These Words Precisely force not on us any Memory of his sacred Body or Blood Present But only Mind us of his Action of Sacrificing in his last Supper However to Satisfy our Adverfaries be pleased A Disguised Prince may be Remembred though present with his Nobles only to put this supposition That a Prince were with his Nobles in a Disguised weed And Would not appear to their Senses but Disguised Might they not well Although they knew otherwise He were their Conceiled Prince and Present not Only Reverence and Adore him But also make a Commemoration of Him Most certainly yes This is our Case As therfore that which we call a Sign requires not A Sign requires not the absence of the thing signified the Absence of the thing signified For the Ark of the Covenant was a Sign of God Present and the Dove Descending on Christ was a Sign of the Holy Ghost Present So likewise a Remembrance or Commemoration Implyes no Necessity of his Absence that is Remembred Finally We may Remember our Lord and Saviour as He is in Heaven absent whilst He Feed's and feast's us here on Earth with his precious Body and Blood on the Altar The Objection therfore is Forceles every way 16. They Object 3. This Sacrament is called Bread Answ But never Bakers Bread after the The Sacrament is not called Bakers bread Words of Consecration Fancy only say's so and no Proof Again 'T is called Bread becaus it 's made of Bread as Man is called Dust because made of Dust Such Objections are Trivial 17. They Object 4. The Breaking of Bread strongly Calvin saith Breaking of Bread is Sacrificing argues 'T is plain Bread Though Deputed to a Holy Vse Answ The Breaking here is Sacrificing as Calvin Himself confesseth The Argument though it Proves just nothing is seemingly more for Luthers Opinion of Bread and Flesh together then for our Sectaries 18. They Object 5. Christ is called a Vine a Rock and a Doore Answ What then Put a Minor Proposition to these Words and Se How weak a Conclusion A weak Inference of Sectaries Followes Is it any Consequence that because figurative Speeches are in Scripture sometimes Therfore all we Read there must be Tropes and Metaphors We know and the whole world knowes also by other Principles that These are Tropes And we evidently know by as assured Principles that Mr BODY GIVEN FOR YOU MY BLOOD SHED FOR MANY Are no figurative Locutions 19. They Object 6. The Cup is called the Fruit The legal and Sacramental Cup Distinguished of the Vine therfore it is not Blood Answ 1. It may be called Heavenly Wine as Christ called himself Heavenly Bread c. But the true Solution is There were two Cupps on the Table that night before our Saviour suffered the Legal and the Eucharistical or Sacramental Cup That 's called the Fruit of the Vine This not 20. They Object 7. Some places of Scripture The words which I have spoken to you are Spirit and Life The flesh Profiteth nothing All did eat the same Spiritual Food and all drank the same Spiritual Drink Answ Nothing But meer Fancy or something Wors can Draw these Texts to the sense of Sectaries The open and plain Meaning of Christs words without Violence offered to them easily Gathered By the whole Context is The sense of Christs own words is clear by the whole context of the Gospel Thus. I have spoken to you of Divine and Spiritual Matters conducing to Eternal Happines But your Thoughts are still on Earth As if I were to cut off certain Pieces of my Body and give them you to Eat so S. Austin explicates this Place it is not so saith our Saviour I spak of that more Hidden Mystery of the Sacrament If Sectaries can prove the contrary let the◠them do by a sure Principle which Being Believed and Spiritually Vnderstood will Quicken you and Give you Eternal life The Flesh therfore That is a Carnal Vnderstanding of my words Profit 's Nothing c. This is the Genuin and candid sense of Christs Expression For it were a Blasphemy to say that his sacred Body Profit 's none I Answer To The other Passage of S. Paul It s an Errour to judge That the Jewes Received no less the Substance The Apostles words misonderstood by Sectaries and Benefits of Christs Graces in Their Figures Then We do in our Sacraments The Apostle Intimates no such Thing But only Saith They all the Hebrewes among Themselves good and bad Eat the same Meat and Drank of the same Rock which was a Figure of Christ Now Pray you Tell me Do all Calvinists Good and Bad when They Receive Christ by the Mouth of their Faith Equally participate of his Graces Or were There any such Ample Promises Annexed to the Eating of Manna in the Desert and Drinking the Wather Issuing out of that Rock as are now made to the Sacraments of the New Law No. They were Egena elementa Barren Elements for so Scripture speak's You 'l Ask Why Then doth the Apostle call the Manna and Water Spiritual