Christendome tells vs that such commands as were giuen to the Apostles were neuer esteemed to oblige theyr successours Thirdly when the matter commanded is common to the Apostles and all other Priests and not limited by any circumstance mentioned or insinuated in Scripture to the Apostles only if the generall and continnuall practise of Christendome be not contrarie it is to be vnderstood to oblige not only the persons of the Apostles but all Bishops and Priests in succeeding ages such as are the preceptes of teaching the Gospell Baptizing absoluing from sinnes c. and of consecrating sacrifising and receauing this blessed Sacrament Fourthly when the matter of the precept in it selfe may be common to all Christians as was the washing of one an others feet the abstinence from blond and the receauing of both kindes and hath noe limitation to the Apostles or Priests only prescribed in the Scripture there can be noe other rule to know which precept obliges all Christians which not saue the constant and generall tradition of the Christian Church For by this only me know as well Protestants as Catholikes that the precept of washing of feet bindes not though it be vniuersally strictly inioineyd in Scripture without any limitation of time or persons and noe lesse though all Christians are of themselues capable to receaue both kindes and the command be giuen to the Apostles to teceaue them yet this command by the churches perpetuall tradition or permitting many lay Christians to teceaue in one only kinde by the Protestants coustome of not communicating little infants shew cleerly that this precept is not to be extended to all Christians without exception and if Protestants notwitstanding the word all limitate it only to such as are arriued to the yeares of discretion without any ground in the bare words of the text to exclude little children only because their own practise approues it why may not Roman Catholikes limit it to the Apostles then present hauing both a ground in the text because the words were spoken to them only and the vniuersall tradition of the Christian Church permitting many lay persons to communicate in one only kinde and little children eyther in one or neyther as I shall here after demonstrate Objection The second precept alleaged by reformists for communion vnder both kindes is in these words doe this in remembrance of me which being to be vnderstood of something commanded to be done not then but for insuing times as I haue already shewed are not to be limited as spoken to the Apostles only then present and so seeme to be extended to all Christians especially if they be limited to Priests only there will be noe command at-all in the institution obliging all Christians to receaue either both or either kind of this Sacrament Answer These words doe this in remembrance of me according to all that which is commanded in them cannot be extended to any more then Priests for here is euidently commanded the blessing consecrating offering sacrificing and administring of this Sacrament for it is to doe what our Sauiour then did which according to Catholiques comprehends all these particulars and according to Protestants some of them and if the consecrating and administration of this Sacrament were not commanded in these words there would be noe command at all for them in the whol institution nor very probabily in the whol new Testament Secondly if we stick closely to the bare words noe man can conuince from them only that all Christians are obliged to receaue this Sacrament vnder both or either kinde for the cleargy men might haue been obliged to consecrate and administer this Sacrament though the layity were not obliged to receaue it as they are bound to administer Priesthood and mariage when they are iustly required though noe man haue any absolute command either to be a Priest or to mary and consequently are not bound to receaue those two Sacraments Thirdly all that those words import as they stand may be satisfied probably if we say that not euery Priest or lay man in particular is obliged to consecrate or communicate by force of them but that they conteyne a precept giuen to the church in generall that what our Sauiour here commands be done as certainly there is a command giuen to the church to conferre Priesthood absolution and extreme Vnction c. and yet noe Bishop or Priest hath in particular any such absolute obligation by reason of his Priesthood only neither is any in particular bound to administer them by a positiue diuine precept giuen directly to them though accidentally they may haue a strickt obligation according to different circumstances to administer the said Sacrament Fourtly though it should be granted that these words doe this c. containe a precept obliging all Christians arriued to yeares of discretion to communicate sometimes yet this toucheth only the receauing vnder the forme of bread if we stand to the expresse words of the institution being said after the consecration of the host and before the chalice And the precept recorded by S. Paul after the chalice is not absolute to consecrate