instances thus when I beginne to draw a circle and when I haue drawn only thus much of it C precisely when I say the word this I may truly say this is a circle wherby my meaning is not this c beeing a little part of a circle is a circle for that is no circle but this figure which now I am a drawing or shall presently draw is a circle Thus if one beginning to power wine into a glasse when he hath powred some few dropps or small quantity into the glasse should say this is a glasse full of wine it being only full when the last word wine is pronounced certainly the word this cannot signify that small quantity of wine which was in the glasse precisely when the word this was pronounced for that is not a glasse full but the wine which he is then a powring into the glasse till he haue filled it with wine must be signifyed by the word this In the same maner if one desirous to shew to another how quikly flax becomes fire holding flax in one hand and a candle in the other flax being in its own naturall substance in that precize instant when the word this is pronounced should say This is fire and as he pronounces the words he kindles the flax soe that when the whole sentence this is fire is pronounced the flax is kindled and changed into fire noe man can be soe simple to thinke that his meaning is this flax remāing as it now is vnkindled is fire but this which I am now a shewing to wit flax kindled is fire noe other wise happens it in our present case where our Sauiour by the word this intends not to signifie this bread remaining as it now is when I prunounce the word this is my Body but being consecrated and by consecration changed into my Body as flax by being kindled is changed into fire is my Body This supposed as a ground of this truth I answer to the whole discours of the obiection that when our Sauiour sayd this is my Body this is my Bloud his meaning was This which I am to giue vnto you and which yee are presently to eate and drinke is my Body and my Bloud which though it were not existent actually then when he pronounced the word this yet it was to be presently after no otherwise then when he sayd this is my command not of any command which was then giuen but of one which he was presently to giue when he had pronounced the word this That this was the meaning of our Sauiour in the institution of this Sacrament is most cleare to all such as vnderstandingly reade the text for he commanded his disciples to take and eate what he was instituting in this holy Sacrament Take eate this is my Body Therefore his meaning was to signify by the word this that which his disciples were to take and eate now his disciples were not to take and eate any thing but what was instituted and made a Sacramen◠before it was eaten neither was the Sacrament instituted but by the words of consecration This is my Body which I haue allready proued Therefore the word this according to our Sauiours meaning must signify somthing which was to be after the words of consecration This is my Body So farre from truth is it that by the word this our Sauiour intended to signify that which he held in his hands whilst he precisely pronounced that word this that he signifyed that which he was to giue out of his hands and put into the hands of his disciples and therefore he sayes not see behold but take eate This is my Body that is not what ye now see whilst I say the word this but what I command you to take and eate presently is my Body And yet this truth is made clearer in the institution of the chalice And he tooke the cup and gaue thankes and gaue it to them saying drinke yee all of this for this is the Bloud of the new Testament which shall be shed for many for the remission of sins where our Sauiour renders the reason why he commanded them to drinke of it because it was his Bloud c. So that he sayes not looke yee all on it for this is my Bloud c. which might haue beene done before the words of consecration were pronounced or the Sacrament instituted whilst he sayd the word it or this but drinke yee all of it which was not to be done till the consecration and institution was past as I haue already proued and the objection herafter acknowledgeth Objection There is not one word which Christ spake which we do not stedfastly beleeue to be true for we hold that this bread is the Body of IESVS Christ since he sayd that the bread which he brake and gaue was his Body Answer I doubt not of the sincerity of this profession for so much as concernes the petson that wrote this paper there is more want of true information of the vnderstanding then good affection in the will and zeale certainly there is of truth but such an one as S. Paul describes not according to knowledge For I haue clearly now demoustrated that the meaning of this proposition This is my Body is not this bread which I now hold in my hand whilst I say the words This is my Body but This which I am now to giue you and ye are to eate after it be made a Sacrament by the words of consecration is my Body Objection It is not our parts to glosse the word of God or ad any thing of our own since then we haue those two things in the Gospell the one that IESVS gaue bread the othet that that which he gaue was his Body we beleeue both the one and the other not as they who will beleeue the latter but the former they will not credit and though we could not comprehende how this may agree that it should be bread which we eate and yet the Body of Christ our Lord yet it were our dutyes to rest without any scruple Answer The good disposition expressed in these lines will no doubt haue a great influence to induce the person that wrote them to a right vnderstanding of these mysterious words of our Sauiour after a due and impartiall ponderation of what I haue sayd concerning them where by it may appeare that it was not bread remayning in the nature of bread as it was before consecration but bread made the Body of Christ by consecration which the Apostles did eate and our Sauiour called his Body and signified by the words this Objection But the Gospell in the line following instructeth vs and draweth vs out of all difficulty for Christ hauing sayd that that which he gaue was his Body added presently that it is a remembrance or commemoration therof Answer The opponent may please to remember that iust now we read in the former objection that it is not their part to glosse the word of God
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
vnder this or vnder these species if they grant that the word this signifies bread as they must needs being spoken before consecration will they make it signify nothing after consecration can it both be somthing and nothing If the word this signifie bread then we must vnderstand that this bread is my Body but no other thing can they make it signifie but bread not the species of bread why because yet it was not when he sayd this not his body for his body could not signify his body neyther as yet was it consecrated when he sayd this they must therefore confesse it to signify bread or nothing if bread then of bread he sayd This is my Body which is as much as to say this bread is my body Answer Here is only a repetition of what hath been objected before wherfore I referre the reader to my former answer wherin I auoide all these difficultyes by replying that the word this iust when it was pronounced by our Sauiour neyther signified the species of bread nor vnder the species of bread nor bread nor that which he precisely then held in his hands before he pronounced the other words nor yet nothing but this which I am presentely to giue you and you are to take and eate is my Body and this well considered let any man iudge whether opinion is lesse forged and more naturall ours which puts a plaine proper obuious signification both to the word this the subiect the word is the copula and the word body the predicate of this proposition This is my Body agreeing with the wholl context and intention of our Sauiour or theyrs which will haue signifyed a mere peece of naturall bread not yet made a Sacrament by the word this â—nd by is my body is a commemoration of my body â—nd that not only without all ground in Scripture but contrary to the plaine text contrary to the mystery here instituted and contrary to common sense discourse all which I haue already proued Obiection Now that it is discouered what our Lord brake and gaue what he bad them take and eate and what he sayd was his body none need doubt but that the disciples did eate that which he tooke blessed brake and gaue and which he bad then eate it was bread by their own rule for as yet he had not sayd it is my Body if they did eate that which he sayd was his body what can any conceiue it to be but bread for what sayd he was his body was it not bread which he tooke blessed brake and gaue and bad them eate saying it was his body if they could disproue the Protestant church in this poynt they could neuer maintayne transubstantiation by the words of institution which in all circumstances words and actions of our Sauiour is agreeable to what we beleeue but we may safely conclude that the Apostles did eate bread and that it remaynes bread after consecration both by that which hath beene sayd c. Answer Here the same thing seemes to be repeated twice or thrice ouer and altogeather is nothing but a new repetition of what hath been answered before only here seemes another objection to be pointed at which may be framed as it is more clearly by other Protestants in this manner That which our Sauiours tooke blessed brake and gaue was bread for certaine it is that which he tooke was bread and is confessed to haue been so by both sydes but that which he tooke he blessed that which he blessed he brake that which he brake he gaue therefore from the first to the last that which he gaue his disciples was bread I answer that all this is true for it was bread in denomination both which he tooke blessed brake and gaue but the bread which he tooke was bread remayning in its own nature the bread which he gaâ—e was bread made his body and yet it was the same bread in denomination for the very same bread which was yet in its own nature when he tooke it was made his body when gaue it Now if one should reply that this is sayd gratis and seemes to be a mere shift for obscuring and inuoluing the matter to escape the difficulty or rather an explication destroying and contradicting it selfe I will shew that this is sayd with great ground euen in Scripture it selfe for if an Infidell should oppose the change of water into wyne in the second of S. Ihon with the like argument say that that wherewhith the seruants filled the vessels at our Sauiours command was that which they drew out of the vessels that which they drew out was that which they carryed to the maister of the mariage-feast that which they carryed to him he drunke but that which the seruants filled the vessels first withall was water therefore that which the maister of the feast drunke was water A Christian vnto such an objection may answer that all this is true if we respet only the name or denomination of the thing for that which was put into the vessels the maister drunke and as it is true that water was put into them so is it true to say that the master of the feast drunke water but the very same water which remayned in its own nature when in was put into the vessels was denominated water made wyne when the maister drunke it And that this may appeare to be no fiction of myne all that I affirme herof is plainly deliuered in the Protestant Bible the words are these Iesus saith vnto them fill the water-pots with water here behold water was to be put into them and they filled them to the brimme see here is water put into them by the seruanrs and he sayd vnto them draw out now and beare to the gouernour of the feast and they bare it marke yet here the seruant bare it that is that which they had put into the vessells which was water when thc Ruler of the feast had tasted the water which was made wyne and knew not whence it was behold it is still called water not water remayning in its owne being but water made wyne but the seruants which drew the water knew still it is called watcr and the water that is the very same that it was in denomination when it was put in but changed into wyne Apply this in each particular to the present mystery and it will appeare how light the objection is fit only to deceiue vnlearned people who are not acquainted with such subtilityes and sophismes as such like objections conteyne Obiection And likewise that S. Paul called the consecrated bread bread three tymes after consecration for as often sayth he as you eate this bread and so let him eate of this bread and whosoeuer eates this beead vnworthyly but we do not eate till after consecration it is then bread after consecration Answer I haue giuen iust now a full answer to that which is objected here that S. Paul calls the hoast bread three
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
