The seauen eares ares said to be seauen yeares Answer Certaine it is that Pharao knew well enough that those were not reall but imaginary eares framed in his phantasie in time of his dreame and so neuer intended to demand what they were in themselues but what they portended or what was signified by them for it was the interpretation of his dreame which he sought for and if Ioseph had answered him that these seauen eares were cettaine representations which passed in his minde as in themselues they truly were he would haue deserued disgrace and punishment rather then praise and reward for Pharao knew that as well as he Ioseph therefore answered according to Pharaos intention that those seauen eares signified seauen yeares and though in the English and Latin be the word are are seauen yeares septem sunt anni yet the Hebrew according to the proprietie of that language hath noe word expresly signifiing are which may for any thing that can be conuinced srom the Hebrew text haue as well the verbe signifie or represent vnderstood as the verbe are seauen eares seauen yeares that is seauen eares signifie or prefigure seauen yeares so that standing close to the originall the argument proues nothing yet though we should with the English translation vnderstand the words are seauen yeares yet it would proue as little for they were certaine Hieroglyphikes emblemes or characters defining or prescribing what was portended by the dreame noe otherwise then when one seeing a virgin painted with her eyes blinded and a paire of scales in her hand should aske what is this if one should answer him that it is a piâ—ture drawne vppon a painted cloth he would scarce haue patience with such a folly or mockery for he could not prudently be supposed to demand that which he saw with his eyes but if it should be answered that it is iustice he would presently be satisfied or if one who I know could read Latin and not vnderstand it seeing this word domus should aske me what it is and I should answer him that it is domus he might thinke I mocke him but if I answered him that it is a house he would take it for an answer but if I knew he could not yet read I might answer him that the word he asked me was domus thus according to the different circumstances and reasons that one hath to iudge that he who demandes what this or that is intends to know either what it is substantially in it selfe or significantly in respect of some other thing which it figures out vnto vs the answer is to be framed but yet with this caueat that when the subiect of the demande is a thing absolute of it selfe and not a signe figure or embleme of anothcr thing then we are truly to answer what it is substantially in it selfe vnlesse it be cleare that the demanders intention be to know what in some extraordinary case it signifies but when the subiect in question is it selfe a signe figure embleme or representation of some other thing it is to be answered what it signifies vnlesse it appeates euidently or very probably that the intention of the demand is to know not what it signifies but what it is Thus when Pharao demanded what those eares weare they being only conceiued by him to be certaine presages or tokens of something else noe man could in common sense answer him but by telling him what was presaged or intended by them that is what they were in that sense in which he demanded which answer could not be true in any other sense then a figuratiue for when Ioseph gaue this answer that seauen eares were seauen yeares had he vnderstood it properly and substantially it had concluded a formall contradiction and implication in the termes For it is impossible that the thoughts of ones head which passe in an houre should be truly and really one or many yeares So the truth of holy Scripture and Iosephs answer necessarily requiers a figuratiue sense and had our Sauiour said as expressely this bread which you see is my body as Ioseph said seauen eares are seauen yeares he should haue beene vnderstood to haue spoken for the same reason only in a figuratiue sense but seeing he neither sayd nor intended to say any such matter but only This is my Body c. that is this which I am now to giue you and you receaue is my body as I have shewed he must be supposed to affirme in a reall proper and substantiall sense without all signes or figures that that which he was then about to giue them was his true body for the word this both in it selfe and in those circumstances signifying a thing absolute in it selfe and noe signe or figure as the word eares doe in the place obiected cannot be thought to haue any figuratiue signification neither the word my body being expressed by that which followes which is giuen for you to be his reall body can be impropetly nor figuratiuely vnderstood to signifye a signe figure remembrance or commemoration of his body for it was not a signe figure and remembrance of his body but his reall and true body which was giuen for vs. neither can there be any figure or impropriety in the word is as though it were nothing but signifies or commemorates for seeing the subiect of the proposition this that is which I am to giue and the predicate my Body which is giuen for you properly vnderstood
