or to adde any thing to it of their own yet presently vppoÌ„ it in the very next objection the word of God is glossed and somthing added which is their own and not God's word Christ saith the objection hauing said that that which he gaue was his Body added prâ—sently that it is a remembrance or coÌ„memoration thereof where I pray you in the whole Scripture finde you that our Sauiour sayd in expresse and plaine words as you affirme he saith that which I sayd was my Body is a commemoration or remembrance of my Body or where stands this written in God ' word This is a commemoration of my Body or where in the whole Bible find you that our Sauiour so much as once pronounced these words The commemoration of my Body Certainly in the whol new Testament no such expresse words as these are to be found Seeing therfore our Sauiour sayes in expresse and plaine words This is my Body and neuer sayes in as expresse termes that is to say a commemoration or remembrance of my Bady nor so much as once names the commemoration of his Body is it not to glosse the word of God and adde some thing of your own to affirme that he says what he neuer sayd nor named in the whole new Testament If therefore you stick to your rule iust now deliuered of beleeuing the expresse word of God without all glosse or addition you must stedfastly beleeue without all scruple that out Sauiour gaue his true Body to his disciples seeing what you say of the commemoration of his Body is no where our Sauiours expresse words but your own glosse and addition to them If you answer that though he says not in as expresse words that what he gaue to his disciples was a commemoration of his Body as he says This is my Body yet that may be gathered to be his meaning by other words giue me leaue to reply first that supposing any such matter could be gathered from his words which I will presently proue to be false yet the consequence or collection drawn from an others words is not to be preferred before his direct cleare and expresse words to the contrary and if you will follow the rule of good interpreters you must expound the more obscure words by the more cleere and expresse and not the coÌ„trary as you doe here Secondly when you draw from other words of our Sauiour this consequence that he meant that that which he called his body was as much as to say commemoration or remembrance of his Body either you haue some expresse place of Scripture which warrants that consequence to be good and that place must be alleaged which will he as hard to find as the other proposition this is a commemoration of my Body neither the one nor the other being any where in Scripture or you must beleeue some thing with a Christian faith as you professe to beleeue this consequence which not withstanding is not in Scripture which is contrary to your own principle of beleeuing nothing which is not in the written word of God and if this consequence be not in the written word of God then it is framed only by your own discours and iudgement what impiety then would it be to preferre your own discours before the expresse words of our Sauiour and to expound them and draw them from theyr own naturall proper and direct sense to an improper and figuratiue by a coÌ„sequence gathered by humane discours only neither expressed nor warranted to be good expressely in any place of Scripture Thirdly that I may giue a full and compleat answer to this objection so frequently in the mouth of euery ProtestaÌ„t I denie that our Sauiour euer speake or meant our could possibly meane that that which his Apostles did eate and he affirmed to be his body was only a commemoration of his Body or that by these words my Body is vnderstood a commemoration of my Body That this may appeare I only contend for the present that in time of our Sauiours institution of the Sacrament at the last super that which the Apostles did then receiue and eate was for that time not affirmed to be a remembrance of his Body nor did our Sauiour speake any words in the said institution where by he signified that he gaue then to his apostles a remembrance or commemoration of his body which if I proue I conuince euidently against the obiection that our Sauiour not hauing euer said or meant it to be a commemoration of his body and so these words doe this in remembrance of me being noe explication of the former word This is my Body gaue his true and reall body substaÌ„tially present vnder the forme of bread to his Apostles in his last supper and consequently that it is still giuen in the same manner to all true Christians in this Sacrament I haue proued and the obiection it selfe confesses that these words taken in themselues and without relation to any thing going before are to be vnderstood of the reall body of Christ and that our Sauiour said that the thing which he had in his hands was his body I will now proue that this plane and cleere signification of these words as they sound is not hindred or taken away by any thing following these words The maine ground where vppon is built the obiection for the figuratiue explication of these words is this that our Sauiour sayes This is my Body which is gIuen for you this doe in remembrance of me and S. Paul This is my Body which is broken for you doe this in remembrance of me From these textes the obiection gathers this consequence that our Sauiour saith that that which he calles in the former part of the senteÌ„ce in expresse words his Body in this latter he calles by way of explication the remembrance or commemoration of his Body So that by these words my Body he meant the remembrance or commemoration of my body and indeed if our Sauiour had expressely said thus This is usy Body that is the cowmemoration or remembrance of my Body the difficulty had beene at an end but this was neither said nor meant by him but imposed vppon him by a false glosse and grosse mistake of Protestants for to say doe this in remembrance of me and to say this is a remembrance of my Body are as different as to say when one friend lends a booke vnto an other read this in remembrance of me and this is a remembrance of my Body which euery child will see to be quite different and if any one should say that these two sayings were the same in meaning and signification he would either be thought to haue no wit or to haue lost what he had for the one speakes of an action which passes doe or read this the other of a thing permanent this thing or this booke the one speakes of a worke done in remembrance the other affirmes a thing to be a remembrance the one speakes