added as they pretend for greater explication as appeareth in a thousand other places and in the Bibles of the yeares 1630. and 1632. S. Marke and S. Luke haue the words thus Iesus tooke bread and blessed and brake it and gaue vnto them where the word it is not ioyned to blessed and gaue but only to brake and then the word it is put in a different smaller letter then the other words All which conuince that the word it is not in the originall and so is not holy diuine Scripture but an addition of men and so no solid argumenr can be drawn from the word it as from the word of God not being the word of God but of men And hence also appeares how cunningly the Protestant translatours detaine the ignorāt readers by putting in words seruing as they thinke to their own purpose in the very same print and letter with the rest whieh are ioyned to them and are in the originall as if they were in the Originall no lesse then the others which notwithstanding in othet editions translations and places of Scripture they signify not to be in the originall nor Gods word by printing them in a lesser letter after they were conuinced of fraud and falsity in the former And thus in some editions putting this and such like words in the same letter with the rest and in others in a different the vnlearned which are not able to examine what is and what is not in the Originall may be in doubt which of these translations is the true word of God and cannot be infallibly certain of either of them seeing the translatours of theyr Church which are of equall authority some of them put a word in their text in the same tenour as if it were no lesse Scripture then the rest and others in a different letter to signify that that word is not Scripture but added by them as they suppose for greater clarity If it should be answered that whether the word it be in the sacred text or no yet the argument will haue force for though the text runne thus Iesus tooke bread and blessed and brake and gaue to his disciples yet it may seeme that he blessed brake and gaue no other thing then that very bread which he tooke remayning in its own substance and nature For certainly he must haue blessed and broken and giuen somthing to his disciples and what can that be imagined to be but what he tooke that therefore which he tooke hauing beene true naturall hread as the text expressly sayth Iesus tooke bread he must be supposed to haue blessed and broken and giuen true naturall bread to his disciples I answer that our Sauiour though he be supposed to haue blessed broken and giuen some thing to his disciples yet it follows not that he broke and gaue naturall bread for he might take bread remaining in its own nature and after breake and giue his Body wherinto the bread which he tooke was changed as in the marriage feast of Galilé after the vessells were filled with water and our Sauiour sayd draw now and beare to the gouernour of the feast certainly they drew and caryed and the gouernour of the feast drunk somthing yet it followes not that as they filled the vessells with water so they drew and carryed and the gouernour of the feast drunk naturall water but as it is sayd v. 9. water made wine or wine wherinto the naturall water wherwith the seruāts filled the vessells was changed yea though the word it had beene in the text or were supposed to be rightly ioyned to it could any one thence proue more that as our Sauiour tooke naturall bread so he brake and gaue naturall bread remayning the very same which he tooke then one can proue from the water of Galilé that as the seruants filled the vessells with naturall water so they drew and caryed and the maister of the feast drunk naturall water remayning the very same which was filled because the text sayes v. 8. and they caryed it and v. 9. the ruler of the feast knew not whence it was But the objection in preuention of this answer vrgeth the former argument yet further in this manner Obiection 2. For the actions of brake and gaue were before the words of consecration This is my Body and consequently not being changed it must be bread which he brake and gaue Answer This argument proceeds from misunderstanding and mistaking this text of Scripture for though it saith our Sauiour brake and gaue to his disciples and sayd This is my Body yet it sayes not as the objection would haue it say that our Sauiour after he brake and gaue to his disciples sayd This is my Body these being very different senses for though the Scripture first mentioneth brake and gaue and then sets downe that our Sauiour sayd This is my Body yet it may well stand with the truth of the words that at the same tyme and instant whilst he brake and gaue he sayd This is my Body and so gaue not bread till it was changed into his Body as if one should giue a peece of bread to a person in want one might say truly he tooke bread and brake it and gaue it to him and sayd take this almes though he spake these words take this almes at the very same tyme when he gaue it And that our Sauiour spake these words This is my Body whilst he was giuing what he gaue to his disciples and not after is manifest first because S. Luke affirmes it to be so he tooke bread and brake and gaue to them saying This is my Body that is whilst he gaue he was pronouncing these words and though in the institution of the chalice S. Marke sayes and he tooke the cup and when he had giuen thankes he gaue to them c. and sayd This is my Bloud of the new Testament which shall be shed for many Yet S. Luke saies Likewise the cup allso after supper saying This cup is the new Testament in my Bloud which shall be shed for you S. Paul also in the same manner also he tooke the cup when he had supped saying This cup is the new Testament in my Bloud Secondly because all as well Ptotestants as Catholikes agree that our Sauiour gaue his disciples a Sacrament and as they say a signe of his Body which was made a Sacrament by vertue of these words This is my Body therefore it were an impiety to say that our Sauiour gaue bread to his disciples before these words were pronounced for then he had giuen a meer peece of bread and neither Sacrament nor his Body nor signe of his Body Thirdly if our Sauiour had perfectly giuen that which he put into the disciples hands before he had pronounced the words of consecration the Scripture sayinge he tooke bread brake and gaue to his disciples and sayd This is my Body then it would follow by the same argument that our Sauiour gaue bread
that is to say put bread into the hands of his disciples before they tooke it into their hands which is impossible or that he bad them take what they had already taken which were absurd because S. Matthew relates the institution so that he mentioneth first gaue and then take Iesus tooke bread and blessed and brake and gaue to his disciples and sayd take eate this is my Body If indeed the Scripture had affirmed that our Sauiour gaue to his disciples after he had sayd This is my Body the argument had been of force but sâ—eing it sayes not so but only mentioneth first gaue and after the words of consecration as it mentioneth gaue before it mentions take and that common sense tells vs they must be done at the same tyme there is nothing against the reall presence by this rather mistake them argument Obiection 3. S. Paul obserues that after he brake and gaue he sayd This is my Body which is broken for you Answer S. Paul's words according to the Protestant translation are these tooke bread and when he had giuen thankes he brake it and sayd Take eate This is my Body where there is no expresse mention of giuing to his disciples at all and therefore what the obiection here affirmes that S. Paul obserues that after he brake and gaue he sayd This is my Body is very farre from truth Againe though S. Paul sayd This is my Body yet he sayes not that after he brake he sayd This is my Body as the obiection affirmes Neither sayd S. Paul when he had broken he sayd Take and eate as he sayes when he had giueÌ„ thankes This is my Body for that would haue some shew of proofe that he pronounced the words after he had broken but only affirmes he brake and sayd This is my Body which words may as properly signify that he brake and spake these words morally at the same tyme as that he first beake and then pronounced them As when it is sayd in S. Matthew In those dayes came Iohn Baptist preaching in the desert and saying Repent c. where though saying be put after preaching in the text yet no man is so senselesse as to thinke that he preached before he sayd somthing or that he preached before he sayd what the Euangelist affirme him to haue sayd as the subiect of his preaching Repent c. So also in Iob different tymes Almighty God Iob and his friends are affirmed in the English Bibles then Iob answered and sayd c. Then the Lord answered and sayd c. where though answered be put before sayd yet no child will imagine they answered before they spake or spake before they sayd what the text affirmes them to haue sayd Whence it is most euident that words which are set one after another signify not alwayes nor euer certainly meerely because they are set one before another that the actions done and signifyed by them follow one another iust as these words do And so meerely thence can be drawn no forcible argument in this particular And yet if we should grant for other reasons and circumstances that our Sauiour brake the bread before he pronounced the words of consecration whilst it was yet but bread what would this helpe our aduersaryes or hurt vs for then it would follow that bread was broken whilst it remained in its own substance but giuen to the disciples after it was changed into the Body of Christ or morally speaking whilst our Sauiour was giuing it vnto them Obiection Here wee see plainly both by theyr own rules and our Sauiours actions that it was bread which he brake and gaue and not the species of bread which was broken and giuen that is to say the bredth coulour and tast of bread but noe bread This word broken must needs haue relation to that bread broken before he sayd This is my Body because he did not break it againe after he said it was his Body Answer If we vnderstand by broken mentioned by S. Paul when he sayd He brake and sayd Take eate this is my Body that he brake the bread changed into his Body by consecration or in a morall vnderstanding whilst he changed and consecrated it by these words This is my Body it might happily containe no great absurdity to grant that this second word is broken may haue relation to the former he brake for in both of them according to this opinion his Body was mysteriously and sacramentally broken for vs. But if we vnderstand by brake as the Obiection supposes vppon a false ground as I hauc already demonstrated the breaking of naturall bread before he sayd This is my Body then it is wholy false and iniurious to our Sauiour and the worke of our Redemption to vnderstand that these words whith is broken for you haue relation to brake which was mentioned before For that were to say that a meere piece of bread before it was made either a Sacrament or his Body or so much as a signe of his Body was hroken for vs which neither Catholike nor Protestant nor Christian doth or can affirme without blasphemy for before these words This is my Body were pronounced all agree that the bread was neither made his Body nor any SacrameÌ„tall signe of it Neither can it possibly stand with the other Euangelists that broken here should be only a breaking of common and naturall bread before it was made a Sacrament by these words This is my Body for it is certaine that S. Paul here vnderstands by broken for you the same which S. Luke signifyes by this is my Body which is giuen for you especially seeing that by breaking giuing thinges belonging to eating whether temporall or spirituall the same thing is signifyed in many places of Scripture according to the Hebrew phrase Now to say that a piece of naturall bread vnconsecrated was giuen for vs is an intolerable blasphemy And yet this is clearer in the other species of the chalice for S. Marke relates it thus This is my blood of the new Testament which is shed for many and S. Matthew VVhich shall be shed for many for the remission of sinnes Which no hart truly Christian can imagine to haue any relation to pure and common wine before consecration To that which the Obiection adds that therefore broken for you must haue relation to that bread broken before he sayd This is my Body because he did not breake it againe after he had sayd these words I answer first that it can neuer be prooued from the words of S. Paul that the first breaking here mentioned by S. Paul was not presently speaking in a morall sense after these words were pronounced for though it be mentioned before yet it followes no more thence that it was not presently after then when S. Marke sayes speaking of the chalice and they dranke all of it before he mention the consecration of the chalice that the disciples dranke not after the consecration of
the sayd chalice and after it was made a Sacrament as all do and must grant they did and so there will not be two actuall breakings but one actuall or mystycall or Sacramentall togeather signifyed by these two words breake and broken for you which happened after consecration But if we say that the first breaking was before consecration and the second broken for you signifyed somthing done after consecration that is the giuing of Christs Body for the remission of sinnes as the Euangelists seeme to signify then it will not be necessary that either the bread should haue beene twice visibly broken or that broken for you should haue relation to the bread broken before he sayd This is my Body as the obiection contends Obiection But to proceed from his actions to the words IESVS added Take eate this is my Body The vnderstanding of these words depends principally vppon the explication of the word this we say by the word this Christ meant that which he held when he spake the word this because transubstantiation is not yet made till the words following This is my Body be fully pronounced They expound all the fower words This is my Body thus vnder the species is my Body but enquire of them what is it which was vnder the species when Christ spake only the word this and they confesse that it was as yet bread which is the same that we mayntaine against them It is bread then and by consequence this there signifyes bread that I hold and these words This is my Body are as much as this bread is my Body Answer The maine diffiulty here vrged is about the word this in the words of consecration This is my Body I demand first when our Sauiour changed water into wine in the mariage of Galilee whether he could truly haue sayd these words vppon the water this is wine and by vertue of these words changed the water into wine the water remayning when the word this was pronounced by him and changed into wine when the whole proposition this is wine was spoaken as wee hold it happens in the change of bread into the Body of our Sauiour in the Eucharist I scarce thinke that any Protestant will be se bold and temerarious as to deny that God can do this and yet all the difficultyes that are inuented and vrged against the word this