can be truly and really the one affirmed of the other thus This which I am to giue you is really and substantially my body which is giuen for you according to the rules of all good interpreters it must be vnderstood so as the opponent also acknowledged before if therefore the opponent or any other Protestant will proue any thing against vs in this particular there must be produced some text of Scripture where a proposition all things considered can be verifyed in a reall and proper sense as I haue proued this proposition This is my Body which is giuen for you can be and yet is to be vnderstood figuratiuly and improperly for so long as they produce ptopositions which cannot possibly be vnderstood in a reall and proper sense as this is which they haue cited seauen eares are seauen yeares and the like there is a manifest disparity because the former can very connaturally be vnderstood in a proper sense and these not and the fundamentall and vnanswerable reason is because the words of Scripture as also of all other authours must be vnderstood properly when soeuer they can be vnderstood so or when nothing compels vs to the contrary Obiection Euen before the fall of Adam there were two trees the one whereof was called the tree of life because it was a signe and memoriall to Adam that so long as he obeyed God he should inioye life the other of knowledge of good and euil because it was a signe and memoriall vnto him that if he obeyed God he should know by experience the difference betweene good and euill Answer These are only glosses and additions to Scripture contrary to what was before promised where read you in the Bible that those two trees were so called because they were signes the one of life the other of knowledge of good and euill if there be any such place why was it not cited in the margent if noe such what can it be but glossing and adding to Scripture not only without but against Scripture in the very places cited if we stand to the expresse words for if the tree of life had been so called only because it was a signe or memoriall to Adam that so long as he obeyed God he should enioye life as the objection affirmes why then did God Allmighty prouide euen after his disobedience that he should not eate of the tree of life by putting a cherub in the way least by eating he should liue for euer Thus farre I haue answered the objections and laid open the mistakes which are extant in the paper some others there are which are commonly objected and mainely stood vppon by our aduersaries in this most weighty point of the reall presence least therefore some might stik vppon them as not being yet solued I will propound distinctly some of the cheef of them obseruing the methode which I held before of objection and answer Obiection What soeuer may be answered to any figure or signe in these wordes my body which is giuen for you as being so cleare and determinately signifying the reall body of Christ yet why can there not be a figure in the word is which may be as much as signifies so that those words of our Sauiour This is my Body may haue this sense this signifies my Body Answer I haue in effect already satisfyed this difficulty or at least giuen sufficient grounds to satisfye it for the word is is neuer to be drawn from its ordinary and proper signification when it can with all conueniency retaine it as I haue iust now demonstrated it may here beside that which is more cleere and known cannot prudently be signifyed by that which is more obscure and remote from our knowledge now the body of Christ visibly present before the eyes of the Apostles was more cleerely known to them then the significant figure of the bread and so could not be signifyed without absurditie by the bread in time of the first institution of this Sacrament as if I show my naked hand to any one it were absurd to hold vp my gloue to signifie that my hand is there Further had the bread then barely signifyed the body of Christ as presently after to suffer it would haue been a bare type and figure of his passion as was the Paschall Lamb and so a shaddow of things to come proper to the old law and consequently would not haue been a Sacrament of the law of grace as certainly according to all it was Objection When the Iews thought that our Sauiour would giue them his true flesh to eate he corrected theyr errour and tould them it is the spirit that quickeneth the flesh profiteth nothing the words which I speake vnto you are spirit and life therefore our Sauiour giues vs not his reall flesh to eate Answer Sayes our Sauiour here my flesh profiteth nothing where find you that noe replies the protestant but he sayes that the flesh profiteth nothing and seeing he had spoken much before of his own flesh what can he be thoughâ— to meane by the flesh but his own and can any Christian thinke that he meant his own vnlesse he denie that he is redeemed by the torments and death of Christ or esteeme his redemption noe profit or dare a Christian entertaine so base an opinion of Christs most sacred and diuine flesh as to thinke that it is in opposition to the Spirit of God as the flesh here mentioned is affirmed to be by our Sauiour it is the spirit that quickneth the flesh profiteth nothing or where through the whole Bible shall they finde flesh contradistinct from spirit as here they are wherby is not meant our corrupt nature our fleshly immaginations