twelue seates iudging the twelue tribes of Israell And S. Paul Know you not that the Saints shal iudge the world if the world shall be iudged by you are you vnworthie to iudge of small matters Know you not that vvee shall iudge the Angells how much more things of this life And S. Iohn brings in the 24. Elders saying thou hast made vs a kindome and Priestes and vve shall reigne vppon the earth whence most clearly appeares that the Saints in heauen haue those two highest dignities which are in esteeme amongst men of Iudges and Kings of the whole world which notwithstanding is aboue the power of all mortall men to confer vppon them and only in the power of God and therefore these iudiciary and Royall powers must be of a higher ranck and order then are any dignities meerely ciuill humane and naturall And the like dignities are ascribed in holy writ to the Angells for our Sauiour calls them holy Angells and soe they must haue true holinesse wihch is a gift of God aboue the force of nature They were the Promulgers of the ould lavv the Embassadours of God in matters of highest concernment the inflicters of Gods punischments Gen. 19.1 Reu. 15. trough out The captaines generalls of the armies of God Iosua 5.14 The Gouerners controulers of kingdomes Dan. 10.12.13.14 The. deuiders of the Reprobate from the elect in the day of Iudgment Mat. 13.49 And the Sendres of the wicked in to hell fier ibidem with many such like dignities and preheminences all great and high in them selues and aboue the reach both of all humane and Angelicall nature bestowed freely vppon them through the liberality of God And as this supernaturall excellency is found in Saints and Angells soe is it ascribed all soe to other things in Scripture to which God hath freely communicated certaine blessings and priuileges Thus we read in Iosua Loose the shoes from thy feete for the place where thou standest is holy And in Exodus Loose thy shoes from thy feete sor the place where thou standest is holy ground Thus the bread of the temple is called holy bread and sanctifyed bread The Temple is called holy yea soe holy that our sauiour saith that the temple Sanctisieth the gold which is in it and the Alter sanctifieth the gift which is offered vppon it Thus the most inward place of the temple had noe other name then Sanctam Sanctorum the holy of holies that is the most holy place of the whole world The holinesse of these and the like things where in soeuer it consisted issued not from any ciuill or humane power but was drawne from the power and authority of God as authour of the true Sauing religion of those times Thus I haue made it cleare out of Scripture that there is a worth a dignity a power an excellency which is meerely created and infinitely inferiour to the attributes and perfections of God and yet far excelling all ciuill and humane worth and aboue the reatch sphere and force of all ciuill power and authority The most cleare rule to the capacity of the vulgar to distinguish ciuill worths and excellencies from Spirituall and supernaturall is that those which are common to the true religion with all other kinds and professions of men are only ciuill and naturall such as are wit vnderstanding knowledge learning eloquence nobility valour Gouernment Magistracy c. But those which are proper to the true religion are Spirituall and Supernaturall as are the dignity of a Saint in heauen of an Angell a holy man yet liuing a Prophet an Appostle a Bishop a Priest a Godfather a God mother c. And because these and the likc excellencies are proper to religion they may in a large sence be termed religious excellencies or dignities· That this may be better vnderstood the Reader may take notice that the word Religion may eyther be taken in a strict sense for the vertue of Religion as it is distinguished from othet infused and supernaturall vertues whereby true worship and honour is giuen to God or in a more large and generall sence for the whole profession of those who esteeme them selues to haue the true sauing way of seruing God and attaining Saluation And this is the more obuious and vulgar vnderstanding of this word Religion thus we commonly say the Catholicque Religion c. that is theyr whole beleefe and profession In the first strict and and rigid sense Religion is taken amongst the Schoole doctours when they dispute of the nature of infused vertues and in the like sense it is often taken in the bookes of Moyses Exod. 12.26.43 Exod. 29.9 Leuit. 26.31 n. 19.2 where it is restrayned eyther to sacrifice or or some other worshrp of God In the Second more large acception it is found both in the old and new testament Hester 8.17 Soe that many of an other nation and sect ioyned them selues to theyr Religion and ceremonies Hester 9.27 Vppon all those who would vnite them selues to theyr Religion Acts 26.3 Saint Paul saith that before his conuersion Hee liued a Pharesie according to the most certaine sect of his Religion Iames e. 2. If any one seeme to be religious and bridleth not his tongue this mans religion is vaine In which texts it is manifest that Religion is taken for the whole beleefe and Profession both of Iewes and Christians Hence it followes that as the word Religion soe the word Religious deriued from it may be taken in the two fore said differēte senses yet I find it vsually in Scripture in the secōd larger acception where a Religious Persone signifies nothing but a person truly deuout vertuous and fairhfull Thus Acts 2.5 But there vvere dvvelling in Ierusalem Ievves Religious men of all nations vvhieh are vnder heauen And Acts 10.2 where it is said of Cornelius that he vvas Religious and fearing God vvith his vvhole houshould giuing many almes to the common people and all vvayes praying God And Acts 13.50 The Iewes stirred vp certaine Religious and honest woemen and the chiefe of the citty c. And Iames the 1.26 If any man seeme to himselfe to be Religious not bridling his tongue this mans Religion is vaine where Religious is taken for pious vertuous c. For ells the ill gouernment of the tongue would not hinder a true exercise of the vertue of religion strictly vnderstood as it differs from other theologicall and morall vertues as it hinders not the true exercise of faith and hope as they are particular vertues This large acception therefore of these words Religion and Religious being soe clearely deliuered in Scripture It will be sufficient for defence of the Catholique Romaine faith in this point to affirme that when our Doctours say that any thing created may be or is worshipped with Religious worship that it is Religious in this large acception found soe familiarly in Scripture that is vertuous pious christian a worship belonging to our Religion proper to
same iustification which is mentioned by S. Paul to the Romanes which they mainly contend to be a true iustification in the sight of God or if they will haue it here a iustification only before men they must acknowledge that the same mentioned to the Romanes is no other then before men and so by endeauoring by such shifts to weaken the force of this text against themselues they take away all force from that of Rom. 4. to conclude any thing against vs. Besides this iustification of Abraham here mentioned by S. Iames can be no other then that which is true and interuall before God for as it followes in the text he was called a friend of God and that truly for he was indeede as he was called a friend of God and hence it follows ineuitably that the iustification which S. Iames deduces from that of Abraham by works and not by faith only as appeares by the word then wee see then c. is a true intrinsecall iustification in the sight of God for no other saue that could be rightly inferred from the former And indeed though we had none of the foresayd euidences to conuince the true meaning of S. Iames yet what man of iudgment can imagine that this holy Apostle would labour so much to proue that Christians are iustifyed by their good works before men when that is a matter too cleare and known to need proofe and too light and friuolous to deserue it or what considerate man can thinke that this Blessed Apostle or the holy Ghost by whose inspiration he writ this would so earnestly exhort Christians to abound in good works to the end that they may be iustifyed before men seeing corrupt human nature is too too prone to doe good workes for such by endes as these and hath more need of a bridle then a spurre in this particular