and receaue that but so often as it is drunke to doe it in remembrance of our Sauiour doe this as often as you shall drinke in remembrance of me said our Sauiour Lastly though from the sole force of these words doe this in remembrance of me considered as they stand in Scripture noe forcible argument can be drawn to proue a positiue precept in particular binding euery Christian to receaue sometimes this Sacramēt vnder either or both kindes and though the generall doctrine of the church be that there is noe diuine precept obliging more to receaue the host then the chalice and the coustome of the primitiue church was to giue to some the chalicc noe lesse without the host then to others the host without the chalice and that some late Learned Writers affirme that there is noe such precept conteyned in holy Scripture yet because S. Thomas and the common streame of doctours after him grant a generall precept of receauing this Sacrament to be conteyned in them and that S. Paul seemes to giue sufficient ground to thinke that this command doe this c. was to be extended to the actuall receauing of this Sacrament by the laity by mentioning drinking in the conditionall command of the consecrated chalice and deducing from the institution what preparation all Christians should make to receaue worthily this Sacrament as appeares v. 27. to the end of the chapter and mouued by this authority I grant that all Christians are here commanded sometimes in there liues to frequent this Sacrament yet so that lay people satisfie this precept by receauing one only kind or both according to the order prescribed by the holy Church as shee is mouued by different times or circumstances now to ordaine the receauing of both now of one alone to some the sole host and to others the chalice only for seeing this precept was giuen
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
our Sauiour witnesses that the holy Apostle S. Paul in this place writes against these heretikes S. Epiphanius alsoe witnesses that Simon Mahus excluded our Sauiour from the office of mediatour and put the Angells in his place as the Apostle seemes here to say The Third mistake This text is made contrary to other texts of Scripture THirdly the Religion or worship of Angells here forbidden cannot be all kinde of worship exhibited to them for then this place of Scripture would be contrary to the other which I cited before Gen. 19. v. 1. Iosua 5. v. 14. where Angells were lawfully worshipped and so this place cannot conclude any thing against vs for if some worship may be lawfully giuen to Angells notwithstanding this place it can neuer be proued from hence that the worship we giue them is forbidden vnlesse it be first proued to be vnlawfull which can neuer be deduced from this generall prohibition And if any one should obiect here that seeing this word threskeia signifyes religion and vvorship thence may be gathered that all vvorship appertayning to Religion or all religius worship is forbidden to be giuen to Angells I answer that if wee take religion and religious worship as it is strictly and presly taken amongst the Doctours in its prime and formall acception for a vertue whereby due honour is giuen immediately to God it is true that all such religion or religious worship is there forbidden to be giuen to Angells and in this sense noe Catholike teaches that religious worship is to be giuen to Angells or any creature but only to the creatour of all things because he only it true God but if by religion or religious worship be vnderstood in a larger sense a vertue or reuerence belonging to religion and exceeding the bounds of nature and ciuill worship then religious worship to Angells is not forbidden in this place Now that religion may be taken in this larger sense is cleare as I haue allready shewed out of S. Iames now cited chap 1. v. 26. and 27. If any man amongst you seeme to be religiouus and bridleth not his tongue but deceiueth his owne hart this mans religion is vaine Pure religion and vndefyled before God and the father is to visit the fatherlesse and widowes in their afflictions and to keepe himselfe vnspotted from the world Where wee see that actions performed to creatures of piety and mercy are called religion and are religious actions and so this worship though it be done to creatures may according to the phrase of Scripture be called religious worship at least in this large sense that workes of piety and mercy are called religion or religious actions here by S. Iames. And thus much for the second place Wee are commanded to pray vnto God therefore no presumption but a bounden duty Proofes out of Scripture mistaken Come vnto me all yee that labour and are heauy loaden and I will giue you rest When you pray say our father which art in heauen And what soeuer yee shall aske the father in my name he will giue it you Aske and yee shall haue seeke and yee shall finde knocke and it shall be opened vnto you If the opponent meane here that wee are to pray to God without all presumption of our selues or our own workes for the words are obscure wee most willingly