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
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
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
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
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
vppon the receauing of both togeather Now that the receauing of our Sauiour vnder the forme of bread only conferres life and saluation is out of all question Ioan. 6. He who eateth this bread shall liue for euer and that perfectly and entirely as appeareth by these words As I liue by my father so he who eateth me shall liue by me for our Sauiour liueth by his father not partially buâ— wholy and perfectly Obiection Further one may reply that as corporal meate and drinke haue different effects thâ— one of nourishing and strengthing the otheâ— of comforting and exhilerating so proportionably this diuine meate and drinke must haue the like different spirituall effects correspondent to each of them whence followeth that he who receaues one only is depriued of the grace corresponding to the other and so the people will be depriued of some grace corresponding to the chalice to wit that of spirituall consolation and exhilaration of the soul in the seruice of God which Priests haue by receauing both kindes Answer First I answer that it is sufficient for the defence of the Catholique Roman faith that lay people in receauing vnder one kind are not depriued of any grace necessary to saluation which they should be were they obliged by vertu of Christs institution to receaue both And which our aduersaries presse against vs. seeing therefore the same habituall iustifiing and sauing grace is receaued by one kind as well as by both though he who receaues both were supposed to receaue extensiuely more then they which receaue one only yet this hath noe greater difficulty then that Priests being accoustumed and permitted euery day to say masse receaue by vertu of oftener communicating more habituall grace then lay people who promiscuously haue noe such practise or permission they being by acts of obedience to the holy Church and humiâ—ity proportionable to there own estat to supply the want of that extent of graces which are conferred vppon Priests by vertu of theyr dayly receauing this Sacrament noe wrong being done them so long as both in this and that of communicating vnder one kind they are depriued of noe grace necessary to saluation and by other acts of vertues and good workes may if they will being assisted by the grace of God exercise and supply that defect wherein by reason of the Sacrament they fall â—hort of Priests I say there is noe wrong done them because Christians are obliged to haue respect not only to theyr own parricular spirituall profit in increase of grace by the Sacrament but also to the reuerence which is due to it they must be content to want that â—ncrease when it cannot be obtained but by some irreuerence offerred to this diuine Sacrament Thus though both Priests and lay men might haue more degrees of grace by celebrating and communicating two or three times a day then by once yet because this inuolues a want of reuerence to the body and bloud of Christ it is but once a yeare generally amongst Catholikes permittrd to Priests and neuer to lay people neither by Catholiques nor Protestants the same would follow if all lay men were licenced promiscuously to communicate euery day and noe lesse were they permitted to receaue vnder both kindes as I shall shew here after whence followes that as out of the respect which they are bound to bere to this heauenly mystery they are obliged to refraine from communicating euery day and vppon noe day to receaue more then once so are they to abstaine the Church so commanding from receauing the chalice Secondly concerning actuall auxiliary graces which are supernaturall pious thoughts and inspirations to good conferred by vertu of this Sacrament and proper to it some doctours hold that there is a different actuall grace corresponding to the chalice from that of the host the one of strenghning proper to meate the other of exhilaration proper only to drinke yet the common tenet of doctours is contrary and so it will only come to a schoole Question not necessary to be treated here wherein the more common and negatiue opinion seemes to me more pious and honorable to this Sacrament for it wil be sufficient to saue the proper effects of these two kindes that there be actuall graces corresponding to meate and drinke the one of corroborating the other of exhilerating as the primary not as the only actuall fruits of this spirituall food and drinke so that by the host by reason of its inestimable ' and illimitated vertu be communicated to the receauer certaine actuall graces strenghtning him in time of tentation as the primary effect of that kinde and yet the other of exhilerating in time of sorow also as the secondary and lesse principall of the sacred host and the same discours holds proportionably of the chalice so that each kinde conferres these different graces but in a different order and manner and by consequence he who receaues either hath the very same actuall graces communicated to him noe lesse then he who receaues both and lay people are not depriued of any species of actuall grace due to this Sacrament which Priests haue Now that this doctrine much conducing to the honour and glory and grounded in the boundlesse perfection of this Sacrament is cleere tough to such as only consider that this spirituall banquet vnder each species containes noe lesse then Christ himselfe who is not only the food but also the drinke of our soules and so the holy Scripture speaking of him telleth vs he who eateth me shall yet hunger and he who drinketh me shall yet thirst and if we may hunger and thirst after iustice and the same iustice be borh able to satisfie our hunger and quench our thirst that is be both meat and drinke to vs whensoeuer we receaue it why should we denye these effects to the fountaine of iustici our deare Sauiour whensoeuer he is worthily receaued vnder either forme in this Sacrament and if the materiall manna had the taste sweetnesse and strength of all other different meates why should we not attribute to this spirituall and diuine manna the strength sweetnes and perfection both of all meates and drinks also whensoeuer it is rightly receaued And if speaking of diuine wisdome Salomon tell vs that all good came to him togeather with it why should we limite that wisdome of God more then is necessarie in this Sacrament In a word if some corporall meates haue also the vertu of drinke and some corporall drinkes the force of meate to nourish why should we denye this to the best of all meates and drinks the body and bloud of our Sauiour for if the least drop of his bloud or action of his body was sufficient to satisfie for the sinnes of infinite worlds why should we frame so pore an opinion oâ— them both in this Sacrament that whensoeuer they are truly receaued they haue not power vnder each kind both to nourish strenghen exhilerate and conferre spiritually all the fruits and profits