and rather to be deterred from it then put vppon it as our Sauiour did the Stribes and Pharisees who did their works to be seene and consequently to be praysed and iustifyed before men This text therefore hauing been demonstrated to be meant of iustification before Allmighty God by works and not by faith only seeing S. Paul inspired by the same holy Spirit in what is cited out of him in the insuing text cannot possibly contradict S. Iames here as he must needs be thought to haue done if he sayd as Protestants would haue it that we are iustifyed in the sight of God by faith only and not by good works working with faith and perfecting it informing and vinificating it as S. Iames describes them here we will now see in what sense S. Paul's words are to be vnderstood and reconcile them with this text of S. Iames. The Protestant Position Iustification by faith only This is proued by Scripture mistaken Therefore wee conclude that a man is iustifyed by faith without the works of the law Being iustifyed by faith we haue peace with God through our Lord Iesus Christ. For therein is the righteousnesse of God reuealed from faith to faith as it is written the iust shall liue by faith Knowing this that a man is not iustifyed by the works of the law but by the faith of Christ Iesus that we might be iustifyed by Iesus Christ and not by the works of the law for by the works of the law shall no liuing flesh be iustifeyd The first mistake The word only is not found in any of these texts In all these texts is not once the words faith only to be found which is put in this Protestant Position was to be proued by them Neither iâ— iâ— consequent a man is iustifyed by faith without the works of the law therefore a man is iustifyed by faith only no more then this follows a man is nourished by bread without the grasse of the field therefore a man is nourished by bread only for though the grasse of the feeld do not nourish vs yet many other things besides bread de nourish vs. in like manner though the woreks done by force of the grace of God and not by force of the law do iustify vs and so we are not iustifyed by saith only nor at all by the works of the law but by faith and good works done by the grace of Iesus Christ and not by the kâ—owledge of rhe law The Second mistake The workes of the law misunderstood That S. Paul here vnderstands only by works of the law such works as are done by force and knowledge of the law before the faith of Christ infused into a soul or that it is inlightned and assisted by his grace and by this law is vnderstood the law written in the books of Moyses both morall in the ten Commandements and ceremoniall as circumcision and other rites and ceremonyes of the Iewes That by works of the law I say are vnderstood by S. Paul only such works as are done by force of knowledge of the law befotc the inlightning of the faith and grace of Christ is euident out of this chapter Rom. 3. v. 14. Now we know that what things soeuer the law sayth it sayth to thcm that are vnder the law that euery mouth may be stopped and all the world may become guilty before God Here he speakes of the law speaking or teaching what is to be done according to it and then adds presently as a conclusion from that knowledge got by the law v. 10. therefore by tbe deeds of the law no flesh shall be iustifyed in his sight for by the law is the knowledge of sin The reason why the deeds of the law iustify not is because they come from the knowledge of the law by the law is the knowledge of sin wherunto he opposes the tighteousnesse of God which is by faith of Iesus Christ vnto all in the first texts following verses 21. but now the righteousnetre of God without the law is manifested being witnessed by the law and Prophets v. 22. euen the righteousnesse of God which is by faith of Iesus Christ unto all and vppon all them that beleeue for there is no difference This is the known doctrine of all Roman Catholikes against the Pelagians that no worke can iustify which comes only by doctrine and light of the written law but all iustifying works must come from the faith and grace of Christ so that we all confesse and conclude with S. Paul that a man is iustifyed by faith vvithout the vvorkes of the lavv that is wirhout such works as are meerly of and from the law as are opposed here by S. Paul to the grace and faith of Christ. Secondly by the law in this place is vnderstood both the motall law written by Moyses in the ten Commandements and the ceremoniall conteyned in the bookes of Leuiticus Deuteronomij c. for the morall law Protestants themselues doubt not that the Apostle speakes of it and that the ceremonial is here meant is euident in the two next following Verses
which followes after that he tooke bread or doe this in remembrance of me so they will forget c. Answer How farre this is from truth cleerely appeares by what our approued authours write in this point who most exactely exanime all precedents and consequences belonging to these words which also I haue hetherto indeauored to doe in this treatis Obiection So they will forget that this cup which our Sauiour said was his blood was after consecration called by him the new Testament for that it was a holy signe of the new Testament Answer The obiecter would make vs to be of a very short memory should we forget these words which vsually we pronounce euery day in saying Masse we therefore remember very well that our Sauiour sayd according to S. Luke and S. Paul This cup is the new Testament in my blood but we remember not that either S. Luke or S. Paul or any other writer of holy Scripture euer alleadged this reason here mentioned in the obiection that this sacred cup was called by our Sauiour the new Testament in his blood for that it was a holy signe of the new Testament and I would gladly haue any Protestant helpe the weakenesse of our memory by producing any clere text of Scripture where this reason is giuen and if there be noe such to be found as vndoubtedly there is not then they must giue vs leaue to esteeme this explication according to their own principles groundlesse and noe way belonging to Christian faith but a mere glosse framed from their naturall discours or rather a pure mistake grown from their ignoranee of the true meaning of the word new Testament here according to the Scriptures acception of that word which that it may appeare We must not by new Testament here vnderstand as many ignorant readers of Scriptures may and doe happily misconceaue the bookes of the Gospel commonly called the new Testament for none of those were then written neither is there any one of vnderstanding who will thinke that the cup which our Sauiour had in his hand was a signe of the bookes of the new Testament much lesse that by new Testament in our Sauiours blood should be vnderstood a signe of the said bookes Secondly we must conceaue that the very same thing may be a signe in respect of one thing and an essentiall and substantiall part in regard of another thus words and sentences are signes of the inward thoughts and affections of the speaker but part of his outward discours and in this manner the words new Testament were a signe of our Sauiours internall will and intention but withall were a necessary part of the compleat Testament of the new law then inacted by our Sauiour and so beare the name of the whol Testament as we shall presently see I answer therefore to the obiection and deny that by new Testament is vnderstood a signe of the new Testament but truly really