Food Why the Apostle call's Manna Spiritual Food and Drink I Answer They are called so not Becaus they Produced Grace as our Sacraments Do But becaus They had a Spiritual Signification And were caused by a Special supernatural Providence contrary to the Ordinary Cours of nature 21. They Object 8. Such ought to be the Way of Receiving this Food of the blessed Sacrament as is An Objection concerning the way and manner of Receiving showed null Answerable to the Quality of the Food and End for which we take it But both the Food it self to wit Divine Grace and the Final end of it which is a Union of the soul with Christ are purely Spiritual Therfore the Way or Mode of Receiving it must be Proportionably Spiritual But no Mode or Way of Taking it can be more Fit or Spiritual then Faith Therfore we are to Receive it by Faith Only as the meetest Instrument Answ The Objection no less improper in Speech then simply Fallacious Distinguisheth not rightly Between the Immediate Cause of Grace the effect of Sectaries distinguish not rightly between the cause of Grace the effect it self and the Disposition necessary to receiving Grace and the Disposition necessary to Receive this Effect Fruitfully The immediate cause of grace is Christs sacred Body under the Forms of Bread and Wine Now to say That his Body is the Way or Manner of Receiving our Spiritual Nutriment is an Impropriety in Speech And to say Again That this Body ought to be Ejusdem planè rationis of the self same Nature with the Spiritual Food it Causeth or That a Corporal thing cannot be Ordained to Produce a Spiritual Effect is most untrue For the water in Baptism A material thing can cause Spiritual Grace produceth grace in the Baptized yet is Corporeal the Corporeal visible Effusion of Christs sacred Blood in his Passion
That 's not enough Sectaries are to Prove it Beares that Sense here An Instance That the Word EST in our Saviours Proposition hath determinatly that Sense and no Other You know Scripture saith Hic est filius meus dilectus This is my beloved son c. Now no Man can Inferr Becaus EST sometimes is Rendred Signifies That Here it looses its Proper sense And only Avail's as much as if you Said Christ only Signifies or is not otherwise the Son of his Father Then a material Picture Hang'd on a Wall is a Sign or Figure of the Prototypon This cannot be admitted of Vnles I say a Stronger Principle which is Impossible Force us to Approve of such an Heretical sense And thus We Discours in our Present Matter 3. Note 3. All the Principles which can be Thought on to Force Catholicks from the Received Sense of Christs Own Words or to Favour our Adversaries Cause must be Reduced to one of these Heads To No known Principle upholds the Doctrin of Sectaries Plain speaking Scripture To Vniversal Tradition To the Catholick sense of Christs Orthodox Church in former Ages or Finally to the General Consent of Fathers If none of these Principles Vphold Protestants Doctrin it Fall's of it self And wholy Relies on Fancy Thus much supposed 4. Here is my Proposition and an Inference also A Proposition against Sectaries Sectaries cannot by virtue of any one of these now Named Principles VVithdraw Catholicks from the Plain Received Sense of Christs VVords They cannot Prove that EST in our Saviours Affirmation Imports only as much as if you said it Signifies Therfore the Doctrin which Denies the real Presence of Christs Body in the Sacrament is wholy Vnwarrantable and Built on Fancy Only 5. The Proofs of my Assertion are as Vndeniably The Proofs of it are no less clear Then the Proposition it self Evident as the very Assertion it self For it is Manifest No Scripture plainly Teaches I say no More now That the Verb EST in Christs Proposition Beares only this sense it Signifies And it is as Clear no Vniversal Tradition Approves of this new Fancied Sense What then Remains But that our Adversaries take Recours to some Ancient Orthodox Church or To the General Consent of Fathers I say therfore If they A Fair offer made to Sectaries can Name any Vniversal Church Nay any particular Church Reputed Orthodox the whole world Over That Interpreted these Words as They do or Clearly Denyed Christs true Body and Blood To be under the Formes of Bread and Wine after Consecration or Believed that Natural bread only hath the Name of Christs Body Though it be Really no more But a Sign only a Figure only a Resemblance only of his Body If I say Protestants you shall se will never Answer Directly to what is here proposed any one of these things can be proved They 'l Come of Gloriously And Gain Thousands to their Opinion But I know all is in a high Measure Impossible I say a Sign only a Figure only For We Catholicks both speak with the Fathers and Truely Believe The Eucharist to be a Sacrament And consequently a Sign of