in the words of consecration are the very same here as is manifest So that the obiection about the word this proues not only if it prooue any thing that the Body of our Sauiour is not de sacto put really in the place of bread by vertu of these words This is my Body but that it is wholy impossible for our Sauiour to worke any such change by vertu of these words for if whilst the word this is pronounced water being only there actually must necessarily be signifyed by the word this as the obiection contēds then it is impossible by vertu of this proposition this is wine that water should be changed into wine for the signification of this proposition this is wine would require the presence and continuance of water by reason of the word this which is supposed to signifie water and the change of water into wine would require the absenec or non existency of water it being supposed to be changed into wine and so water would be and not be at the same tyme which is a formall contradiction and acknowledged by all to be wholy impossible So bold are Protestants in restrayning and limiting the Omnipotency of God to defend their own groundlesse phantasies who oppose the Romane Church in this manner And therefore the more moderate and considerate amongst them grant this to be possible and soe vrge not this argument because it proues either too much or nothing Secondly demand when our Sauiour sayd this is my command that yee loue one another what was meant by the word this either somthing or nothing was meant by it if somthing that was either the cōmand which he gaue after the pronuntiation of the word this and so somthing which was not when he pronounced the word this was vnderstood by it And then in our present question why cannot by the word this somthing be vnderstood which was not at that instant when he pronounced the word this Or by the word this in the former speech of the command was vnderstood somthing which was not his command but this is absurd for then he should haue sayd that which is not my command is my command if it be sayd that nothing was vnderstood by the word this it will follow that the word this signifyed nothing and so his command was nothing or nothing was his command or the word of God signifyed nothing all which is absurd Hence therefore it euidently followes that the word this in the text This is my command that yee loue one another c. cannot haue any other sense saue this This which I am presently to say to you to wit that yee loue one another is my command and this sense and manner of speech is so ordinary both in holy Scripture and common discourse that there can be no difficulty in the vnderstanding of it for it is not necessary that the thing which is signifyed by the word this in such manners of speech be then existent or in being when the word this is pronunced for ir may be either past or to come thus it is ordinary to say in the day tyme I hope to sleepe well this night that is the night to come or in the morning I haue slept well this night that is the last night past and this not only by reason of the thing it selfe whereof we speake but also in regard of the meaning and intention of the person who speakes for words were not instituted to signify thinges and obiects only but also and that more immediatly the thoughts and affections of him who speakes and hence it comes to passe when the same word signifyes many things it is to be explicated and taken in that sense only which appeares to haue beene intended by them who speake hence therefore it happens that seeing things not yet in being when the word this is pronounced may be vnderstood by it we must gather that a thing not yet existent is to be vnderstood when it appeares by other cleare circumstances that the meaning and intention of the speaker is to signify somthing which is not actually when the word this was pronounced but after is to be Thus in the forenamed example where our Sauiour sayd This is my command that yee loue one another it is cleare that his meaning was by the word this to signify that which he was presently after to say and not what was iust then when he sayd the word this for then no command was giuen And that this signification of the word this is most common and familiar euen in ordinary discours is manifest in a thousand
dispersed amongst the vulgar that any Romane Catholicque Doctours by the word is vnderstand shall become or shall be transubstantiated for though they gather as a necessary sequel transubstantiation from the reall and proper signification of these words this is my Body yet they all vnderstand the word is in its own natiue common and ordinary signification and none of them take it for transubstantiated or become my Body neyther indeede can they vnlesse they destroy their own principles for if they should by is vnderstand become or transubstantiated then they must vnderstand by the word this bread seeing they all affirme that bread only becomes or is transubstantiated into Christ's body but that were plainly to contradict themselues it being one of the maynest points in this controuersy betwixt Caluinists and vs they affirming that hread is vnderstood by the word this and we denying it That which is added that those distractions can be no testimonyes of truth that is the diuersity of opinions amongst vs here reckoned vp about the vnderstanding of these wordes this and is seemes to me to haue something of that eye condemned in the Gospell which sees a mote in anothers eye and discouers not a beame in it selfe The opponent summes here vp fower differeÌ„t opinions whereof the last I haue proued to be a false imposition and no opinion of ours the first and second of the word this signifying vnder this or vnder these species are one and the same opinion set down by the opponent in different words for seeing by vnder this none of our Authours vnderstand vnder this bread they must needs meane by it vnder these species of bread to omit that no Catholicque Authour sayes that the word this precisely signifyes vnder this or vnder these species c. but that which is vnder these species is my Body the third opinion that by the word this is signifyed nothing present if by nothing present be meant nothing present after consecration it is another imposition vppon Catholicque Authours making them speake like Caluinists against themselues but if therby be meant nothing present precisely in that momeÌ„t when the word this was pronounced it is true and Catholicque as I haue shewed but then it is not opposite to the former opinion for seing no Catholike teaches that the body of our Sauiour is vnder the species of bread till the substance of bread be transubstantiated into it agrees well with their opinion that nothing in particular be vnderstood by the word this which is existent when that word was spoktn bread being then vnder its own species Thus vppon a iust examination we finde that in truth there is but one only opinion of Catholicques in the whol reckoning and therefore vnderseruedly termed distractions or no testimonies of truth But had the opponent put some reall diuersity of opinions amongst Catholicque Authours about the vnderstanding of these words and brought them to the number of fower as here is a shew made yet seing they all agree in the proper and natiue signification of these words This is my Body without all figures or improprieties which exclude the reall presence this variety can be no more termed no testimony of truth in this poynt controuersed then are other different opinions of Schoolemen in many other mysteries of faith being nothing but diuers wayes which learned men take to explicate or defend the same point of faith wherin they all agree against Infidells or Heretiques But had the Opponent known or considered the diuersityes of opinions risen vp within the space of few more then a hundrcd yeares about the vnderstanding of these words this is my Body amongst Protestants and that in the mayne signification of them which Luther confesses to haue amounted to the number of ten before his death and another not many yeares after rekons vp to the number of two hundred there had beene iust occasion giuen to say these disâ—ractions can be ne testimonyes of truth Objection In the middest of these discords they make these words this is my Body but halfe true for they all hold that there were two things in the hands of Christ when he spake these words his Body the species of bread wherof it followeth that these wordes are true but of the halfe of that he held in his hands and if he had sayd this is not my body hauing regard to the other halfe of that he held the species of bread he had also spoken the truth Answer This difficulty arises from want of knowledge in Philosophy to distinguish an accident from a substance so that it cannot well be so explicated that the vnlearned will be capable of it and so will be better vnderstood by a familiar instance euen in this present matter then by a philosophicall discourse The Opponent cannot deny but our Sauiour might haue sayd of that which he had in his hands this is bread when he sayd the word this now I demand seing according to all there were two thinges as the Opponent termes them the substance of bread and the species of bread whether these words this is bread had been only halfe true or no if it be answered that they had been but halfe true it will follow that whensoeuer we demonstrate any thing in ordinary conuersation saying this is a man a horse a tree a stone c. we speake but halfe truly because there is always the substance and species or accidents of those things yea when S. Iohn Baptist sayd behold the lamb of God or the heauenly Father this is my beloued Son our Sauiour hauing both substance and species those propositions had been but halfe true if it be answered that this proposition this is bread is absolutely and entirely true then I answer the same to all that is here opposed for species or accidents are not different thinges absolutely speaking but relatiue appendixes dependances adjuncts or exhibitions of thinges which are so absolutly denominated that is substances as when we see a person cloathed it is absolutely and wholly true to say this is Peeter or Iohn for though there be two things the person and the cloathes yet the cloathes being only adjuncts or meanes to demonstrate the person whose they are are not intended to be included in this demonstration and so if one hauing only regard to the cloake of a person should say this is not Peter meaning this cloake is not Peeter though he should speake true to such as know his meaning yet in ordinary conuersation vnlesse by some particular signe he gaue to vnderstand his meaning he would either not be vnderstood or vnderstood to speake false because the demonstration this is instituted in such circumstances to signify the person or thing demonstrable and not their adjuncts ot accidents Apply this to our present purpose and all is solued Objection Now let any iudge which opinion is lesse forged and more naturall ours who say tbis signifyes that which Christ held or that of theyrs who say
bloud of the Lord which giues enough to vnderstand what kind of bread and cup he meant here for they cannot be properly sayd to be guilty of the body and bloud of Christ who receiue vnworthily an externall signe or remembranee of it though otherwise they may highly offend him as a subiect cannot be rightly said to be guilty of the body and bloud of his King who receiues not his seale or signet with that reuerence which becomes a subiect te shew to his Prince but in the opinion of Catholikes it is litterally and propetly true being a most high affront and iniury done to the very body and bloud of Christ there present and yet this is more clearly insinuated in the 29 verse for he that eateth and drinketh vnworthily eateth and drinketh damnation to himselfe not discerning the Lord's body where the Greeke word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifies a determinate iudging one thing from another which is cleare in Catholique doctrine but not easy to be vnderstood in the Protestant for how can one be sayd properly to discerne that which he acknowledges not to be present in that thing which he receiues Vnworthily and though happily in some improper and far fetcht sense this might be sayd yet according to the true rule of interpreting holy Scripture we must vnderstand the wordes of it in a proper sense when nothing compells to the contrary as the Opponent acknowledges Obiection And which is more attributing to this bread things which cannot agree to the Body of Christ to wit to be broken Answer I haue before answered to this and shewed that the word broken is familiarly taken for giuen by way of diuision or distribution amongst many which is vsed by other Euangelists so that giuen and hroken here may signisy the same thing But if by broken be vnderstood a breaking in peeces of that which was whol before who can deny that such a breaking agrees with the Body of our Sauiour absolutely speaking was not his sacred flesh all torne and broken with the nayles thornes and scourges as the Prophet foretolde ipse attritus est propter scelera a nostra he was broken for our wickednesses and though naturall bread be properly sayd to be broken yet it cannot be affirmed by any Christian to be broken for vs as the Apostle here sayd it was that is for our saluation as onother Euangelist affirmes of the chalice And therefote Christians must beleeue and confesse quite contrary to the Opponent here that S. Paul is attributing here to this bread that which cannot agtee with naturall bread but only with the true Body of Christ to wit to be broken for vs as that only was mystically in this Sacrament by may of an vnbloudy sacrice and visibly vppon the Crosse. Obiection And Christ himselfe called the cup. after consecration the fruit of the vine both in S. Matthew and S. Marke Answer But in S. Luke he calls the cup as much the fruit of the vine before consecration Therefore if you vrge S. Matthew and S. Mark 's authotity for the one giue vs leaue to vrge S. Luke's authority for the