though partially the new Testament it selfe solemnised by our Sauiour in his last supper not long before his death and that in his own most precious blood there properly receaued and diuided amongst his Apostles whereby he certified and obliged himselfe to be the authour head protectour defendour of his law and all those who should truly professe it by giuing what he held in his hands to the Apostles and they testified and obliged themselues and all Christians representatiuely to teach professe and continue in that law by receauing and diuiding of it amongst them Now to make cleare what I haue sayd wee must also know in generall what a Testament is In latin it is called testamentum of wose etymologie Iustinianus Instit. de testamentis ordinandis sayes Testamentum ex eo appellatur quòd testatio mentis sit it is called a testament because it is the testification of our mynde or will so that a true testament includes two thinges a reall minde and intention to doe what we testify and an outward testification of what we intend or oblige our selues to doe so that neyther this outward testimony without the inward will nor the inward will without the outward testifying of it can be compleatly termed a testament not the inward will alone because that cannot be vnderstood amongst men vnlesse it be externally testifyed not the outward testimony alone because it must haue something reall which it testifyes but the outward testification as corresponding to the inward will and exhibiting it to others is a testament now all kindes of externall significations of our wills ot intentions are not sufficient but such as signify by way of a compleate confirmation that the will of him who makes this testament is such as it is signifyed there to be and hence it is that so many witnesses subscriptions seales and other solemnityes are not mere signes buts parts of the testament as the pronuntiation of the wordes in a sermon though it be a signe of the minde of a preacher yet it is essentially required as a part of the sermon Now this outward part of the testament or last compliment or confirmation of it was accustomed to be exhibited in bloud as witnesses Liuie speaking of a solemne league or testament made betwixt the Romans and the Albans and no lesse Moyses in Exodus speaking of the testament or pact made betwixt Allmighty God and the Israëlites vnto which our Sauiour may we haue alluded in the institution of the chalice vsing according to the first two Euangelists the very same phrase or maner of speech This is the bioud of the testament which our Lord hath made with you c. This is my bloud of the new Testawent c. the word testament is in Hebrew 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Berith and in Greeke 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 diatheke and though the Hebrew word signify a pact league or solemne promise mutually obligatory betwixt two parties and the Greeke word a testament or last will of a person before his death and confirmed by it as S. Paul sayes Hebr. 9. yet because that last will is the most solemne and strong of all other pacts or leagues the Greeke word diatheke often signifyes a pact or promise mutuall in Scripture And the Septuaginta translate the Hebrew Berith by the Greeke diatheke as S. Hierome notes Zachar 9.11 and Psal. 82.1 Mach. 1. and often the English Protestant translations for berith put testament thus they call the arke of Moyses the arke of the testament Berith in Hebrew Seeing therefore in the 24. of Exodus the bloud is there sprinkled first vppon the aultar which supplyed the place of God and then amongst all the people wherby as Interpretours and ancient authours obserue was signifyed that the bloud of that party who first broke this pact or testament should be shed and dispersed as that was and that our Sauiour in S. Matthew and S. Marke commāded his bloud to be deuided amongst his disciples drinke yee all of this ir is so farre from
tymes after consecration for it follows no more that therefore it should be pure bread remayning as it was before the words of consecration then that the water remained in its own nature after it was made wyne because after the change it is called water Neither doth yet S. Paul if his words be well marked say that the consecrated hoast is naturall and common bréad such as it was before fit to be eaten at an ordinary table as the Protestants must grant it not to be for at the least it is sacramentall bread and consecrated to a religious and holy vse according to them and therefore though he had put the same word bread before and after consecration yet it follows not that the signification of that word after consecratiâ—n should be the same with the signification of the same before consecration for before it signifyes common ordinary naturall and vsuall bread but after sacramentall significant coÌ„memoratiue holy diuine bread according to Protestants and therefore if Ptotestants must confesse that though the word be the same yet the signification is not the same why blame they Romane Catholicques if they giue the same answer saying that by the word bread in S. Paul before consecration or blessing is meant the substance of naturall and vsuall bread but after consecration supernaturall heauenly spirituall diuine bread which our Sauiour termeth himselfe to be in the sixt of S. Iohn six or seauen different tymes and which euery Christian chiefly begs of God in the Pater noster or Lords prayer saying giue vs this day our dayly bread for it is to be noted that bread in greeke familiarly in holy Scripture is taken for all manner os meate and not for bread only as it is distinct from all other meates But to make it yet clearer that S. Paul did not meane naturall bread remaning in its own substaÌ„ce as it was before when he called the Sacrament bread after it was consecrated or designed for a part of that holy mystery it is particularly to be reflected on that in this acceptioÌ„ he neuer calls it absolutly bread but allways with in article determinatiue or restrictiue referring it to that which consecration had made it and so he calls it this bread this cup that bread that cup to wit which was held for a Sacrament and mystery amongst Christians by force of our Sauiours words and to put vs out of all doubt that it was not that naturall bread and wine which it was before it was consecrated he clearly calls it the bread of our Lord and the cup of our Lord v. 29. wherfore whosoeuer shall eate this bread and drinke this cup of our Lord vnworthily c. and as we gather Ioan. 6. v. 48. that when our Sauiour termed the bread whereof he spoke there the bread of life he meant not naturall and visible bread but supernaturall and diuine in the same manner are we to gather from the words of S. Paul that by the like phrase the like bread is signifyed and as our Sauiour termes that bread wherof he spake Io. 6. v. 51.58 this bread to distinguish it from naturall and vsuall bread and to signify that he thereby meant his true body so also doth S. Paul here neyther can it more be gathered from the being tetmed bread by S. Paul that is naturall and substantiall bread then it can be gathered from the canon of our masse that wee beleeue it to be the substance of bread because it is often called bread in the said canon after consecration Objection If by this word bread so often repeated by the Apostle he should vnderstand flesh were not he worthy to be blamed to entertayne the people in errour since he knew that sense and reason