Invisible Grace Yea and a Figure also a Memorial of Christ Himself and his Sacred Passion But this is not the Controversy between us The sole Question therfore is Whether it be so purely a Sign or Figure that What They are to Answer To. the Thing Signified is not in the Sign And the Verity in the Figure That is Whether Christs Sacred Body and Blood be not Truely and Substantially within the outward Sign and really Present There This VVe Affirm and Sectaries Deny Though never Orthodox Church Denyed it with Them 6. To clear this Point And Add If Possible more Weight to our Assertion We Have an Ample Holy and Learned Catholick Roman Church whose sole Authority set Scripture aside is the Greatest on Earth The sole Authority of our Roman Church is Sufficient to Convince Sectaries of Errour Which confessedly hath believed and taught this Doctrin of the Real Presence for at least a Thousand Years I say Ever since Christianity began And can any one prudently Perswade Himself That so Chois and Learned a Society That yet Speak's in Christs ovvn Language And Literally believes his words as They are in the Gospel Hath for so long a time lived in a Cheat and taught Millions of Soules a most Damnable Errour Admit of this Vast Improbability We have yet a Demonstration No Other Orthodox Society Ever opposed our Catholick Doctrin against Sectaries And 't is No Orthodox Church can be named that ever Opposed Found fault or Blamed the Belief of the Roman Church Concerning this Mystery Therfore the Doctrin of this Learned Society is undoubtedly Certain upon a double Account that Christ Taught it And no Vniversal Church ever Condemned it 7. In the last Place we are to Say a Word of the other The last Principle which is the consent of Fathers Principle Which is the Vnanimous consent not of a small Number but of Many most Ancient Learned and Holy Fathers These can well Declare what Scripture Teaches of This Mystery And what Christs Orthodox Church ever Believed If All Readers Have not the Originals at hand They may see them in the Authors Cited above I shall only Hint at a few For to Transcribe All or Half of them And Quote the Places Exactly Would Needlesly lengthen a Digression which I Intended to make short In passing I 'll only say thus much If Sectaries with all the Skill Fathers express for Catholick Doctrin They have can Interpret These few Testimonies Which I shall briefly Glance at They may with the same Ease Yea And far less labour Explicate the Words of the Council of Trent and make that to speak Protestancy Or to Deny the Real Presence 8. Some Fathers therfore Dogmatically Teach What we take into our mouths is not that which nature These Fathers are Faithfully cited Though to avoid Tediousnes in a short Digression I thought it best not to give the Reader more Trouble then is necessary by quoting Exactly the places made But what the Blessing hath Consecrated And that by Consecration the very Nature of bread is changed Thou hast learned that of bread is made the Body of Christ and the wine and water is put into the Chalice But by the consecration of the Heavenly Word it is made Blood The Bread and Wine of the Eucharist before the Sacred Invocation of the Adored Trinity were simple bread and wine But the Invocation being once don the Bread indeed is made the Flesh of Christ and the VVine his Blood The Bread which our Lord gave to his Disciples being changed not in shape but in Nature by the omnipotency of the Word is made Flesh Christ by his own Will once changed water into wine and is He not worthy to be Believed that He changed Wine into Blood Mark a substantial
clearly We may first Suppose Two necessary Suppositions That as God hath Certainly Revealed the Truth of this Mystery of the Blessed Sacrament in Holy Scripture so He hath also Taught us What we are Truely to Believe concerning it We Suppose 2. That his real Intention was and is That we stand to his Word and Believe Him as he Speak's Vnles we can Learn by some clear and Vndoubted Principle That he spak Reservedly or That his words bear another Sense then what they plainly Signify Vpon these Suppositions I Argue When God Reveals a Truth in Holy A clear Argument Proposed against Sectaries Scripture which concerns the General Belief of all And really Intends to Teach Christians what They are to Believe of that Revealed Truth He cannot Deliver more significantly clearly and expresly that Doctrin which He would not have Christians to Believe Then He Doth the Doctrin which He Would have them to Believe For if He did so whilst We cannot Learn by any known Principle That He speak's otherwise then He Thinks He would not only Equivocate and Deal reservedly with us in a Weighty matter of Faith And this as Ill beseem's his Goodnes as to Speak an Vntruth God in a weighty Matter of Faith