our low and naturall discourses ignorance malice c. and must it only here signify the flesh of Christ is not this Scripture mistaken it is therefore of the Iews carnall and grosse vnderstanding whereof he speakes which was wholy opposite to the true spirit light and life of God which made them immagine that our Sauiour would cut out peeces of flesh from his body and giue it them to eate or permit himselfe to be visibly cut and quartered as meat is at the shambles and so rosted and eaten by them as S. Augustine obserues in this place which naturall and carnall discours our Sauiour affirmes to profit nothing and not his own most pure and heauenly flesh vnderstood aright only by true faith which he calls here the Spirit or spirituall light it will be said that we affirming that our Sauiours flesh is truly eaten by vs though not in so grosse a maner are no lesse condemned by our Sauiour for our carnall vnderstanding of this mistery then were the Capernaites I answer that there is as much difference betwixt vs in this particular as there was betwixt S. Iofeph and Herod about our Sauiours natiuity for though both of them vnderstood that he had true flesh and was borne of a woeman yet Herod imagined that he
was conceiued and borne in the ordinary maner of other childrē that he was a mere man c. and was holy ignorant both of his mothers virginity and that his humaine soul and body were vnited to the diuine person Thus the Capernaites hauing no more knowledge of his diuinity then Herod had thought that his flesh was to be eaten after the same ordinary maner that other meates vse to be eaten merely to feed the body and went noe sarther But all true Catholiques beleeue that his sacred flesh is liuing and vnited to the diuine persone and eaten by vs though truly and really as he was truly and really borne yet after a most pure heauenly and in effable manner as he was brought into this world wherby his blessed flesh cōsidered absolutely in it selfe is neyther rent nor torne nor deuided nor consumed but remaines as whole perfect and intire after he is eaten by vs as it was before as the Apostle S. Andrew sais In this maner though our Sauiour spoake of his reall flesh yet were his words Spirit and Life noe lesse then these words of S. Iohn the word was made flesh and a thousand such like are though they speake of the true flesh of our Sauiour because his very flesh it selfe by reason of its vnion to the diuine person and glorious proprieties wholy deifyed and spiritualizd in such sort that receiuing it we receiue a Spirituall body though true and reall Here the earnest Reformer will tell mee that I speake contradictions for it is as vnpossible that a body should be spirituall as a Spirit corporall I answer If I speake cōtradictions I haue learned them out of the Protestant Bible and common prayer booke where S. Paul sayes of a body after the resurrection it is sown a naturall body it rises a Spirituall body And yet this wonder full body of Christ exists in the Sacrament much more like a spirit then doth any other glorious body according to ordinary prouidence viz whole in the whole host and whole in euery part of it as the soul exists in the body an Angel in the place he possesses and God in the world And as this admirable body hath the proprieties of a Spirit so hath it the properties of life being liuing bread and giuing life eternall to those who worthily receiue it as our Sauiour pronounces of it and according to S. Iohn what was made in him was life diuinity and humanity and soul and body and flesh and blood in him are all life foe great reason had our Sauiour to say speaking of them the words which I haue spoaken to you are spirit and life These are the cheefe arguments against the reall presence which Protestants vse to draw from Scripture others there are fittet for heathens then Christians which they draw from naturall reason where to though I be not oblidged to answer in this treatis yet because I am exceedingly desirous to giue all the satisfaction I am able to euery one I will breefly set the cheefe of them down and as breefly answer them but because I suppose for the present that I dispute against such as make profession to be Christians I esteeme my selfe to haue giuen a sufficient satisfaction to theyr difficulties if I giue them cleare instances in some article of Christian faith which they beleeue wherein they must solue the like difficulty to that which they vrge from naturall reason against this mystery Objection How can accidents exist without a suhstance as here they must doe Answer How can a humanc nature subsist without its propet personality as in the Incarnation of Christ it must doe vnlesse Protestants with Nestorius will grant that in Christ be two Persons Objection How can one and the same body be in many places at the same time as they must be if the reall presence be true Answer How can one and the same soul Angel and God be in many places at the same tyme which they must be if theyr spirituality and Gods vbiquity be true Objection How can the parts of our Sauiours body so penetrate one an other that the whole body may be conteyned in the least part of the host or drop of the chalice Answer How can the body of our Sauiour penetrate the dore and passe through his mothers wombe when they both