giueth in euidence that it is bread which man naturally beleeues would he not rather haue aduertised vs to hold our senses in suspension and to beleeue that it is his flesh though it seemeth bread then to ioyne himselfe with the report of our senses calling it alwayes bread without any explication Answer We are not to prescribe to the holy Ghost what he is to disclose to the writers of diuine Scripture he could haue deliuered many other mysteries of our faith in clearer words in the holy Scripture then he hath done if it had seemed good in his diuine Prouidence and therefore though he command vs not here in expresse termes to deny our senses and to beleeue that it is his flesh though it seeme bread as some holy fathers haue done with in the first fiue hundred yares yet he calles it as expressly the body of Christ as he calls it bread and seeing we finde bread often to be taken in a spirituall sense in holy Scripture for the food of out soules but neuer finde the body of Christ which is giuen for vs to be any other then his reall true Body one would thinke that the darker or more doubtfull word should in any reasonable mans iudgement yeeld to the more cleare and certaine and be interpreted by it then the contrary which is here alleadged and though our Sauiour call his flesh bread twice as often as S. Paul calls that which was consecrated bread here Ioannis 6. yet no man dare from thence argue that his flesh was not true flesh but corporall and materiall bread And if S. Paul by calling it so often bread after consecration should ioyne himselfe with the report of our senses as the opponent here affirmes he would draw vs also to thinke that it is mere naturall and vsuall bread after consecration as it was before and therefore we may apply the same objection in almost the same wordes against Protestants which here is brought against vs in this manner If by this word bread so often repeated by the Apostle he should vnderstand a Saerament or mystery as it is beleeued to be amonst all Christians were he not worthy to be blanted to entertaine the people in errour since he knew that sense and reason giueth in euidence that it is vsuall and common bread which man naturally beleeues would he not rather haue aduertised vs to hold our senses in suspention and to beleeue that it is sacramentall and spirituall bread though it seeme vsuall bread then to ioyne himselfe with the report of our senses calling it always bread without any explication Thus whilst Protestants frame arguments fitter for Infidells then Christians against vs they neuer consider what force the like arguments haue against themselues But it is very vntrue that S. Paul called it bread without any explication or that he any way draws vs to what our senses would iudge if they were left to themselues but eleuates our thoughts vnto faith telling vs that it is panis calix Domini the bread and cup of our Lord which our Sauiour confesses himselfe to be Iohn the sixt and besides that he who eats this bread and drinketh this cup of our Lord vnwortily shall he guilty of the body and
and formes of bread in the Sacrament how shall wormes be generated from the hoast corrupted or putrifyed seeing they must consist of matter and forme and so be produced of some materiall substance Answer If there were nothing but humaine nature in Christ as man without humaine personality how could it performe the actions of a person seeing all other actions of men proceed from theyr persons and not from theyr natures as the compleate principle of them You will say the diuine personality supplyed the place of humaine personality in Christ and I say that diuine power supplies the place of nature in this Sacrament in producing a matter after the species of bread be corrupted and the body of our Sauiout ceases to be vnder them Obiection But how can an accident performe the office of a substance Answer But how can the personality of one persone performe the office of the personality of an other Obiection God vnited the diuine personality to humane nature and so it subsists by it as supplying the want of its own Answer God vnites a matter produced at the exigency of nature to thé accidents which were of bread which in the production of wormes from a putrifyed hoast supplyes the want of theyr own These to my best remembrance are the cheefe difficulties which according to the principles of naturall reason our Aduersaries commonly presse against vs in this mistery in answer wherof I haue playnly shewed that they themselues must answer as great or greater difficultyes which may be opposed by heathens and Infidells against other articles of our faith which they beleeue let them therefore eyther desist to moue any such heathnish objections as these against the reall presence or acknowledge that whilst they presse these against it they giue iust occasion to an Infidell to presse the like against themselues which when they haue solued in other mysteries they will haue solu'd theyr own against this Before I end this controuersie I will summe vp briefly what I haue said at large in this treatis that the Reader may haue a full sight of it at one Vew first I haue according to my former methode cited the doctrine of the Concil of Trent whence clearly appeares that it conteynes nothing grosse and Capernaiticall as Protestants commonly are made beleeue but a most heauenly pure mysticall liuing and ineffable presence Secondly I haue cited the words of the Euangelists and S. Paul touching the Institution which are not only most clere in themselues as I haue proued but are iudged soe to be both by Martin Luther in his first Tome printed at Iena an 1589. Concione 3. de Confessione Sacramento Eucharistiae parte 2. pag. 329. where after he had cited the words of the Euangelists he saith thus Haec sunt verba quae neque ipsi neque etiam Sathan negare poterit in quae figendus pes est vt firmiter in iis consistamus Sunt autem nuda planissima quae nullis interpretationibus eludi possunt Quòd panis sit Christi corpus pro nobis traditum calix Christi sanguis pro nobis effusus iubemur illa facere in commemoratione ipsius These are words which neyther they he meanes Romane Catholicques nor Sathan can denie vppon which wee are to fix our foote that we may stand immouuable in them For they are naked and most plaine which cannot be shifted of by any Interpretations That bread is the body of Christ which is giuen for vs and the cup the blood of Christ which is shed for vs and that we are commanded to doe them in remembrance of him Thus Luther which though he here affirmes to proue his errours of Consubstantiation and Communion in both kindes against vs yet withall he clearely confesses that the words are most plaine for the reall presence of Christs true body and blood in this holy Sacrament which he allwayes held These texts also are so vndeniably clere for the reall Presence that Zuinglius the first authour of the Sacramentaries changed the word in all the Euangelists and S. Paul 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in Greeke est in Latin in these words This is my Body this is my blood into significat thus this signisies my body this signifies my blood and so printed them in his Bible dedicated to Francis King of France and printed at Tiguris anno 1525. as witnesses Conradus Sclussenburgh a learned Protestant in Theologiâ Caluinistarum Ie. 2. ar 3. fol. 43. And Zuinglius himselfe approuues of this his translation to 2. de verâ falsâ religione c. 5. fol. 210. And Beza Translating