other and know that you haue concluded nothing vnlesse you proue that we are rather to stand to the narration of S. Matthew and S. Marke then of S. Luke which here you haue not done Certaine it is that there can be no contradiction nor opposition amongst the Euangelists therefore seeing S. Luke relates these words I will drinke no more of the fruit of the vine c. before the institution of the Sacrament and the two former Euāgelists after and yet none of them expressly affirme that our Sauiour sayd these words after or before the Sactament was instituted though one put them before and the other after we must gather by the context and other circumstances whether indeed they were spoken by our Sauiour before or after the consecration of the chalice That this may be vnderstood Nothing is more otdinary with the Euangelists as all Interpreters note then to set things down by transposition or anticipation somtymes putting things iust in that order they happened somtymes transposing them into a former or latter place This supposed it is more probable that S. Marke sets down those words out of their proper place then S. Luke for we haue a cleare testimony that S. Marke in this very institution of the chalice puts those words by way of anticipation and they drunke all of it out of their ptoper place the chalice hauing not then been consecrated nor any of the Apostles hauing then tasted of it therefore it is more likely of the two that S. Marke vses here a trāsposition then S. Luke who reckons all othet things in their proper places and orders as they happened and if there be a transposition admitted in S. Marke it must be also one in S. Matthew But though it were that our Sauiour sayd these words after consecration and that by this fruit of the vine he meant reall and materiall wine which I will presently discusse yet the argument proues nothing at all against vs. for our Sauiour hauing drunke in his last supper true and reall wine with his disciples before the institution of this holy Sacrament may very easily be vnderstood to haue referred words to that first dtinking in tyme of his last supper and so in relation to that say I will drinke no more of the fruit of the vine c. as if some person hauing first drunke wine after some other drinke at a banquet may vsually say I will drinke no more of the fruit of the vine till I drinke it in my own house referring those wordes only to that which he dranke first neyther can I see how Protestants according to theyr principle of beleeuing nothing but what is in Scripture can deny this explication for seeing our Sauiour sais expresly here I will drinke noe more of the fruit of the vine c. and that we haue noe place of Scripture which eyther affirmes or insinuates that our Sauiour then drank of the consecrated chalice he must necessarily referre his drinking the fruit of the vine to some other wine which he had drunk before the conscration Vnderstanding the two first Euangelists in this manner we clearly reconcile them with S. Luke for he must probably be vnderstood of that which our Sauiour dranke before the Sacrament was instituted as according to this interpretation the others also must vnderstand it but it will be much harder to reconcile them if those words be referred to the consecrated chalice for that hauing not been yet instituted according to S. Luke's setting down our Sauiour's words they cannot possibly be referred to them for our Sauiour according to the Protestant opinion would presently haue drunke wine in the Sacrament and so must haue falsifyed his own words as soone as he had spoken them promising then not to drinke any wine till his father's kingdome were come and yet presently after drinking it
as will presently appeare Hauing therefore as I hope cleared this point of the reall presence in the iust balance of an open and impartiall eye it will not be very difficult to euen an other as a sequell from this concerning communion vnder one kind which though it be not thought vppon in these objections yet this fit occasion the great difficulties which our aduersaries raise against it the earnest desire which many not otherwise ill disposed haue to be satisfied in it and the request of others who haue seene some part of this treatis haue put me vppon necessitie to say something but very succinctly of this matter holding my selfe close to Scripture according to my former methode This point therefore supposes the reall presence and is rather to be treated against Lutherans or such other Protestants as are conuinced of that mysterie then against Caluinists or Suinglians who disbeleeue it for were not our Sauiours body and blood really present there as the practise of receauing one only kind had neuer been allowed so could it not haue been defended This therefore supposed I will indeauour to defend communion vnder one kind and answer whatsoeuer is pressed by our aduersaries against it out of Scripture mistaken Objection First they vrge the institution of this Sacrament as hauing been vnder the formes both of bread and wine which institution is to be followed by all Christians and so both to be receaued Answer The bare institution of a Sacrament drawes with it noe necessitie of frequenting it as appeares in Priesthood and mariage instituted by our Sauiour which not withstanding impose noe necessitie or command to receaue them so that standing precisely in the institution noe man wil be obliged to receaue either both or either of rhem Objection Secondly though the bare institution of a Sacrament impose noe command to receaue it yet it imports a precept that when it is receaued or administted it be done in that manner it was instituted as it appeares in baptisme Priesthood and other Sacraments Seeing therefore our Sauiour instituted this Sacrament both in the consecration and communion in both kinds at least whensoeuer it is receaued it must be receaued vnder both Answer This objection inuolues many difficulties and is first to he vndeestood that Sacraments are to be receaued and administred as they were first instituted in such matters as belong to the substance and essence of the Sacrament not in other accidentary circumstances of time place personnes precedences consequences c. as was the institution of this Sacrament after supper sitting vppon the ground giuen to priests only in a priuate secular house c. Secondly there is something particular in this Sacrament which is in noe other euen concerning the substance of it for the very same entire substance being here put vnder each kind makes that woesoeuer receaues either of them receaues the whole substance of this Sacrament and consequently receaues a true Sacrament instituted by our Sauiour and so that which is able to sanctifie him who worthily receaues either of them Thirdly concerning the substance of this Sacrament all that can be gathered from the bare words of the institution is that it is to be consecrated and receiued by Priests such as were the Apostles who were Priests then made when it was first instituted vnder both kinds but here is noe president giuen about the lay people because none then receaued it That the whole substance of our Sauiour is here receaued I suppose for the present neither is it much questioned by such as grant the reall presence nor can be possibly doubted of by any who beleeues that our Saoiour dies not more and soe both flesh and blood and life and soule and diuinitie are all vnited togeather weresoeuer he is hence therefore followes that lay people receiue as much of our Sauiour seeing they receaue him wholy and interily as Priests doe That he who receaues our Sauiour thus vnder one only kind receaues a true Sacrament is as cleare as the former for who can without absurditie denye that vnder one kind is exhibited an outward visible signe of an inward spirituall grace which is the compleat definition of a Sacrament according to our aduersaries for here the formes of bread only containing vnder them our Sauiour by way of meat signifie that he confers a spirituall grace nourishing and feeding our soules to eternall life and thus much is signified by the English ministers when they distribute the bread to the people saying the Body of our Lord Iesus Christ preserue thy body and soul to eternall life c. and containing his body represented as separated from his blood and so as dead by force of the words of consecration are an outward visible commemoratiue signe of his sacred death and passion and seeing that both bread is composed of many graines and wine of many grapes vnited togeather the mystical vnity of Christians receauing this Sacrament is sufficiently signified hy the species of either of them if then here he an outward visible signe of an inward spirituall grace both exhibitiue commemoratiue and significatiue here must needs be a true Sacrament euen according to the pttnciples of our aduersaries and what I haue said of the forme of bread is by the same reason verified of the forme of wine but not only in their principlcs but in all good Theologie there must be a true Sacrament vnder each kind for certainly seeing that a different grace is conferred by each of them the one of spirituall meate the other of spirituall drinke which how it is to be vnderstood I will hereafter examine each will be sufficient to sanctifie and helpe the soul to eternall life If it should be replyed that in neither of these kinds alone is exhihited a compleate signe either of our spirituall refection or the death of our Sauiour but only a partiall or imparfect signe of them which notwithstanding are compleatly significd vnder both togeather I answer that if by a compleat signe be vnderstood a most full and expresse representation of these two particulars I grant that there is not vnder one only kind so full and expresse a representation and in this sense not so compleat a signe of them as vnder both togeather but then it must be prouued this most full and expresse representation vnder both being exhibited to lay Christians by the consecration and communion of the Priest in the dread full sacrifice of the masse that the substance of this sacrifice requirs that they should be allways so fully and expressely represented in each particular communion of the people but if by a compleat signe be vnderstood a signe sufficient to signifie both our spirituall food and vnion and the death of our Sauiour I denie that there is not a compleat signe of both exhibited vnder each kind This distinction may be much illustrated by an instance from baptisme certainly the mystery of the trinity was more expressely fully and compleatly signified by that
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
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
haue had no punishment at all after this life and consequently he should not haue been rewarded according to his workes not suffering the condigne punishment which he truly deserued and God should haue proceeded vnequally in inflicting his punishments and haue had respect to his persone more then to that of Dauid neyther is Purgatory any way injurious to the iustice of God because though he forgiue the guilt of the sinne and the eternall punishment for which man is not able to satistisfie yet he reteynes a parte of the punishment which being finite and temporall may eyther by workes of penance and patience be remitted in this world or payed in the world to come or released by the prayers and penances of other faithfull Christians And this may satisfye for the point of Purgatory THE SIXT CONTROVERSIE Of the Reall Presence of the Body and blood of Christ in the Eucharist The Doctrine of the Church of Rome deliuered in the Council of Trent Sess. 13. Can. 1. SI quis negauerit in Sanctissimo Eucharistiae Sacramento contineri verè realiter substantialiter Corpus Sanguinem vnâ cum animâ diuinitate Domini nostri IESV Christi ac proinde totum Christum sed dixerit tantummodo esse in eo vt in signo vel figurâ aut virtute anathema sit If any one shall denie that in the most holy Eucharist is conteyned truly really and substantially the body and blood togeather with the soul diuinity of our Lord IESVS Christ and consequently whol Christ but shall say that he is in it only as in â— signe or figure or vertu let him be accursed Ibidem Can. 2. Si quis dixerit in Sacrosancto Eucharistiae Sacramento remanere substantiam panis vini vnâ cum corpore Domini IESV Christi c. anathema sit If any one shall say that in the holy Sacrament of the Eucherist remaines the substance of bread and wine togeather with the body and blood of our Lord IESVS Christ c. let him be accursed Ibidem Can. 4. Si quis dixerit peractâ consecratione in admirabili Eucharistiae Sacramento non esse corpus sanguinem Domini nostri IESV Christi sed tantùm in vsu dum sumitur non autem ante vel post c. anathema sit If any one shall say that the consecration being done in the admirable Sacrament of the Eucharist is not the body and blood of our Lord IESVS Christ but only in the vse whilst it is receiued and neyther before nor after c. let him be accursed Ibidem C. 6. Si quis dixerit in sancto Eucharistiae Sacramento Christum vnigenitum Dei Filium non esse cultu latriae etiam externo adorandum c. anathema sit If any one shall say that Christ the only Sone of God in the holy Sacrament of the Eucharist is not to be worshipped with the worship of latria or diuine worship euen externall c. let him be accursed This is part of the doctrine of the Council of Trent in this point the rest may be seen in the Council as drawn from this To dispose the Reader to a right conceipt of this high mystery and to informe him vppon what ground the Church of Rome teaches this doctrine I thought it necssary to cite those texts of the new Testament which deliuer the institution of this SacrameÌ„t that the Reader may with one vew see how largely and clearly the holy Scripture if it be vnderstood according to the proper signification of the words speakes for this doctrine of the Reall presence And that I may not be thought to haue cited the words otherwise then Protestants admit of them I will cite the texts as I