cannot deliver more clearly that Doctrin which He would not have Christians to Believe Then he Doth the other which He would have them to believe If God cannot make a fals Religion more credible to Reason by outward Motives Then his true Religion is He cannot deliver an errour not to be Believed in more plain and significant words then he useth when he speaks a Truth to be believed by All. But more if we Rely on Scripture only He would Induce the whole world to Believe a Falsity Now I Subsume But it is most Evident if Sectaries Say right That God in speaking of this Mystery Delivers that Doctrin more clearly And significantly Which He would not have Christians to Believe Then He doth the other which He would Have them to Believe And there is no Imaginable Principle wherby we can learn that he Spake otherwise then He Thought or his plain Words Signify Therfore he speak's not only Equivocally and Reservedly in a weighty matter of Faith which is Alwayes to be Reflected on But He Induceth also the whole Christian World if Scripture guide us to Believe a Falsity by His too plain Speaking 5. Before I prove the Minor And give you this Clearer Language of Almighty God For what He will not Have us to Believe c. Be pleased to call to mind one Truth Explicated more largely Disc 1. cap. 8. For it is the Ground of my Present Discours Vpon that Principle therfore I say now Again As God cannot if True Faith be in the world make a Fals Religion more Prudently Credible to Reason by the force of rational Motives Then His True Religion is Evidenced and made Credible For if he did so He would oblige Reason to Embrace a Falsity and Desert Truth So also when He Delivers a Doctrin Concerning Christian Faith And in the most serious Circumstances imaginable He cannot Deliver an Errour in more Emphatical and Plainer words Then He speak's a Truth which yet You Shall se is Don if Sectaries be Believed The Parity Holds Exactly For As those more Perswasive Motives Antecedent to Belief wherby we are as it were summoned The parity hold's exactly to settle our Faith right Would If They Countenanced a Fals Religion Prudently Induce Rational men to embrace that and Leave the Discountenanced true Religion so This very clearer Language of God Wheron our Faith immediately Relies Would Also if it be more Express and Significant For Errour then Truth Force All to Embrace the Errour and Abandon Truth Becaus the Errour is most significantly Expressed in Holy Writ And the Truth not at All And This is Don when there is no excogitable Grounded Principle to Fancy or the bare words of Sectaries cannot work out of a Christians Hart the open sense of Christs words How Christ speak's and what Catholicks Believe Draw us of the supposed Errour if we be Beguiled or to work this supposed Falsity out of our Harts But the meer Fancy And the bare Word of a few Sectaries who say we are Deceived 6. Now to prove the Minor And Demonstrate that God delivers more Fully and significantly the Doctrin Which He would not have Christian◠to Believe then he doth the other Ponder these two things First what Eternal Truth Speak's in this Matter And we Catholicks Believe 2. What Sectaries say He speak's And They Believe These are Christs words This is my Body This is my Body Which is Given for you This is my Blood of the new Testament that shall be Shed for many Take heed say Sectaries Read warily These words Sectaries must say That Christs vvords taken in their plain literal sense are fals Taken in Their Plain literal and most Obvious sense are Fals and Therfore Express not the Doctrin we are to Believe Again Christ Speak's Thus. This is the Chalice of the new Testament in my blood which Chalice 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is or shall be Shed for you Vnles you eat the flesh of the Son of man and drink his blood you shall not have life in you My flesh is meat indeed and my blood is drink indeed No such Matter say Sectaries This is not the Doctrin we are to Believe For these words Vnderstood in Their Plain Obvious sense are Fals. That Chalice Shed For us vvas not his blood But vvine of the grape We eat not the flesh of the Son of man nor drink his Blood But only eat Bakers Bread and Drink Natural wine Sectaries make the contrary Proposition to Christs words True His flesh is not really meat nor His blood Drink Observe I pray you Sectaries so Abhor The plain and Proper Sense of Christs own Words that they make the contradictory Proposition to Him Absolutely True in Every Particular And his Fals Therfore they must at least confess that he Speak's too clearly and expresly that Doctrin which They say we ought not to Believe Otherwise Why do They not Admit of his Words in Their open and most candid Signification 7. Shall we next Consider what Sectaries Believe of this Mystery and withall Learn whether Christ Delivers as plainly Their Doctrin in Scripture As ours Sectaries Faith of this Mystery Hear Their Profession of Faith We Believe Say They That that which Christ gave to his Disciples vvas Natural Bread Deputed to a Holy Vse And no More We Believe it to be a Sign Only a Figure Only a Seal a Token a Type Only of Christs Body That is We Believe it to be His Body by Resemblance Symbolically Tropically Metonymically and Significantly Which is to Say it Hath the Scripture no vvhere call's that vvhich Christ gave his Disciples Natural Bread or a Sign only of his Body name of Christs Body But Really is no such