those words of S. Luke qui pro vobis effunditur which is powred out for you puts them thus in greeke 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Hoc poculum quod pro vobis effunditur this chalice which is powred out for you and in his Latin translation he puts them thus hoc poculum c. in sanguine meo qui pro vobis effunditur which blood is powred out for you referring the word this to blood and not to chalice quite contrary to the Greeke construction which not withstanding he confesses to haue found in all the ancient Greeke copies which he had read and hauing noe other shift to auoyd the force of these words as they stand in all these Greeke copies acknowledging that they make quite against him he is put to that desperate insolensie as to say that these words which chalice is powred out for you haue crept out of the margent into the text by negligēce of writers and soe are not the word of God soe Bezaes translation Greeke and Latin printed by Henry Steenen anno 1565. Thirdly I haue discouered clerely the sundry grosse mistakes of Scripture in the words it take eate this doe this in remembrance c. Fourtly I haue shewed the mistakes in the parities brought of I am a dore a vine a way c. Fiftly I haue layd open the mistakes in the instances of other Sacraments and figuratiue speeches alleadged by the opponent in the old Testament and many such like misapplications The maine things where in I stand are that the words of S. Luke are soe clere that Beza hath noe way to auoyd the force of them then by saing that they crept out of the Margent into the text though he confesses to haue found them as he cites them in all the Greeke Copies which he had seene And secondly that seeing these words This is my Body which is giuen for you may most easily and connaturally be vnderstood in a most proper sense without violating any other article of our faith or plaine place of holy Scripture that they must be soe vnderstood onlesse wee will take away all force from Scripture to proue any thing and destroy the fundamētall rule not only of Interpretation of Scripture but of all humaine conuersation which is that euery one is so be vnderstood to speake properly when nothing constraynes to the
good workes 162.163.164 concerning good workes 52.53 Concerning Purgatory 179.180 Of the reall Presence 189.190 c. Concerning communion vnder one kinde 317.318 to 322. The second Council of Nice concerning Images 83. Communion in one kinde supposes the reall Presence 323. How the cup is the fruit of the vine 257.258 c. D. â—he DIuinity of God neuer pictured by Romane Catholiques 72.73 Doe this c. Signified nothing to be done in time of the Institution Doe this c. cannot be extended to lay men 347. to 350. Doulia is indifferently taken in Scripture for the worship of God and of creature 33.34.35 Drinke yee all signifies not all Christians 34. to 346. F. FAith only Iustifieth not prouued by Scripture 143.144 c. Faith ioynd with other vertues the disposition to the first iustification 138.139 153. The flesh Io. 6. cannot signifie the flesh of Christ. 303. G. Some GLory may be giuen to creatures but not that which is proper to God 26.27 I. IF all worship of Image weere forbidden one place of Scripture would be coÌ„trary to annother 110.111 Image put for Idol 105. a grauen Image signifies a false God in the Protestant Bibles 119. The name of Iesus is as much worshipped by Protestants as the picture of Iesus by Catholiques 28. VVhat an Idol properly is 8.81 VVhat in Image properly is 80.81 The difference betwixt an Image and an Idol 82.83 How Images are to be worshipped 124.125 Grauen Image scarce euer put in Protestant Bibles but in place of words which signifie Idoles or false Gods Image-worship for Idolatry 105.106 Image added to Scripture 95.96 98.101 c. The worship done to the Image redounds to the persone represented proued by Scripture 132.133 Iustification not acquired but increased by good workes 152. VVhat relation Images haue to God the Fader and the holy Gost. 75.76.77 K. In one KInde is a true Sacrament conferring grace 326. to 3 n0 How these words onlesse yee eate c. Io. 6. declare the necessity of receiuing both kindes 351. to 355. L. LAy people are depriued of noe grace necessary to saluation by wanting one kinde 328.329 334. How one kinde is a compleate refection 332.333 How the actuall sacrament all graces of both kindes are giueÌ„ by each apart 335. 340. Noe lay man is bound some limes in his life to receiue vnder the forme of wine eyther ioynly with the other kinde or separately 397.398 How the Lamb is called the Passouer 289. to 293. Latria is allwayes vsed in Scripture when it is brought for religious worship for the worship dew to God only 32.33.34 How eternall life is a gift of God 171.172 Luther thought the words of consecration most cleare 313. M. MEdiatour and Aduocate of 2. sortes 60.91.62.63 Merit of good workes takes not a way humility 175. P. The Hebrew word Phesel Exod. 20. falssly translaeed Image 84.85 Phesel translated Idol in some Protestant Bibles Isay 44. 85. Protestants pray as much to sinners on earth as Catholiques to Saincts in heauen 58.59 Protestants worship bread and wine as much as Romane Catholiques worship Images 129.130 Protestants themselues esteeme it not necessary to saluation to communicate vnder both kindes Diuisions amongst Protestants and not amongst Catholiques in matter of the vnderstâ—ding Christ words 243.244 Protestants beare little or noe reuerence to the bloud of Christ in this Sacrament 367. Protestants frame a most meane opinion of the Body and the blood of Christ. 365.366 Noe Scripture against Purgatory 182.183 c. Proofes out of Scripture for Purgatory 187. Six mistranstations in Ex. 20.4 in the Protestant Bibles 91.92.93.94 R. REligion and Religious taken in 2. senses in Scriptuâ—re 21.22.23.24.25 That which our Sauiour gaue his Apostles in his last supper could be noe remembrance of his Body 222.223 c. How any thing may be a remembrance of it selfe 227.228.229 How the Rock is called Christ. 295. to 296. S. SAcraments according to theyr essentiall parts are to be receiued as they were instituted whensoeuer they are receiued 325. The bare institution of a Sacrament induces to necessity no receiue it 3. Saincts and Angels prayree to God for vs are herad only trough the merits of Christ. 58. 62. The worship of liuingâ—Saints as much forbiddeÌ„ in Scripture as of Angels 35.36 VVhensoeuer by praires we come to the Saints we come mediately but truly to Christ. 