finde them in the Protestant English bible Mat. 26. v. 26.27.28.29 And as they were eating Iesus tooke bread and blessed it and brake it and gaue it to his disciples and said take eate this is my body And he tooke the cup and gaue thankes and gaue it to them saying drinke ye all of it For this is my blood of the new Testament which is shed for many for the remission of sinnes S. Marke c. 14. v. 22.23.24.25 And as they did eate Iesus tooke bread and blessed and brake it and gaue to them and said take eate this is my body And he â—ooke the cup and when he had giuen thankes he gaue it to them and they all drank of it and he said vnto them this is my blood of the new Testament which is shed for many Luc c. 22. v. 19.20 And he tooke bread and gaue thankes and brake it and gaue vnto them saying this is my body which is giuen for you this doe in rememberance of me Likewise the cup after supper saying this cup is the new Testament in my blood which is shed for you S. Paul 1. Cor. 11. v. 23.24.25 For I haue receiued of the Lord that which also I deliuer vnto you that the Lord Iesus the same night in which he was betrayed tooke bread And when he had giuen thankes he brake it and said take eate this in my body which is broken for you doe this in remembrance of me After the same maner also he tooke the cup when he had supped saying this cup is the new Testament in my blood doe this as often as yee drinke in remembrance of me The Protestant discourse of the Eucharist begins thus Obiection 1. THe institution of this Sacrament is expressed in the 3 first EuaÌ„gelists S. Mathew Mark and Luke and also by S. Paul in all which they agree in these 4 thinges that IESVS tooke blessed brake and gaue bread for he that saith IESVS tooke bread blessed brake and gaue it saith plainely enough that he brake and gaue bread and not the species of bread as they hold Answer If this objection intend to proue as certainly it doth thar our Sauiour tooke blessed brake and gaue bread to his disciples so that that which he gaue them was bread remaining in the same substance of naturall bread which it had when he tooke it I deny that our Sauiour gaue bread to his disciples or that the three Euangelists and S. Paul cited agree in this the proofe that our Sauiour gaue naturall bread to his disciples because saith the objection he that saith Iesus tooke bread brake and gaue it saith plainly enough that he brake and gaue bread is grounded in a false translation or addition to the text of holy Scripture in the English Protestant Bibles for neither hath the greeke nor latin the word it and though the Protestant Bible of the yeare 1630. and 1632. haue these words Iesus tooke bread and blessed it and brake it and gaue it to his disciples all in the same letter and print as if the word it were no lesse in the originall then the others adioyned yet the latter Bibles and namely that of the yeare 1646. put the word it in a different letter to signify that it is nor in the originall but
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
explicitenesse of words for we haue noe where expressed in Scripture that the bread our Sauiour did eate was conuerted into his flesh as we haue that the rod of Moyses was conuerted into a serpent and notwhithstanding euen Protestants must beleeue it so though we haue it not in expresse termes that bread is changed into the flesh of our Sauiour in this Sacrament as we haue that Moyses rod was conuerted into a serpent yet we must heleeue it because the truth of Scripture cannot stand vnlesse this be granted for seeing our Sauiour sayd This is my Body and it is wholy impossible and implying contradiction that a piece of bread remaining in its own nature should be the true and reall body of our Sauiour as we haue shewed that those words must import it followes necessarily that the nature and substance of bread cannot be vnder those visible species and therefore bread must cease to be out of the force of Christs body which must succeed in place of bread vnder the same species which is nothing else then to haue bread changed into the hody of our Sauiour Objection Why should they only take these words This is my Body in a litterall sense and noe other doth he not as well say I am a dore I am a vine doubtlesse he was able to transforme himselfe into a dore or a vine but did he therefore doe so he said to his disciples yee are branches yee are sheep did they therefore become so in respect either of his power or words Answer I Answer that there is a maine difference betweene these propositions and the other where of wee treate This is my Body both in the subiect and in the predicate that is in the first and last word of them for the first word or subiect in the former is I yee which signifie determinately and expressely our Sauiour and the Apostles to whom he spake But in the latter the first word or subiect is This which neither expressely nor implicitly signifies bread but this which I am about to giue you as I haue already said the last words also doore vine vinebranches sheép in the former propositions are indetermined and fit to take a spirituall mysticall and metaphoricall sence for he doth not say I am a doore made of wood and boardes which is vsed to shut and open in visible houses nor I am a vine which visibily springes from the earth and beares such grappes as men vse to make wine of neither said he that his Apostles were such sheepe as feed in the fields as beare wool to make cloath of as are boyled and rosted to be eaten at the table nor such vine branches as are cut of from the vine and either rot or are burned or beare grappes in the vine visibly c. For it had been an impossibility and a plane contradiction to affirme that liuing men remaning in there own nature as they did should be such things as those truly and really and therefore those last words dore vine sheepe vine branches being not determined in Scripture to these materiall and visible things which we commonly vnderstand by these words giue full scope to interpret them of things in a spirituall and mysticall sense in which only these propositions are true but in these words This is my Body the last word body is not left indeterminate and applyable to a metaphoricall sense as it is in holy Scripture and the discours of our Sauiour expresly determined it to signifie his true naturall materiall substātiall body which was there present before the Apostles for if our Sauiour had only said these words This is my Body and added noe further explication some scope might seeme to haue been giuen to haue interpreted it either of his reall or mysticall body which is his church whereof S. Paul speakes but he takes away this liberty when he addes presently This is my Body which is giuen for you This is my blood which shall be shed for you which cannot b◠vnderstood of his mysticall body but only of his true reall body blood which only were giuen shed for our redemption so that the subiect or first word of the former proposition I yee being wholly determinate to those particular persons of Christ and the Apostles and the predicate or last words dore vine sheepe vinebranches being wholy indeterminate in themselues neither expresly naming corporall nor spirituall seeing it is contrary to all reason and wholly impossible that thereby those things in a corporall sense should be affirmed of our Sauiour and his Apostles as I haue faid those propositions must make this sence which is true and orthodoxe I am a spirituall dore or vine yee are spirituall vine branches or sheepe c. but on the contrary the indetermination or indifferency of the first word or subiect of this proposition This is my Body being considered in it selfe making it noe way limited to bread and the last word or predicate Body which is giuen you being expressly determined to the reall and substantiall body of Christ it must make this sense This which I am about to giue you is my reall and substantiall body which is a true and Catholike proposition and not this This bread is my true and reall Body which implies as much contradiction and impossibibility as this other that Christ is a dore of wood c. For it is as impossible that a peece of bread actually existing should be the reall body of Christ as that Christ should be a wooden dore nay if we consider it in greeke 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in Latin hoc disagreeing with bread in gendre 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 panis which are both masculine it cannot be referred to bread Now to shew out of Scripture it selfe that our Sauiour calls himselfe the dore in a spirituall mysticall and metaphoricall sense only is cleare out of S. Iohn c. 12. v. 9. I am the dore if any man enter by me he shall be saued c. which is not true of a naturall dore of wood for all such as enter in by such a dore are not saued but such only as enter by the spirituall dore of there soules which is our Sauiour so also when he calls his Apostles sheepe he shewes clearely that the speakes of metaphoricall or spirituall sheepe for he affirmes that they heare his voyce or know him and hence appeares also by the way another mistake contrary to theyr own English Bible which Protestants ordinarily vrge against vs mistaking the words of the Gospel they tell vs that our Sauiour said he was a dore a vine a way which he neuer sayes according to their English Bible but thus I am the dore the vine the way c. which determines the words to a spirituall and metaphoricall sense as when he sayes I am the bread of life I am the good fheapherd c. and when he calles his disciples sheepe he vseth alwayes this restraining and limiting particle my sheepe which
is only true of spirituall sheepe for our Sauiour had noe other That which the objection said that our Sauiour was as able to change the Apostles into sheepe as to change bread into his body is true if the Apostles had ceased to be men and had been so conuerted into sheep as Lots wife ceasing to be a weomaÌ„ was conuerted into a pilar of salt but then the proposition which Protestants pretended out of Scripture yee are materiall sheep had not been true neither could the truth of that proposition euer haue caused that conuersion as conformable to it but this proposition only should haue been true yee are made or are become materiall sheep by vertu of a miraculous change of men into sheep noe otherwise then the water in the mariage in Gallilee is said to be made wine fot when one thing is affirmed of an other then that where of it is affirmed is supposed to be existent as when I say I am a man the person must be existent where of it is affâ—rmed that he is a man but contrariwise when one thing is said to be made an other naturally not artificially then that which is said to be made the other ceased to be what it was and is conuerted into the other as when it is said water was made wine water ceased to be and wine was made of it and hence it is a plane contradiction to haue any change or conuersion made in a pure affirmatiue and simple proposition in this manner Peeter is a reall and naturall sheepe for then this person Peeter is supposed to be and not to be at the some time to be because he is affirmed to be a sheepe not to be because he is changed into a sheepe and so ceases to be as water ceased to be when it was made wine And the same absurdity and contradiction had followed if our Sauiour had said this bread which I now haue in my hands is my naturall Body truly and really for bread should haue remained because it was affirmed to be his body and yet it should haue beene destroyed and so not remained because it should haue been changed into his body I am sorry that such speculations as these should be propounded to those who haue not ftudied but the objections require them yet I must adde to make this matter out of question if the propositions I am the vine yee are the vinebranches implyed any change of our Sauiour into a reall materiall vine c. then this proposition adioyned and my Father is the husbandman would haue implyed a power in God the Father to be changed into a reall hushandman and so God himselfe would be changeable wich cannot be affirmed without a blaphemy So then as God the Father is called only a Spirituall husbandman so also our Sauiour a Spirituall vine and the Apostles spirituall branches noe more change being implied in the one then in the other Now that many things affirmed of others are to be vnderstood of those thinges as spirituall not corporall is most euident 1. Cor. 10.3 cited herafter by the Opponent and they did all eate the same spirituall meate and did all drinke the same spirituall drinke for they dranke of that spirituall Rock that followed them and that Rock was Christ. So that as Christ is here called the spirituall Rock soe is he in the places cited in the objection called the spirituall way dore vine c. which he truly and really is without all impropreties of signes or figures for otherwise as Protestants make this is my Body to be this is a signe of my Body soe must they say I am a dore is as much as I am the signe of a woodden dore which were both blasphemous and ridicâ—lous being applied to our Sauiour Obiection And if he was in a figuratiue manner a dore a vine why may not bread be is body figuratiuely and why should they thinke it is a lessâ— change for our Sauiour to call his body bread then to call bread his body doubtelesse he called his body bread in respect of the nourishement which a faithfull soul receaues in the Sacrament euen so the bread is the body of Christ sacramentally and taketh the name of the body of Christ as being a sacred signe or Sacrament thereof Answer I haue before giuen the reason of this difference for certaine it is that in this proposition â—n protestant doctrine by the word this is â—ignified reall and materiall bread and by my Body the reall body of Christ where of they wil haue this materiall bread to be a signe now â—n the other proposition my flesh is meat or I am â—he bread c. though the words my flesh and I signifie really and truly our Sauiour and his sacred body yet the word bread cannot any way signifie true and materiall bread for he expressely calles it the bread that came down from heauen the bread that giues life to such as worthyly eate it and liuing bread which can by â—oe meanes agree with bread made of wheat or any other corne Hence therefore apeares that the flesh of our Sauiour or he himselfe are neither a SacrameÌ„t nor a signe of visible and vsuall bread â—or it would want little of blasphemy to say â—hat our Sauiour or his sacred body were a signe â—f a loafe of bread which seeing it is so there can â—e thence noe argument drawn that bread is called the body of our Sauiour because it is a â—igne of his body but rather the quite contrary our Sauiour or his blessed flesh are tuly and â—eally liuing bread life giuing bread heauenly â—read spirituall bread Therefore that which â—ur Sauiour gaue his disciples was truly and â—eally his reall and naturall body or thus that â—read of our Lord that heauenly liuing spirituall which the Apostles receaued from the hands of our Sauiour was his true substantiall body But if by the words this is my Body should be vnderstood true visible bread as in the objection they are there will be noe other parity or consequence saue this or Sauiour calls his flesh bread because it is true liuing heauenly bread therefore a peece of coÌ„mon bread is called the body of Christ because it is a signe of his body which is quite out of ioynt Now certainely to answer the question heâ—e propounded it is much lesse strange for our Sauiour to call himselfe meat or liuing spirituall bread c. then to call a piece of wheaten bread his true and reall body for he is truely the one but naturall bread can neuer be the other Concerning the other question first propounded why may not bread be his body figuratiuely if it had been set down in this manner why might not bread haue beene his body figuratiuely I would haue answered that there is no reason but it might as were the figures of the old law and amongst them the bread of proposition and of Melchisedech and many such like types of the old Testament but the