Thing And is This your Belief Yes Out with your Bible Therfore And Shew me as Many clear Texts of Holy Writ where That which Christ gave to His Disciples in his last Supper is called Natural Bread a Sign Only a Figure Token or Type only of his Body For This is the Doctrin you say we ought to Believe As I have now Quoted for the Contrary where it is called Christ Body and Blood Though you Suppose This to be the Doctrin We must not Believe Believe it These expressions This is my Body which is given for you This The words of our Saviour are plain and most Significant is the Chalice in my Blood which shall be shed for you are most Open And Significant Language Answer Me with Other Texts as Significant For your Faith or to this Sense This is not my Body But a Sign Only of my Body which is given For you Speak Plainly was it a Sign or a Figure Only of Christ That He blessed Lord Sacrificed on the Cross Was it a Sign or Figure only of Him That Judas Betrayed or that Suffered For our sins No. It was his Iudas betrayed not a sign of Christ Body but Christ himself very real Body and this Body Truth that cannot Err saith He gave to his Disciples Once more I have right to Demand Give me Text for Text or Cast your Scriptures in a Pair of Scales for a Trope Figure and Sign Only and Lay mine now Quoted By Them for the Reality of Christs Body Present And Let that Side of the Ballance Fall where you find most Weight of Gods Word You will soon Perceive Nothing in Scripture of signes and figures only How Light your Heresy is Compared with Truth And that without further Dispute it Flyes up to Fancy For There is not in the whole Bible so much as one Syllable of these Signes Only of these Figures of these Metonymies or any such Language 8. We se Moreover If Sectaries Speak Truth The Conclusion Fall's on Them with a greater Weight then They Imagined For it Followes That Christ our Lord Hath not only Spoken more Significantly and Expresly the Doctrin He would not have to be Believed Then the other which They say is to be Believed But also That He obligeth us to Believe a Sectaries would have us to believe a Docttin contrary to express Scripture Doctrin And by force of Scripture Which Clear Scripture is so far from Expressing That it Expresly Teaches the Contrary to what They Say All Ought to Believe I might yet Propose this Argument in other Terms and Perhaps with greater Force after this Manner If Christ Delivered that Doctrin more Plainly The Argument is proposed in other Terms which Sectaries Suppose to be Fals and Less clearly Yea not at All The contrary Doctrin which They Suppose to be True They who ground All Their Belief on Scripture must either Interpret the plainer Scripture by the more Obscure yes and I say by no Scripture at All And this is pure Fancy Or will be forced not so much to Misinterpret as plainly to Deny the Obvious and Open Sense of Christs own Words And This is wors then Fancy And here by If by a supposed impossibility Catholicks were deceived in Their Faith the way you may gather 3. If Catholicks who Believe the Real Presence of Christ in the Holy Eucharist Be Deceived in their Faith They may without Blame Impute the Errour to no other cause But to the plain Speaking of our Saviour and most Justly say Si error est quem credimus à te decepti sumus If we are Deceived 'T is you Blessed Lord who have don it You Tell They might justly blame Christs plain words us This is my Body which is given for you This is my Blood shed for many c. You never uttered the least syllable in your Scripture of a Sign Only of a Trope Figure or symbol Only Say therfore most imparrial Judge Wherin are we guilty whilst We Expresly Believe what you To say that Christ beguil's us or that we are beguiled by him is Blasphemy Expresly Teach And Reject a Novelty which None But Hereticks Brought into the World To Affirm that Christ intended to Beguile us by his too Plain Speaking of this Mystery is open Blasphemy And to Say we are beguiled by him is no Less An Impiety The Answer if Sectaries pretend we do not anderstand Christs words 9. All that Sectaries can Pretend for Their Cause Against this Discours is That we yet Arrive