remayned shut Objection How should the body of our Sauiour in the consecrated host be distinguished from others when it is put amongst them Answer How should a drop of our Sauiours blood he distinguished from the blood of other men if in tyme of his passion it had been mixed with them Objection If our Sauiours flesh and blood be really present in the Sacrament then cats and Rats may eate them Answer If our Sauiors flesh and blood were truly in the passion particles of his sacred flesh being rent of and drops of his blood shed here and there then dogs and cats might haue as well eaten them Objection How is it possible that the whol bulke of a mans body should be so light that a fly should be able to crary it Answer How should the whole bulke of a mans body be so light that it should mount vp like a flame of fyer into heauen as our Sauiours did in his ascension Objection If there be so many miracles as you must hold wrought by our Sauiour in the reall presence why were none of them seene as the other mitacles of Christ were Answer If there were so many miracles wrought in the Incarnation of our Sauiour as you must hold why were none of them seene as the other miracles of Christ were Objection How can we possibly conceiue a body with out any extention of parts or locall forme and figure Answer How can wee possibly conceiue a humaine nature subsisting without a humaine personality Objection What difference will there be betwixt a body without all extention and locall figure and a spirit Answer What difference will there be betwixt the soul of a new borne infant and that of a brute beast which cannot actually vnderstand the one hath a power to vnderstand will you say and not the other the one hath a power to be extended and haue a locall figure say I and not the other Objection If our Sauiours body be truly in the Sacrament then all wicked persons and greeuous sinners who frequent it receiue his true body into theyr mouthes and brests Answer If our Sauiours body was truly in the wildernesse then the Diuel receiued it into his armes and carryed it to the pinnacle of the temple and if it were a true body in tyme of his Passion then Iudas the traitour kissed it the hard harted Iewes and Barbarous souldiers tutcht it abused it scorgd it crucified it and troad his most pretious blood vnder their feete is not this as much disgracefull to his body and blood as now to be receiued into sinners mouthes Objection If there be nothing visible or sensible but species accidents
contrary â—eeing therefore I haue clearly demonstrated that in the instaÌ„ces alleadged none of the figuratiue speeches can be vnderstood in a proper sense without the violation of some article of our faith proceeding according to true discours euen confessed by our aduersarios I conuince also that they haue no force to proue that these sacramentall words are to be vnderstood figuratiuely THE SEAVENTH CONTROVERSIE Concerning Communion vnder one kinde The Doctrine of the Church of Rome deliuered in the Council of Trent Sess. 13. cap. 3. SEmper haec fides in Ecclesiâ Dei fuit Statim post consecrationem verum Domini nostri corpus verumque eius sanguinem sub panis vini specie vna cum ipsius animâ diuinitate existere sed corpus quidem sub specie panis sanguinem sub vini specie ex vi verborum ipsum corpus sub specie vini sanguinem sub specie panis animamque sub vtraque vi naturalis illius connexionis concomitantiae quâ partes Christi Domini qui iam ex mortuis resurrexit non ampliùs moriturus inter se copulantur Diuinitatem porrò propter admirabilem illam eius cum corpore animâ hypostaticam vnionem Quapropter verissimum est tantumdem sub altetutrâ specie atque sub vtrâque contineri totus enim integer Christus sub panis specie sub quauis ipsius speciei parte totus item sub vini specie sub eius partibus existit This faith hath been alwayes in the church of God that presently after consecration the true body and blood of Christ did exist vnder the species of bread and wine togeather with his soul and diuinity But his body vnder the species of bread and his blood vnder the species of wine by force of the words but his body vnder the species of wine and his blood vndet the species of bread and his soul vndeâ— both by force of that naturall connexion and concomitancy whereby the parts of Christ our Lord who is now risen from the dead not to dy any more are ioyned togeather moreouer also his diuinity both with his body and soul by reason of that admirable hypostaticall vnion with them wherefore it is most true that as much is conteyned vnder eyther kinde as vnder both togeather for whol and intire Christ exists vnder the species or kinde of bread and each part of it and whol Christ exists vnder the species of wine and vnder each part of it The same doctrine is confirmed sess 13. can 3. Item sess 21. cap. 3. Insuper declarat quamuis Redemptor noâ—ter vt anteà dictum est in supremâ illâ coenaÌ„â—oc Sacramentum in duabus speciebus instiâ—uerit Apostolis tradiderit tamen fatendum esse etiam sub alterâ tantùm specie totum atque integrum Christum verumque Sacramentum suâ—â—i ac propâ—ereà quod ad fructum attinet nulâ—a gratia necessariâ ad salutem eos defraudari qui vnam speciem solam accipiunt Moreouer the Council declares that allthough our Redeemer as is aboue said