contrary â—eeing therefore I haue clearly demonstrated that in the instaÌ„ces alleadged none of the figuratiue speeches can be vnderstood in a proper sense without the violation of some article of our faith proceeding according to true discours euen confessed by our aduersarios I conuince also that they haue no force to proue that these sacramentall words are to be vnderstood figuratiuely THE SEAVENTH CONTROVERSIE Concerning Communion vnder one kinde The Doctrine of the Church of Rome deliuered in the Council of Trent Sess. 13. cap. 3. SEmper haec fides in Ecclesiâ Dei fuit Statim post consecrationem verum Domini nostri corpus verumque eius sanguinem sub panis vini specie vna cum ipsius animâ diuinitate existere sed corpus quidem sub specie panis sanguinem sub vini specie ex vi verborum ipsum corpus sub specie vini sanguinem sub specie panis animamque sub vtraque vi naturalis illius connexionis concomitantiae quâ partes Christi Domini qui iam ex mortuis resurrexit non ampliùs moriturus inter se copulantur Diuinitatem porrò propter admirabilem illam eius cum corpore animâ hypostaticam vnionem Quapropter verissimum est tantumdem sub altetutrâ specie atque sub vtrâque contineri totus enim integer Christus sub panis specie sub quauis ipsius speciei parte totus item sub vini specie sub eius partibus existit This faith hath been alwayes in the church of God that presently after consecration the true body and blood of Christ did exist vnder the species of bread and wine togeather with his soul and diuinity But his body vnder the species of bread and his blood vnder the species of wine by force of the words but his body vnder the species of wine and his blood vndet the species of bread and his soul vndeâ— both by force of that naturall connexion and concomitancy whereby the parts of Christ our Lord who is now risen from the dead not to dy any more are ioyned togeather moreouer also his diuinity both with his body and soul by reason of that admirable hypostaticall vnion with them wherefore it is most true that as much is conteyned vnder eyther kinde as vnder both togeather for whol and intire Christ exists vnder the species or kinde of bread and each part of it and whol Christ exists vnder the species of wine and vnder each part of it The same doctrine is confirmed sess 13. can 3. Item sess 21. cap. 3. Insuper declarat quamuis Redemptor noâ—ter vt anteà dictum est in supremâ illâ coenaÌ„â—oc Sacramentum in duabus speciebus instiâ—uerit Apostolis tradiderit tamen fatendum esse etiam sub alterâ tantùm specie totum atque integrum Christum verumque Sacramentum suâ—â—i ac propâ—ereà quod ad fructum attinet nulâ—a gratia necessariâ ad salutem eos defraudari qui vnam speciem solam accipiunt Moreouer the Council declares that allthough our Redeemer as is aboue said instituted this Sacrament in his last supper vnder both kindes yet it is to be confessed that vnder one only kinde whol Christ and a true Sacrament is receiued and therefore for soe much as belongs to the ftuict that those who receiue it only vnder one kinde are not defrauded of any grace necessary to saluation Ibidem cap. 2. Praetereà declarat hanc potestatem pepetuò in Ecclesiâ fuisse vt in Sacramentorum dispensatione saluâ illorum substantiâ ea statueret vel mutaret quae susâ—ipientium vtilitati seu ipsorum Sacramentorum venerationi pro rerum temporum ac locorum varietate magis expedire iudicaret Id autem Apostolus non obscurè visus est inuisse cùm ait Sic nos existimet homo vt ministrâ—s Christi dispensatores mysteriorum Dei atque quidem hac potestate vsum esse satis constat cùm in multis aliis tum in hoc ipso Sacramento cum ordinatis non nullis circa eius vsum caetera inquit cùm venero disponam Quare agnoscens sancta mater Ecclesia hanc suam in administratione Sacramentorum authoritatem licèt ab initio Christianae Religionis non infrequens vtriusque speciei vsus fuisset tamen progressu temporis latissimèiam mutatâ illâ consuetudine grauibus iustis de causis adducta hanc consuetudinem sub alterâ specie communicandi approbauit pro lege habendam decreuit quam reprobare aut sine ipsius Ecclesiae authoritate pro libito mutare non licèt Further the CouÌ„cil declares that this power hath allwayes been in the church that in the dispensation of the Sacraments the substance being kept inuiolated and intire she might appoint and change such things as she iudged to be expedient for the profit of the receiuers or the veneration of the Sacraments according to the variety of things times and places And this the Apostle seemes not obscurely to haue insinuated when he sayes Let a man soe esteeme vs as Ministers of Christ and dispsnsers of the mysteries os God and that he made vse of this power is clere enough both in many other things and particularly in this Sacrament when ordayning some things concerning the vse of this Sacrament he said I will dispose the rest when I come wherefore our holy mother the church taking notice of this her power in the administration of Sacraments though in the beginning of the church the vse os both kindes was frequent yet in processe of time that custome being now notably changed being induced by iust and important reasons she hath approuued this custome of communicating vnder one kinde and hath decreed that it be held for a law which it is not lawfull to change or reproue at ones pleasure without the authority of the church The like doctrine is deliuered in the first chap. of this session From these texts it is manifest that the Council was induced to command this practice first because whol Christ is vnder both kindes 2. because in each kinde is the whole essence and substance of this Sacrament 3. because noe sacramentall grace necessary to saluation is lost by communicating vnder one kinde 4. because many important reasons toutching the honour and respect dew to soe diuine a SacrameÌ„t mouued her to it 5. because there is noe diuine command to the contrary as appearrs sess 21. cap. 1. 6 because the church hath power to dispence the Sacraments as she finds most eoÌ„uenient soe long as Gods commands and theyr substance are not violated 7. That it is not in any ones power saue only of the church to change this costome The Protestant Position Deliuered in the 39. Articles of the English Church Art 30. THc cup of the Lord is not to be denied to the lay people For both the parts of the Lords Sacrament by Christs ordenance ought to be ministred to all Christian men alike This is proued by Scripture mistaken
ancient coustome of a threefold dipping the child in the water and the words of baptisme then by the same words and putting water once vppon the child and yet this latter is iudged sufficient euen by Protestants for who can doubt that the formes of bread sufficiently giue vs to vnderstand that our Sauiours is the food of our soules noe lesse then the bread of proposition in the old and the bread multiplied by our Sauiour in the new Testament and his calling himselfe the bread of life in the sixt of S. Iohn prefigured and signified sufficiently that our Sauiour was to be the bread of our soules and who seeing a bodyly before him void of soul and blood as our Sauiour is here represented by force of the words gathers not presently that it is dead though he see not the blood which issued from it and the same is of the blood of our Sauiour vnder the forme of wine for this alone is noe lesse sufficient to represent the death of our Sauiour then was tbe blood alone of the paschall lambe sprinkled vppon the posts of the Israëlites by the Iewish priests to prefigurate the shedding of his precious blood and sacred passion nor is the blood of our Sauiour vnder the forme of wine lesse sufficient to represent the spirituall exhiberation and conforting of our soules thē was the wine in Cana of Galilee and that sentence spoken of by the Prophete wine producing virgins able to fore figurate the same blood so comforting as also the species of bread or wine alone to signifie the vnity and amitie which is to be amongst Christians both in regard of Christ and themselues as I haue shewed Hence therefore appeares that seeing in each kinde apart both the death of our Sauiour and our spirituall meate and drinke and vnion respectiuely are sufficiently signifieds each must necessarily containe a true Sacrament and not only the part of a true Sacrament and seeing in each a true Sacrament is receaued each alone must conferre that grace which is signified by it and so sanctifie the soul of such as receaue it and consequently may be receaued fruitfully and sauingly alone for so much as belongs to the bare institution for if our Sauiour instituted each species apart to conferre sauing grace then who receaues either deuoutly receaues that grace for which our Sauiour instituted it and so we are put in the state of saluation by reeeauing one vnlesse thete be some other command produced which obligeth all to receaue both which shall here after be examined Objection Some may happily obiect that this answer subsists not for according to this doctrine the Priest also receaues a true Sacrament and the spirituall graces and fruits of it when he receaues the host only and yet euen after he hath receaued the host he is obliged to receaue the chalice according to Roman Catholiques therefore though it should be granted that lay people by receauing vnder the species of bread only receaue a true Sacrament with the sauing grace signified and conferred by it yet they may be obliged to receaue the other kind as Priests are Answer There is first a great difference betwixt the Apostles and lay Christians for they were directly and expressely obliged by our Sauiour in time of the institution to receaue the chalice euen after they had receaued the true Sacrament and the grace of it vnder the species of bread whence may probably be gathered that all Priests consecrating haue the same obligation of receauing both but noe such command was directly and expessely giuen to lay people none hauing been there Secondly Priests consecrating and sacrificing are obliged to receaue of each part of theyr sacrifice and so though precisely standing in the essence of a Sacrament there be no diuine obligation yet in regard of consummating and participating of theyr own sacrifice they are bound to receaue both as the Apostles did wich hath noe place in lay people The answer only concluds that standing precisely in the institution seeing lay people receaue vnder one kind a true Sacrament with sauing grace it cannot be thence conuinced that they are bound to receaue more so that if there be any obligation of receauing both it must rise from some other head and not from the bare institution whereof we treate in answer to this objection now taken from it alone Obiection It may be yet further obiected that our Sauiour here instituted a full and compleat refection not only by way of meate or by way of drinke only but of both togeather and therefore such as receaue one only kind receaue but one part of this heauenly banquet and want the other which seemeth quite contrary to the institution and intention of our Sauiour Answer Our Sauiour instituted this celestiall banquet in so ineffable a manner that the very same substantiall thing was to be both our meat and drinke to wit himselfe and that so abundantly that either both to geather or each a part are so suffizing a repast that they communicate strengh and life to all such as worthily receaue them and though both being receaued make but one compleat refection by reason they are both taken at once by way of meate and drinke as it happens in other ordinary refections yet each of them receaued apart or at different times is also a full and compleat refection of the soul by reason that each communicates sauing grace sufficient to saluation and this euidently appeares in common feasts and banquets for when many dishes are eaten and different sortes of wine drunke at the same time or meeting they are esteemed but one meal or banquet and yet if at different times one should feed now vppon one then vppon an other of these dishes apart or dranke but one sorte of wine one day and an other of them an other then such eating and drinking by reason of the diuersitie of times would be counted diuers sufficient refections and if it were possible to find in other meates and drinke what is found in this Sacrament that as well the one the other alone could preserue and conferre life and that one could liue with drinking without eating or eating without drinking then either of these a part would become a full refection all therefore that can be gathered from this objection is only that our Sauiour in the first institution gaue a most plentifull and abundant banquet whereof each part in it selfe was sufficient to conferre life and satieté to his Apostles which in succeeding ages being receaued either ioyntly or apart was to be a sufficient refection for Christians But from the institution vnder both kindes followed not which is cheesty pressed in this objection that our Sauiours intention was that these two kindes should be such parts of this heauenly feast that both of them are essentially required to it for then he would not haue giuen each of them force to conferre grace sufficient for saluation but would haue had that grace necessarily dependant