admit this whole obiection and all the proofes of it as most consonant with the doctrine of the Romain Church and only against Pelagian and Semipelagian Heretikes For shee teacheth that the good workes of Gods children are truly good and pleasing to God and meritorious of the increase of grace and eternall glory yet she teaches also that all good workes are the free gifts of God proceeding from his grace and not to be ascribed to any naturall force of ours left to it self which is not able to doe any thing at all pleasing to Allmighty God and so wee cannot glory in our selues but in God only as S. Paul teacheth vs Againe she teacheth that though the good workes of God's children be meritorious as is declared where they are yet no man can be in this life without a particular reuelation infallibly assured that he is the child of God or that he euer did any one worke truly good and pleasing to God and so liues and dyes wholy relying vppon the mercies of God and merits of our deare Sauiours bitter death and Passion of which he is assured by a firme and stedfast hope not presumptuously relying vppon his owne workes whereof he hath no sufficient assurance whereon to found his saluation and so he is kept in a most humble and low esteeme of himselfe and all he euer did through his whole life for it is not the beleeuing that good workes where thy are are meritorious but the beleeuing that wee haue such meritorious workes which can giue any shew of reason to rely vppon them I say beleuing with an infallible faith which Reformers teach for wee may and ought to haue a stedfast hope that through the grace of Christ wee haue done some good workes and meritorious as it is not the assurance that the abundance of mony and gould where it is is able to purchase great possessions but the assurance that one hath such an abundance of gould which makes one confide that he is able to compasse such a purchase and yet though a iust man should infallibly know that he had done workes truly pleasing to God he would not be presumptuous because he knowes they proceede from the grace of God If therefore this be all that is intended by this obiection that wee are commanded to pray to God without all presumption and vppon bounden duty wee haue nothing against it but if hereby be intended that wee are commaunded to pray to God vppon boundē duty and therefore it is noe presumption to pray to him yet so that wee are to pray to him alone as the insuing obiections and proofes seeme to insinuate then wee giue our reasons for the contrary in the insuing answer which will be alsoe common to this only à word or two vnto these fower places cited for proofe of this difficulty thus vnderstood The text of Mat. 11. v. 28. mistaken Come vnro me all yee that labour and are heauie loaden and I will giue you rest THis text is in the mouth of euery ignorant Protestant to proue that wee are neither to pray to saint nor Angell but to Christ alone Come vnto mee saith our Sauiour he bids vs not come vnto Saints ot Angells say some illiterate Scripturistes therefore wee must neither come to Saints nor Angells according to our Sauiours command But how far this discourse is from common sense euery vnderstanding person will easily discouer for to say that our Sauiour bids vs not here come to Saints or Angells expressly is most true but that shewes only that coming to Saints or Angells is not here commanded which no man makes
set down in an other English Catechisme which I haue seene and read in a publike auditory of Protestants The ground therefore of this false imposition if it may be termed a ground may happily haue beene some small short Catechismes made for little children and new beginners for the help of their memories to be learned by hart wherin this commandement as all the rest of the longer commandements set down Exod. 20. Deut. 5. is abridged and brought to so many words as merely serue to expresse the substance of them omitting the rest thus 1. I am the Lord thy God thou shalt not haue any other Gods before me 2. Thou shalt not take the name of the Lord thy God in vayne 3. Remember thou sanctify the festiuall dayes 4. Honour thy father and mother where not only many words adioyned to the command against adoring false Gods or Idols Exod. 20. Deut. 5. but to the three ensuing also are here for breuity's sake omitted setting down in few words the substance and making no mention of the reasons and amplifications found in Exodus and Deuteronomy least were they all sett at large as they are there both the memory of yong children might be ouercharged and their weake vnderstandings confounded not being able to distinguish the substance of the command from the reasons and amplifications of it Now if we deliuered the commandements with this preface as Protestants do in their common prayer booke The same which God spake in the 20. chapter of Exodus saying c. we were obliged to put them all word for word as they are found there For otherwise the commandements would not be answerable to the Title But seeing we find them in other places of Scripture set down in a much briefer manner then they are there and find no precept neither in Scripture nor in the Church to deliuer them to Christians as they are deliuered in Exod. 20. and Deut. 5. rather then in other places our aduersaryes can no more condemne vs of falsefying them when we put them briefer then they can the holy Scripture it selfe for abbreuiating them more in other places then they are in Exodus now cited and Leuiticus That they are thus abbreuiated in Scripture is manifest Leuit. 