56.57 Iintreating the Saints to pray for vs is not a necessary meanes but a profitable helpe to saluation 1.2.3 65. Saints indowed with supernaturall graces 16.17.18 Saturday commanded to be Kept holy Ex. 20.116.117 The vvords of Scripture are allways to be vnderstood properly vvhen noe other article of faith compells vs to the contrary 315.416 The Scriptures allowes of praying to Saints departed and Angels 66.67.68 Noe text in Scripture saies expressly that vve are iustified hy faith only 149. c. Scripture mistranflated 78.79.80.81 88.89 and from 95. to 127.128 Scripture eyther mistranflated or misinterpreted or missapplied or misused or augmented or altered or reiected and generally mistaken one vvay or other by Protestants per totum The seauenth day not Sunday but Saturday and the Iewish Sabbath 116. All Seruice is not dew to God only 29.30 T. VVhat is meant by new Testament 235.236 c. Testament in my blood is not to fay signe of my blood 239. Threskia signifies not vvorshipping but Religion 45.46.47 Perpetuall tradition teaches that some allwayes receiued vnder one kinde 370. Objections drawn from naturall reason against Transubstantiation breefly answeared 306.312 The torment of dearh or of triall of malefactors touches not souls of the iust 158. W. WHat the word this signifies in these vvords this is my Body 107.108 c. VVords haue two significations ancient and now in vse 30. ciuil and Ecclesiasticall 31.32 VVords of Scripture are not to be extended beyond theyr ordinary signification vvithout necessity 361. to 364. VVhen vvords spoaken to the Apostles are to be extended to others and how farre 334.344 The vvords of consecration vvholy true according to Catholiques 245.246 The vvord est is cannot be signifies 301. VVhich are workes of the law 149.150 c. and 156.157.158 c. All Good workes and vvords are the gifts of God 164. God workes vvhich are fruits faith are pleasing and acceptable to God in Christ according to English Protestants 167. The difference betwixt vvorship serue 123. To vvorship God is not to vvorship him only 6.7.8.9 vvorship of 3. kindes 9.10.11 Religious worship strictly taken dew to God only 11.12 Taken in a large sense may be giuen to creatures vvhich are indewed vvith supernaturall graces 12.13.14 n 15.16.17 c. Creatures commanded to be vvorshipped 108.106 S. Iohn is as much forbidde to vveepe by an Angel as to vvorship 36.37 The vvorship vvhich the Romane Church giues to Saints and Angels cannot be giuen to God vvithout blasphemy and sacrilege 25.26 Creatures may be vvorshipped vvith the vvorship of Doulia 19.20 The vvorship of
a huÌ„dred yeares proclamed through the eares of Christendome that the Romane Church resists the known truth and the euident testimonies of the written word of God a heauy accusation I demand in the poursuit of this discours that these testimonies be cited and euidenced out of the authenticall editions and originall languages of the holy Bible In place of these they presse the words of theyr own late translations These I proue to be dissonant dissagreeing from the originall and soe not the words of true Scripture but of a false translation will make against vs. They tell me that whatsoeuer the words are in the originall yet the sense is euideÌ„tly against the Roman Church I demaÌ„d how shall the sense at least in theyr principle of sole Scripture euer euidently appeare but by the words of the originall They tell me whatsoeuer the words be yet the sense is euident I reply that I am nothing mouued with theyr saing without theyr prouuing They bid me proue that it is not euident I tell them that it belongs to him who affirmes to proue his own assertion which if they refuse the whol world will discouer that they haue nothing euident in the whol Bible against the Tenets of the Roman Church Yet to comply beyond all obligation I vndertake to proue that the texts which they most presse against vs are neyther euideÌ„t not soe much as probable but euidently insufficient and not soe much as capable of that sense which they draw from them to make them sound against vs and consequently nothing but pure mistakes And yet farther that nothing may be vvanting to a full victory I presse against them clere vvords eyther out of theyr own TraÌ„slations or out of the originall the force whereof they cannot possibly auoyd but eyther by denijng the plaine and proper sense of the vvords and flying to tropes and figures improprieties shadows and abscurities and that vvithout any necessity saue only of mainteyning theyr own assertions or translating the vvords in a secondary signification leauing the primary and most proper vvhen it makes against them vvhich notvvithstanding they put in other places vvhere it makes not against them or by translating the words quite contrary to the originall eueÌ„ by theyr own acknowledgemeÌ„t or vvhen they are soe troughly prest that theyr is noe way of escaping to reject the expresse words of the neuer questioned originall and affirme that they crept out the margent into the text The discouery of these and such like particulars is the maine drift and summe of this Treatis vvhich I haue intiteled Scripture mistaken the ground of Protestants c. The occasion of my falling vppon which vvas as follows This Treatis vvas at first a priuate controuersie in answer to a long Cathalogue of texts taken and mistaken out of the Protestants Bible and sent to a Persone of quality to diuert him from the Romane faith Through importunity of friends I condescended that it might passe the print hoping that some might reape profit from it and therefore couched it in a plaine easy stile that not only the learned but the vulgar also might vnderstand it I keepe my selfe close to Scripture in the vvhol processe and connexion of my proofes eyther against my Aduersary or in my own cause scarce affirming any thing vvhich I confirme not by one clere texr or other and those such as I haue read and diligeÌ„tly examined my selfe in vvhat language foeuer I cite them and therefore if any false dealing be found in the citations I am content as in that case I should vvell deserue to bere the shame of it The texts whieh I answer are those vvhich are commonly and cheefly stood vppon by Protestants and indeede vvhich mainly vvithhold them from imbracing the Romane faith and the points of controuersie such as are the most pressed against vs and maintayned by our Aduersaries soe that I haue noe reason to doubt if the Readers be once conuinced that they haue noe ground against vs euen in theyr own Bible in these maine and radicall controuersies as I am in greate hope they vvil be that they vvill at least beginne to suspect the vveakenesse of theyr own and to diseouer the strength of our cause and soe put themselues in a fare vvay of returning to the bosome of that mother-church from vvhich the late mistakers and misusers of holy Scripture haue seduced them Some controuerfies of lesser moment set down in the paper I haue here omitted which I reserre to an other occasion being now pressed for vvant of time to content my selfe vvith these Wherein that I may proceed vppon a suer foote I obserue this methode first I set down plainly and vnquestionably the Doctrine of the present Romane Church deliuered as such in the expresse vvords of the Council of Trent in each controuersy vvhich I treat there by stating aright the question disabusing the Protestant Readers vvho are commonly vvholy missin formed of our doctrine by a vvrong conceipt of it in stilled into them preserued in them by eyther the malice or ignorance of theyr Teachers Secondly I set down the Protestant positions eyther as I finde them in the paper or in the nine-and thirty Articles of the English Protestant church Thirdly I cite and answer the texts of the Aduersary by discouuering clerely the seuerall mistakes coÌ„teyned in them and lastly I alleadge some plaine passages of Scripture as they stand in the Protestant Bible in confirmation of our doctrine The greatest fauour therefore that I expect from you deare contrymen is that you spare me not neyther in troughly examining what I alleadge nor in demanding satisfaction in matters which you cannot fully examine of persones abler and learneder then your selues Please therefore to ponder vvhat you read noe lesse impartially then seriously to disingage your selues from that vvithdrawing bias vvhich education custome contry friends selfe loue will and iudgement haue insensibly instilled into your harts labour with a strong humble desire to be informed aright with a loue of truth aboue all transitory interests of this short and miserable life lastly haue your earnest recourse to Allm. God both to discouer what is best for your etetnal welfare and to imbrace it when you haue discouered it preferre God before creatures your soul before your body heauen before earth and before time eternity SCRIPTVRE MISTAKEN THE GROVND OF PROTESTANTS c. THE FIRST CONTROVERSIE Concerning the vvorship of Saints and Angells The doctrine taught beleeued and professed in this point as matter of faith by the Romain Church And dliuered in the Concil of Trent as Such Sessione 24. MAndat sancta Synodus omnibus Episcopis caeteris docendi munus curamque sustinentibus vt Fideles diligenter instruant docentes eos Sanctos vnà cum Christo regnantes orationes suas pro hominibus Deo offerre bonum atque vtile esse suppliciter eosinuocare ob beneficia impetranda à Deo per Filiâ—m