instituted this Sacrament in his last supper vnder both kindes yet it is to be confessed that vnder one only kinde whol Christ and a true Sacrament is receiued and therefore for soe much as belongs to the ftuict that those who receiue it only vnder one kinde are not defrauded of any grace necessary to saluation Ibidem cap. 2. Praetereà declarat hanc potestatem pepetuò in Ecclesiâ fuisse vt in Sacramentorum dispensatione saluâ illorum substantiâ ea statueret vel mutaret quae susâ—ipientium vtilitati seu ipsorum Sacramentorum venerationi pro rerum temporum ac locorum varietate magis expedire iudicaret Id autem Apostolus non obscurè visus est inuisse cùm ait Sic nos existimet homo vt ministrâ—s Christi dispensatores mysteriorum Dei atque quidem hac potestate vsum esse satis constat cùm in multis aliis tum in hoc ipso Sacramento cum ordinatis non nullis circa eius vsum caetera inquit cùm venero disponam Quare agnoscens sancta mater Ecclesia hanc suam in administratione Sacramentorum authoritatem licèt ab initio Christianae Religionis non infrequens vtriusque speciei vsus fuisset tamen progressu temporis latissimèiam mutatâ illâ consuetudine grauibus iustis de causis adducta hanc consuetudinem sub alterâ specie communicandi approbauit pro lege habendam decreuit quam reprobare aut sine ipsius Ecclesiae authoritate pro libito mutare non licèt Further the CouÌ„cil declares that this power hath allwayes been in the church that in the dispensation of the Sacraments the substance being kept inuiolated and intire she might appoint and change such things as she iudged to be expedient for the profit of the receiuers or the veneration of the Sacraments according to the variety of things times and places And this the Apostle seemes not obscurely to haue insinuated when he sayes Let a man soe esteeme vs as Ministers of Christ and dispsnsers of the mysteries os God and that he made vse of this power is clere enough both in many other things and particularly in this Sacrament when ordayning some things concerning the vse of this Sacrament he said I will dispose the rest when I come wherefore our holy mother the church taking notice of this her power in the administration of Sacraments though in the beginning of the church the vse os both kindes was frequent yet in processe of time that custome being now notably changed being induced by iust and important reasons she hath approuued this custome of communicating vnder one kinde and hath decreed that it be held for a law which it is not lawfull to change or reproue at ones pleasure without the authority of the church The like doctrine is deliuered in the first chap. of this session From these texts it is manifest that the Council was induced to command this practice first because whol Christ is vnder both kindes 2. because in each kinde is the whole essence and substance of this Sacrament 3. because noe sacramentall grace necessary to saluation is lost by communicating vnder one kinde 4. because many important reasons toutching the honour and respect dew to soe diuine a SacrameÌ„t mouued her to it 5. because there is noe diuine command to the contrary as appearrs sess 21. cap. 1. 6 because the church hath power to dispence the Sacraments as she finds most eoÌ„uenient soe long as Gods commands and theyr substance are not violated 7. That it is not in any ones power saue only of the church to change this costome The Protestant Position Deliuered in the 39. Articles of the English Church Art 30. THc cup of the Lord is not to be denied to the lay people For both the parts of the Lords Sacrament by Christs ordenance ought to be ministred to all Christian men alike This is proued by Scripture mistaken
as will presently appeare Hauing therefore as I hope cleared this point of the reall presence in the iust balance of an open and impartiall eye it will not be very difficult to euen an other as a sequell from this concerning communion vnder one kind which though it be not thought vppon in these objections yet this fit occasion the great difficulties which our aduersaries raise against it the earnest desire which many not otherwise ill disposed haue to be satisfied in it and the request of others who haue seene some part of this treatis haue put me vppon necessitie to say something but very succinctly of this matter holding my selfe close to Scripture according to my former methode This point therefore supposes the reall presence and is rather to be treated against Lutherans or such other Protestants as are conuinced of that mysterie then against Caluinists or Suinglians who disbeleeue it for were not our Sauiours body and blood really present there as the practise of receauing one only kind had neuer been allowed so could it not haue been defended This therefore supposed I will indeauour to defend communion vnder one kind and answer whatsoeuer is pressed by our aduersaries against it out of Scripture mistaken Objection First they vrge the institution of this Sacrament as hauing been vnder the formes both of bread and wine which institution is to be followed by all Christians and so both to be receaued Answer The bare institution of a Sacrament drawes with it noe necessitie of frequenting it as appeares in Priesthood and mariage instituted by our Sauiour which not withstanding impose noe