vppon the receauing of both togeather Now that the receauing of our Sauiour vnder the forme of bread only conferres life and saluation is out of all question Ioan. 6. He who eateth this bread shall liue for euer and that perfectly and entirely as appeareth by these words As I liue by my father so he who eateth me shall liue by me for our Sauiour liueth by his father not partially buâ— wholy and perfectly Obiection Further one may reply that as corporal meate and drinke haue different effects thâ— one of nourishing and strengthing the otheâ— of comforting and exhilerating so proportionably this diuine meate and drinke must haue the like different spirituall effects correspondent to each of them whence followeth that he who receaues one only is depriued of the grace corresponding to the other and so the people will be depriued of some grace corresponding to the chalice to wit that of spirituall consolation and exhilaration of the soul in the seruice of God which Priests haue by receauing both kindes Answer First I answer that it is sufficient for the defence of the Catholique Roman faith that lay people in receauing vnder one kind are not depriued of any grace necessary to saluation which they should be were they obliged by vertu of Christs institution to receaue both And which our aduersaries presse against vs. seeing therefore the same habituall iustifiing and sauing grace is receaued by one kind as well as by both though he who receaues both were supposed to receaue extensiuely more then they which receaue one only yet this hath noe greater difficulty then that Priests being accoustumed and permitted euery day to say masse receaue by vertu of oftener communicating more habituall grace then lay people who promiscuously haue noe such practise or permission they being by acts of obedience to the holy Church and humiâ—ity proportionable to there own estat to supply the want of that extent of graces which are conferred vppon Priests by vertu of theyr dayly receauing this Sacrament noe wrong being done them so long as both in this and that of communicating vnder one kind they are depriued of noe grace necessary to saluation and by other acts of vertues and good workes may if they will being assisted by the grace of God exercise and supply that defect wherein by reason of the Sacrament they fall â—hort of Priests I say there is noe wrong done them because Christians are obliged to haue respect not only to theyr own parricular spirituall profit in increase of grace by the Sacrament but also to the reuerence which is due to it they must be content to want that â—ncrease when it cannot be obtained but by some irreuerence offerred to this diuine Sacrament Thus though both Priests and lay men might haue more degrees of grace by celebrating and communicating two or three times a day then by once yet because this inuolues a want of reuerence to the body and bloud of Christ it is but once a yeare generally amongst Catholikes permittrd to Priests and neuer to lay people neither by Catholiques nor Protestants the same would follow if all lay men were licenced promiscuously to communicate euery day and noe lesse were they permitted to receaue vnder both kindes as I shall shew here after whence followes that as out of the respect which they are bound to bere to this heauenly mystery they are obliged to refraine from communicating euery day and vppon noe day to receaue more then once so are they to abstaine the Church so commanding from receauing the chalice Secondly concerning actuall auxiliary graces which are supernaturall pious thoughts and inspirations to good conferred by vertu of this Sacrament and proper to it some doctours hold that there is a different actuall grace corresponding to the chalice from that of the host the one of strenghning proper to meate the other of exhilaration proper only to drinke yet the common tenet of doctours is contrary and so it will only come to a schoole Question not necessary to be treated here wherein the more common and negatiue opinion seemes to me more pious and honorable to this Sacrament for it wil be sufficient to saue the proper effects of these two kindes that there be actuall graces corresponding to meate and drinke the one of corroborating the other of exhilerating as the primary not as the only actuall fruits of this spirituall food and drinke so that by the host by reason of its inestimable ' and illimitated vertu be communicated to the receauer certaine actuall graces strenghtning him in time of tentation as the primary effect of that kinde and yet the other of exhilerating in time of sorow also as the secondary and lesse principall of the sacred host and the same discours holds proportionably of the chalice so that each kinde conferres these different graces but in a different order and manner and by consequence he who receaues either hath the very same actuall graces communicated to him noe lesse then he who receaues both and lay people are not depriued of any species of actuall grace due to this Sacrament which Priests haue Now that this doctrine much conducing to the honour and glory and grounded in the boundlesse perfection of this Sacrament is cleere tough to such as only consider that this spirituall banquet vnder each species containes noe lesse then Christ himselfe who is not only the food but also the drinke of our soules and so the holy Scripture speaking of him telleth vs he who eateth me shall yet hunger and he who drinketh me shall yet thirst and if we may hunger and thirst after iustice and the same iustice be borh able to satisfie our hunger and quench our thirst that is be both meat and drinke to vs whensoeuer we receaue it why should we denye these effects to the fountaine of iustici our deare Sauiour whensoeuer he is worthily receaued vnder either forme in this Sacrament and if the materiall manna had the taste sweetnesse and strength of all other different meates why should we not attribute to this spirituall and diuine manna the strength sweetnes and perfection both of all meates and drinks also whensoeuer it is rightly receaued And if speaking of diuine wisdome Salomon tell vs that all good came to him togeather with it why should we limite that wisdome of God more then is necessarie in this Sacrament In a word if some corporall meates haue also the vertu of drinke and some corporall drinkes the force of meate to nourish why should we denye this to the best of all meates and drinks the body and bloud of our Sauiour for if the least drop of his bloud or action of his body was sufficient to satisfie for the sinnes of infinite worlds why should we frame so pore an opinion oâ— them both in this Sacrament that whensoeuer they are truly receaued they haue not power vnder each kind both to nourish strenghen exhilerate and conferre spiritually all the fruits and profits
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
of Christians to the whol and each particular to some part of this command For seeing there is noe more reason why one Christian should be more exempted from it then an other the concurring to it falls equally vppon all for though Priests when they consecrate and sacrifice haue each in particular an obligation to communicate yet according to a probable opinion they haue noe obligation in particular proceeding from any diuine precept to consectate or sacrifize but all their absolute obligation to communicate is taken from this and other like commands which we haue treated so that though noe particular Priest were bound by diuine precept to say masse yet they are bound to communicate by reason of these precepts which could not be vnlesse euery Christian were obliged in perticular to concurre to the performance of this generall command with an equall obligation Objection If it should be said that the church may sufficiently complie with the generall command by prouiding that it be still kept in execution by some particular persons as she complies with many others Answer In answer first that if should one staÌ„d meerely to the bare letter of Scripture in these precepts this might be said but if we take the sence of it according to the common straine of doctours euery particular will be obliged by them especially seeing that S. Paul extends this matter of communion to each particular Secondly as it was not in the power of the Apostels to exempt any of the twelf from concurring to the conuersion of all nation commanded by our Sauiour and to haue iâ— accomplished by the rest which they should haue appointed because each of them in particular was bound to labour in it by diuine precept where in the church cannot dispence so seeing we haue the same authority of doctours and tradition for the obliging each particular by this command vnlesse you eate aâ— each Apostle by that goe and teach all nations c. it may be denied that the church hath power to exempt any one from this precept by hauing it performed by other Christians appointed by her authority Thirdly had this Sacrament been left free as Priesthood and mariage were without any diuine precept that euery Christian csometimes in their liues receiue it the church neither would nor could haue obliged each Christian in particular to receaue it once a yeare as shee obliges none to receaue Priesthood or mariage because they were left free by our Sauiour Objection If it should be here objected that in the command of teaching c. each Apostle in particular could not conuert all and if each had been bound to teach and baptize all the command could not haue any conuenient sense but each Christian is able easily both to eate and drinke this Sacrament and so there is no parity in the command of teching with that of communicating Answer I answer first that this command is not instanced as like in all things but to this end that seeing this precept of teaching c. must he vnderstood of all in general and each in particular and that there be such commands in Scripture that though this of eating and drinking this Sacrament might haue been so vnderstood that each Ccristian is bound both to eate and drinke as being a rhing very feasable yet this Sacramentall precept may be vnderstood as the other must be and if it be possible to vnderstand it so our aduersaries will neuer be able to conuince thence the necessity for euery particular to receaue both kindes and yet there will be a necessity by vertu of these words to receaue one I Answer secondly that there is as great a necessity to vnderstand this precept in the foresaid manner drawn from the truth of Scripâ—ure as there is for vnderstanding the command of teaching drawn for the force of nature That which followes the text in the ensuing verses makes this matter quite out of question for though our Sauiour here declared the necessity in the plurall number Nisi manducauerith c. vnlesse you eate c. of eating his stesh and drinking his blood as belonging to the generallity of Christians the words in vobis in Greeke 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 you shall not haue life in you signifie according to the Greeke phrase very familiarly in Scripture amongst you which is referred to the whol congregation of Christians and not to each patricular Yet when he expressed himselfe in the singular number Qui manducat hunc panem qui manducat mâ— c. he who eateth this bread he who eateth me c. and addessed his speach to particular persons he attributes eternall life to the sole eating of him and that heauenly bread as appeares in the said text he who eateth me shall liue by me he who eateth this bread shall liue for euer c. and hence it is clearly deduced not only that these words vnlesse ye â—ate c. doe not euidently include ea necessity for euery particular person to rereceaue both kindes but that they cannot possibibily include any such necessity without a contradiction betwixt this text and the text following now cited for if he who eates the flesh of our Sauiour hath eternall life as those textes affirme then it can not be true that vnlesse each particular both eate and drinke he shall not haue life eternall and hence also appeares a necessity of vnderstanding these words that though all in generall be bound to receaue both amongst them yet none in particular is bound to receaue both but each is partially to concurre to accomplish this command as each Apostle was that of teaching and baptizing all nations Obiection Some happily may answer with Caluin that though eating be only named in the text now cited yet drinking also is there included and to be vnderstood as being connected with it in the former text vnlesse you eate c. Answer That more is vnderstood then is expressed in any place of Scripture is not vppon light coniectures to be supposed but to be prouued by solide and conuincing arguments otherwise each light headed nouelist might at his pleasure frame to himselfe certain apparent congruities to extend the words of Scripture and to make them import more then they signifie in themselues and so multiplie Synecdoches wheresoeuer it comes to his purpose Seeing therefore I haue shewed that there is noe necessity to strech these textes beyond the common and vsuall stgnification of the words by giuing at least a probable satisfaction to whatsoeuer they alleadge to proue the contrary let our aduerfaries make good that there it a necessity of the drawing these words beyond their naturall signification or that more words are supposed then are expressed in the text and we will yeeld to this explication But this discours of our Sauiour is so farre from giuing the least ground to any such like improprieties the common refuge of our Aduersaries when they eannot auoyd the sorce of the expresse words and proper sense of