amici Dei ac domestici facti euntes de virtute in virtutem renouantur vt Apostolus inquit de die in diem exhibendo ea arma iustitiae in sanctificationem per obseruantiam mandatorum Dei Ecclesiae in ipsâ iustitiâ per Christi gratiam acceptâ cooperante fide bonis operibus crescunt atque magis iustificantur sicut scriptum est Qui iustus est iustificetur adhuc Being therefore thus iustified and made the friends and of the houshold of God going on from vertu to vertu they are renewed as the Apostle saith from day to day and vsing those armes of iustice to sanctification by the obseruance of the commandements of God and the Church theyr faith cooperating with theyr good workes they increace through the grace of Christ in the iustice which they haue receiued and are iustified more and more as is it written he who is iust let him be iustified still Conc. Trid. ibidem can 9. Si quis dixerit solâ fide impium iustificari ita vt intelligat nihil aliud requiri quod ad iusticationis gratiam consequendam cooperetur nullâ ex parte necesse esse eum suae voluntatis motu praeparari atque disponi anathema sit If any one shall say that a wicked man is iustified by faith only soe that he meanes that nothing els is required which may cooperate to the obtayning the grace of Iustification and that it is noe way necessary that he be prepared and disposed by the motion of his will let him be accâ—rsed From these authorities of the Council it is manifest that in this matter of Iustification the Church of Rome theaches 1. that noe workes done by the mere naturall force of our freewill 2. nor by the sole doctrine or knowledge of the diuine law can iustifie a sinner in the sight of God Can. 1. 3. That noe vniust persone can without the preuenting inspiration of the holy Ghost doe any thing as it should be done to obteyne the grace of iustification can 3. 4. That neyther faith nor workes done by the inspiration of the holy Ghost before Iustification can merit Iustification for it is a free grace of God giuen not of workes but by the sole mercy of God and for the sole merits of Christ. cap. 8. 5. That though the iustification of a sinner cannot be merited yet a soul may be disposed prepared to instification by acts inspired by the holy Ghost c. 6. 6. That we are not thus disposed by faith only but also by other good motions of our will preuented and assisted by the grace of God can 9. 7. That being thus freely iustified become the childeren of God through the assistance of Gods grace in Christ we may doe good workes and by them accepted through Christ's merits become more and more iust in the sight of God cap. 10. where in cheefly consists the Roman doctrine of Iustification by good workes This doctrine supposed we will now take a vew of those texts which Protestants vsually presse out of Scripture mistaken against it hauing first proued the Roman doctrine The Catholicke Position Faith only iustifyeth not YOu see that a man is iustifyed by workes and not by faith only which must needs be vnderstood of a true and internall iustification before Allmighty God for it must be that iustification which comes by faith but that is true and internall iustification as appeares by all the texts cited hereafter in the paper for proofe of iustification by faith only that the iustification which S. Iames speakes of here is the very same with that which comes by faith is most cleare out of the words themselues Yee see that a man is iustifyed by workes and not by faith only For it would be quite contrary to common sense to vnderstand a iustification before men in the first part of this sentence yee see that a man is iustifyed by workes and a true internall iustification in the sight of God in the latter part and not by faith only For the word only clearly demonstrates that the same iustification is to be vnderstood in both parts of the sentence Now that the iustification common to both members of this place must necessarily be meant of a true iustification only in the sight of God is out of all question to such as ponder what is deliuered in it for it would be most false were it vnderstood of a iustification only before menâ— no lesse then this manner of speech yee see that this man is vnderstood by his words and not by his thoughts only would be wholly false were there only mention made of a man's being vnderstood amongst men for amongst them he is not vnderstood at all by his thoughts and so the latter part of this proposition would not be true and therefore to verify this manner of speech it must of necessity be meant of a man's being vnderstood by Allmighty God who only by his own power vnderstands both thoughts and words and so it is truly sayd yee see that a man is vnderstood to wit by Allmighty God by his words and not by his thoughts only And for the very same reason this proposition of S. Iames wee see that a man is iustifyed by workes and not by faith only cannot be vnderstood of a iustification before men for we are no more iustifyed by saith before men then we are vnderstood amongst them by our thoughts and therefore it must be interpreted of a iustification before Allmighty God who only vnderstands our faith as he does our thoughts by his own power and knowledge and can only see whether our faith be true sincere and iustifying or no faith being nothing else but a thought assent or iudgement of the soul. And as all Protestants in the ensuing texts vrged for iustification by faith only vnderstand an internall iustification in the sight of God so must they will they not be vnreasonably and willsully partiall vnderstand the same by iustification by faith in this place of S. Iames which is cleared v. 2. was not Abraham our father iustifyed by worket when he had offered Isaac his sone vppon the altar for this hauing beene done priuatly in the desert could not when it was done iustifie him before men and yet more clere v. 22. seest thou not how faith wrought with his workes and by workes was faith made perfect what is here spoken of but the operation of faith and workes in the soule iustifying in God's sight For faith cannot be truly made perfect but declared to be perfect by workes soe farre as they iustifie only before men And it is further demonstrated v. 23. And the Scripture was fulfilled which sayth Abraham beleeued God and it was imputed vnto him for righteousnesse and he was called the friend of God Can any Protestant deny this to be meant of an imputation of righteousnesse as they terme it or a iustification before Allmighty God seeing it is the very
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