necessitie or command to receaue them so that standing precisely in the institution noe man wil be obliged to receaue either both or either of rhem Objection Secondly though the bare institution of a Sacrament impose noe command to receaue it yet it imports a precept that when it is receaued or administted it be done in that manner it was instituted as it appeares in baptisme Priesthood and other Sacraments Seeing therefore our Sauiour instituted this Sacrament both in the consecration and communion in both kinds at least whensoeuer it is receaued it must be receaued vnder both Answer This objection inuolues many difficulties and is first to he vndeestood that Sacraments are to be receaued and administred as they were first instituted in such matters as belong to the substance and essence of the Sacrament not in other accidentary circumstances of time place personnes precedences consequences c. as was the institution of this Sacrament after supper sitting vppon the ground giuen to priests only in a priuate secular house c. Secondly there is something particular in this Sacrament which is in noe other euen concerning the substance of it for the very same entire substance being here put vnder each kind makes that woesoeuer receaues either of them receaues the whole substance of this Sacrament and consequently receaues a true Sacrament instituted by our Sauiour and so that which is able to sanctifie him who worthily receaues either of them Thirdly concerning the substance of this Sacrament all that can be gathered from the bare words of the institution is that it is to be consecrated and receiued by Priests such as were the Apostles who were Priests then made when it was first instituted vnder both kinds but here is noe president giuen about the lay people because none then receaued it That the whole substance of our Sauiour is here receaued I suppose for the present neither is it much questioned by such as grant the reall presence nor can be possibly doubted of by any who beleeues that our Saoiour dies not more and soe both flesh and blood and life and soule and diuinitie are all vnited togeather weresoeuer he is hence therefore followes that lay people receiue as much of our Sauiour seeing they receaue him wholy and interily as Priests doe That he who receaues our Sauiour thus vnder one only kind receaues a true Sacrament is as cleare as the former for who can without absurditie denye that vnder one kind is exhibited an outward visible signe of an inward spirituall grace which is the compleat definition of a Sacrament according to our aduersaries for here the formes of bread only containing vnder them our Sauiour by way of meat signifie that he confers a spirituall grace nourishing and feeding our soules to eternall life and thus much is signified by the English ministers when they distribute the bread to the people saying the Body of our Lord Iesus Christ preserue thy body and soul to eternall life c. and containing his body represented as separated from his blood and so as dead by force of the words of consecration are an outward visible commemoratiue signe of his sacred death and passion and seeing that both bread is composed of many graines and wine of many grapes vnited togeather the mystical vnity of Christians receauing this Sacrament is sufficiently signified hy the species of either of them if then here he an outward visible signe of an inward spirituall grace both exhibitiue commemoratiue and significatiue here must needs be a true Sacrament euen according to the pttnciples of our aduersaries and what I haue said of the forme of bread is by the same reason verified of the forme of wine but not only in their principlcs but in all good Theologie there must be a true Sacrament vnder each kind for certainly seeing that a different grace is conferred by each of them the one of spirituall meate the other of spirituall drinke which how it is to be vnderstood I will hereafter examine each will be sufficient to sanctifie and helpe the soul to eternall life If it should be replyed that in neither of these kinds alone is exhihited a compleate signe either of our spirituall refection or the death of our Sauiour but only a partiall or imparfect signe of them which notwithstanding are compleatly significd vnder both togeather I answer that if by a compleat signe be vnderstood a most full and expresse representation of these two particulars I grant that there is not vnder one only kind so full and expresse a representation and in this sense not so compleat a signe of them as vnder both togeather but then it must be prouued this most full and expresse representation vnder both being exhibited to lay Christians by the consecration and communion of the Priest in the dread full sacrifice of the masse that the substance of this sacrifice requirs that they should be allways so fully and expressely represented in each particular communion of the people but if by a compleat signe be vnderstood a signe sufficient to signifie both our spirituall food and vnion and the death of our Sauiour I denie that there is not a compleat signe of both exhibited vnder each kind This distinction may be much illustrated by an instance from baptisme certainly the mystery of the trinity was more expressely fully and compleatly signified by that