Scripture that it rather confirmes the proper and natiue signification of these words he who eateth this bread shall liue for euer when he saith as I liue by my father so he who eateth me shall liue by me whence is at the least more probabily then Protestants can proue the contrary inferred that as our Sauiour liues totally and compleately by his father without the addition of any thing else so Christians liue by worthily eating this heauenly bread without the addition of drinking or any other action necessary to giue life as a part of this Sacrament But that I may make the exposition which I haue giuen of these words yet more plaine and forcible I will propose an instance of a command of this kind giuen to the Israelites euen in matter of a Sacrament where they are in generall commanded by families to celebrate the passeouer by taking killing and shedding the blood and sprinkling it vppon the posts of their dores rosting and eating the paschall lambe c. not that euery one in particular was obliged to performe all these actions but some to one and others to others with decency and proportion though absolutly speaking euery one in particular must haue concurred with the rest to the performance of them all and yet the whol familly by concurring partially were obliged to the performance of all and happily this mystery beeing a figure of the Eucharist the only command of eating without any mention of drinking may giue some aduantage to the coustome of eating alone amongst Roman Catholiques but this only by the way as a congruence And yet to come nerer to our present Question when our Sauiour in the command giuen in the institution doe this c. commanded that what he had done as substantially belonging to this Sacrament should be done in his church that is that this mystery should be celebrated the host and chalice consecrated the body and blood of our Sauiour vndloodily be sacrifized and receaued yet noe Christian dare affirme that all these actions here commanded were to be performed by euery Christian in particular for then all Christian men weomen and children were to performe the office of Priests but that euery one was to concurre to the performance of this precept by doing what belongs to his degree and calling and seeing all these actions now mentioned were not to be performed by each Christian how can it be euer prouued that each was both to eate drinke seeing that by performance of either of these actions separately each might partially concurre to the accomplishment of that precept as they may also to this nisi manducaueritis vnlesse you eate the flesh of the sone of man and drinke his blood you shall not haue life in you that is vnlesse you concurre each in particular to the performaÌ„ce of this command either by eating alone or drinking alone or performing both togeather each respectiuely to his calling office and order prescribed by the church you shall not haue life amongst you that is these actions are necessary that life may be found in the Church of Christ or amongst Christians for this is à command which must be fulfilled amongst them and all are bound in particular to concurre one way or other to the fulfilling of it seeing there is noe reason that one should be more obliged then an other and so if any one were not obliged none in particular would be bound to fulfill it and then euery one in particular might lawfully abstaine and consequently there would be noe performance of this command amongst Christians which would make the command to be void and of noe effect quite contrary to the expresse words and intention of our Sauiour From this whol discours may appeare what an vnworthy and base esteeme our aduersaries frame of the most sacred body and blood of our Sauiour not thinking that either of them as they are in this Sacrament is fit and capable to conferre sauing grace to such as deuoutly receaue them which cannot buâ— derogate insufferably from that infinite worth and dignity which all Christians haue euer conceaued in them for as it is a most certaine and receaued tenet that not only the shedding of the least drop of his most precious blood but the least action or motion of his most sacred body was abundantly sufficient for the redemption of the whol world and a million of worlds more why should they now call in Question the sufficiency of the same body and blood receaued apart each of them to communicate ineffabâ—le fauours and graces all grounded in his sacred passion to the worthy receauers of them Obiection If they answer that they doubt not of the worth and power of each of these but of the will of our Sauiour whether he ordained that they separately or only ioyntly should conferre grace or commanded that allwayes both should be receaued Answer I answer that seeing noe lesse the body then the blood of our Sauiour as separately taken in the Eucharist is abondantly in it selfe fit and able to sanctifie the soule of him who dewly receaues it and that there is noe cleere text in Scripture which conuinces that one of them alone can not sanctifie or rather that there be most cleere texts which proue that one alone can doe it and that there is noe expresse command giuen in Scripture to all patticular Christians to receaue both and the coustome both of the primitiue ancient late and moderne church is euidently to the contrary I cannot see what can haue mouued ouâ— aduersaries to thinke that one kinde suffices not saue a low and meane esteeme they haue of the vertu and force of our Sauiours body and blood considercd separately in themselues in this Sacrament The second defect of respect and reuerence which our aduersaries shew to the sacred blood of Christ in this particular is the little care they haue how much of that diuine chalice and how often it be spilt vppon the ground sprinkled vppon the cloarhes of communicants cast out of the sacred vessels abused lost trod vnder foot by a thousand indiscretions irreuerences negligeÌ„ces mischances by reason of the great multitudes of people of all most all ages sexes conditions who not only once or twice a yeare as amongst the new reformers but each month forttnight and weeke communicate through out the whol Roman Church as dayly experiences teach and especially in the former age in Bohemia where leaue hauing been granted for the Catholiques to receaue both kindes for theyr comfort they found not withstanding all the diligences which morally could be vsed so many and great inconueniences in this kind both to the communicanrs and Priests that they quicly grew weary of it and were compelled to leaue it of But our aduersaries eyther not beleeuing it is his precious blood or little regarding what becomes of it if they beleeue it will and must haue the vse of the chalice though it be affected with a thosand irreuerences to satisfie theyr
them Secondly I answer that the objection proceeds vppon a false supposition for the rod of Moyses is not called a rod when it was turned into a serpent because the serpent had been a rod before nor Adam dust because he was before dust for though it be true to say that that which was become a man or a serpent was dust or a rod by reason of the subiect which remaines common to them both called in philosophie materia prima yet it is not true in any formall philosophicall sense to say Adam was dust the serpent was a rod for Adam neuer was nor neuer could haue been any thing else then what his essence made him viz a man and a reasonable creature nor a serpent any thing then what the being of a serpent requiers to wit to be a serpent when therefore in holy Scripture Adam is called dust and the serpent the rod of Moyses it is not because Adam was once dust and the serpent a rod for how can that be proued out of any place of Scripture but because Adam was made of dust and the serpent of the rod of Moyses which is cleerely testified in Scripture so that the supposition and fundation of the obâ—ectioÌ„ failing that which is built vppon it viz that the body of our Sauiour is called bread after consecration by S. Paul because it was bread before must needs fall to the ground For we say not that the body of Christ was euer bread but because that which was bread is now become the body of Christ bread casing to be vnder those accidents by vertu of Christs body coming in the place of it so that though this sacred body cannot be said to be made of bread ' as a house is made of wood and stones which remaine in their own substances to compose it nor as fire is made of wood where the matter common to them both remaines yet if there be vnderstood only that the body of Christ succeds to the substance of bread vnder the same accidents and so issues from it as the day issues from the night as from the terme from which it beginnes to be as one may say ex necte fit dies of the night is made the day so may one say ex pane fit corpus Christi of bread is made Christs body as it is mysteriously in this Sacrament and might be therefore called bread after consecration as the wine in Cana in Galilee is called water because it was made of water and the serpent called the rod of Moyses because it was made of the rod of Moyses or which is the same in other termes because that which became wine was water and that which became a serpent was the rod of Moyses which if it be resolued into philosophicall termes is nothig but this that the substantiall matter which was vnited to the substantiall formes of a serpent and wine was immediately before vnited to the substantiall formes of the rod of Moyses and of water which happens in other changes of one thing into an other Thirdly it is not the ordinary way of speach to say that all things which are made by substantiall changes were such things as were changed into them thus though fire be made of wood or wood be changed into fire yet it is an ordinary manner of saying to affirme this fire was wood neither say we these flowers were earth though they were made of earth changed into them In like manner when our own flesh is produced of the different meates we eate we vse not to say our flesh was beefe or mutton or hearbes or btead or drinke c. and yet it is made of all these when they are changed into our substance and hence is true the same proposition of our Sauiour in time of his nourishment for his meate was as truly changed into his flesh as our meate is into our flesh and consequently the bread which he did eate was changed by nourishment into his flesh and so it is true euen out of holy Scripture which speakes of his eating and drincking and increasing and by consequence of his nourishment that the flesh of Christ at least in some part was made of bread and yet it is not the ordinary manner of speech to say that those parts of the flesh of Chrtst were bread not withstanding it would be neither impious nor false to say that some parts of Christs flesh were once bread supposing it were true that the serpent had been a rod and Adam dust as the Opponent here affirmes to wit those into which bread was changed by naturall nourishment if then it might be truly affirmed of some parts of Christs flesh that they were bread in this sense for-named why should it be not only false but impious to affirme that the flesh of Christ as it is in the SacrameÌ„t for we affirme it noe otherwise was bread there being noe more difficulty in the one then in the other fourthly this change being made in a way wholy supernaturall where noe part of the substance of bread remaines to wit neither forme nor matter as we speake in the schooles which happens not in any naturall nor in many supernaturall changes where the matter and substance still remaynes now receiuing one forme now an other by reason whereof the thing that succeeds may be sayd as the opponent contends to haue been the thing that was changed into it by reason I say that noe such common subiect remaines here but the whol substance of bread is changed into the substance of Christs body it will not be so proper a manner of speech to say that the flesh of Christ was bread as the like would be in other naturall and ordinary changes if that manner of speech were allowable Fiftly the objection mistakes the compleat reason of Catholikes why S. Paul calls thc Sacrament bread after the consecration for it is not only because the bread is changed into the flesh of Christ for this might haue been done so inuisibily that neither the body of Christ nor the species of bread should haue appeared and then we should haue had nothing common to them both to haue continued the denomination of bread but the entire reason giuen by Catholike Doctors is that the bread is changed into the flesh of Christ which is put vnder the outward shewes or species of bread which giue occasion or ground of giuing it the same denomination it had before Thus we call the dead carkase of a lamme a lamme and the dead body of a man a man by reason of these outward organs and proportions which remaine the same they were before though the thing be quite changed from what it was Vnto that which is added that we haue noe where in Scripture that bread is conuerted into the flesh of our Sauiour as we haue that the rod of Moyses was conuerted into a serpent I Answer that it is not necessary to haue all things in Scripture in the like clearnesse and