19. v. 1.2.3 And the Lord spake vnto Moyses saying speake vnto all the congregation of the children of Israel and say vnto them yee shall be holy for I the Lord your God am holy yee shall feare euery man his father and his mother and shall keepe my sabbaths I am the Lord your God yee shall not turne vndo Idols nor make molten Gods I am the Lord your God c. where that which our aduersaryes account the second commandement is put euen shorter then many of our catechismes haue it Turne not your selues vnto Idols nor make vnto your selues molten Gods as it is in Exod. 20. v. 23. Yee shall not make vnto your selues Gods of siluer neither shall yee make Gods of gould Neither indeed is it any way conuenient to deliuer the commandements publikely and generally to Christian people word for word as they stand Exod. 20. Leuitit 26. because therby they are indangered either to take sunday to be saturday or the Iewish Sabbath or must hold themselues obliged to obserue Saturday with the Iewes that alone being dies Sabbati the Sabbath day wherin only God rested after the creation of the world which only he also Sanctifyed and commanded to be kept as clearly appeares by the words of the commandement soe that it is not any seuenth day or one indeterminately euery weeke which God commands to be kept holy in this precept but one only and determinately that is the same seuenth day where in God rested from the worke of the creation as appeares Gen. 2.1.2.3 Et benedixit diei septimo sanctisicauit illum quia in ipso cessauerat ab omni opere suo quod creauit Deus vt faceret And God blessed the seuenth day and sanctified it hecause that in it he had rested from all his workes which God created and made now it is most euident that God rested only vppon one determinate day and that noe other then the Iewish Sabbath or Saturday or if they vnderstand well what day is meant in the commandemenr they must needs be scandalized to see a commandement vniuersally deliuered to them of keeping the Iewish Sabbath which is and euer was Saturday and yet neuer obserued by any of them but Sunday in place of it Hence therefore we see in generall that it is very inconuenient to propose Gods commandements publikely to Christians word for word as they stand in Exodus and so wee can neuer be iustly condemned if we put some of them as they are more briefly deliuered in other places of Scripture or now to be in obseruance amongst Christians But there is an other poynt boggeled at chiefly by the ignorant about the diuision of Gods cōmandements Yee obiect they against vs put the two first commandements into one and diuide the last into two I answere that a Catholike seeing their diuision may with much more reason tell Protestants yee put the two last commandements into one and diuide the first into two Briefly therefore to cleare this poynt it is to be noted that though it be expresly declared in Scripture that Gods commandements were ten in number and written in two tables yet through the whole Bible neuer is it declared which is the first second third c. nor so much as one word spoken concerning the diuision of them but this was left either to tradition or to the prudent determination of Doctours so that howsoeuer they are prudently diuided there will be nothing contrary to Scripture so long as the whol substance be expressed and the number of them be obserued Hence in and euen before S. Augustins tyme as he witnesses there was a double diuision of the commandements amongst Christians some diuiding them as we doe and others as our aduersaryes Yet both S. Augustine himselfe q. 71. in Exod. and S. Hierome Comment in Psalm 32. and Clemens Alexandrinus lib. 6. Stromatum follow our diuision S. Augustin prouing it very largly to be the better and putting in the first commandement Idol not Image and serue not worship and S. Hierome setting down the three commandements conteyned in the first table as short or shorter then any of our Catechismes doe and from them euen to our tymes it seemes to haue beene the receiued diuision at least in the westerne Church and should haue beene followed by those of our nation who euer before the breach were estemeed a part of it and yet pretend to be so had not the spirit of contradiction against the Romain Church induced them to the contrary Now as we haue authority so haue we solid reason to prefer this diuision before that of our aduersaryes for certaine it is that each different commandement forbids a different maine sin so that neither are we to make two
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
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