not to the True meaning of Christs sacred Words And Therfore They are ready to Teach us Very Good We are content to learn what is Truth But Before they Begin Their Teaching it will be best for Them To Reflect that we have here a Proposition This is my Body c. And because Christ Delivered It 'T is most True Therfore we have a Subject also This school terms are necessary in the present occasion we have a copula EST IS And a Predicate or Attribute My Body Now If our Adversaries will Vouchsafe to Teach Let Them first Please to Give us Plainly the Total Object of Christs Proposition And Say what that The total Object of Christs Proposition it to be declared Predicate was which He then Connected with the Subject HOC or THIS Did He say natural Bread remaining bread was his Body No 'T is most Fals. Did he say by an Identical Enunciation His Body was his Body No. Did He Say that what He pointed at was By the Energy of his Words made Really his Body No it is too plain Popery and Christ Say they never Spoke it How then shall we Learn what he truely Asserted or find a Subject Copula Sectaries can find no Truth in the proposition unles they first abuse his sacred words and Predicate in this Proposition They Answer And here is their best Instruction it is Impossible to find either Truth or these three Things in it Unles They first Abuse the Words And Say Hoc est Here Sitts Christs Body or That this Bread Per commumunicationem Idiomatum is Christs Body or That this Bread was made a natural Body by the Omnipotent Word of Christ or Finally Say To Omit other Glosses And This sense best Pleaseth Modern Sectaries That the Word Est Imports not Is or any Identity between Hoc and Corpus But Renders an other Sense and only Availes as much As if you sayd Significat This Signifies Christs Body Read therfore the Gospel thus This is my Body id est This Natural bread Signifies or is a Sign a Figure of my Body And we are Right We have the Genuine Sense of his Proposition Thus they Teach us 10. Here you shall se a Powerful work of Fancy A work of Fancy And a mighty injury don to Christ. And the Greatest Wrong Don I think to Christ that ever entred into a Christians Hart. To lay open This sin of Sectaries I
Freed us from a Spiritual Death and brought us to a Spiritual Life And do not Sectaries Hold that the very Material Hearing of the Word of God is a fit Means to Beget Faith both Spiritual and Supernatural in the Hearers Soul The Difficulty therfore Proposed comes to nothing but Fancy Finally if we speak of the Disposition requisite to Receive the Effect of this Sacrament you may call it if you please the Mode Way or Manner necessary to a due Receiving What Disposition is necessary All Catholicks Profess that not only Faith at least Habitual but Charity Also per se loquendo Are Prerequired as necessary Dispositions to the Effect therof Because it is Sacramentum Vivorum the Sacrament of Those who now Live by Faith Hope and Charity CHAP. VII How differently VVe and Sectaries proceed in this Controversy VVhat they are to Prove 1. SOme other Slight Objections yet remain Drawn from Fathers Misinterpreted and the weak Reason Other Objections briefly touched on of Sectaries It is not worth the while to Bring all to Light Again They are Solved and Vndeniably Solved by our Catholick Writers A few shall here suffise Some Fathers seem to say That this Sacrament is a Sign a Figure an Image a Type of Christs The Fathers say no where that the Sacrament is a Sign or Figure only of Christ Body Very true But not one say's it is a Sign Only a Figure Only a Memorial Only c. Now know It is one Thing to call it a Sign and an Other a Sign Only Exclusive of Christs Real Presence As it is One Thing to say Faith Justifies And Faith only Justifies excluding Charity Read therfore Those words of St. Austin Lib. contra Adimantum cap. 12. Till your Eyes be Weary Non dubitavit dicere c. Our Lord Doubted not to say This is my Body Cum daret signum Corporis sui When He gave a Sign of his Body All you S. Austin affirm's it not can Force out of Them is this Obvious and Genuine Sense Our Lord When He gave His Disciples the Consecrated Species Accidents or Forms of Bread which were a Sign and Figure of his Body There contained Doubted not to Say That that which He then gave them under those Species was Really His Body If Sectaries can Inforce more out of the Words let them do it without Fancy And prove their Gloss by a Clearer Principle then St. Austins Words are 2. Again When some Fathers Say There is not What the Fathers mean when They say it is not altogether the same Body Planè idem corpus The same Body Altogether in the Eucharist which was Fastned to the Cross But after a Manner the Same To which Sense St. Austin Commenting in Psalmum 98. Introduceth our Saviour speaking thus Non hoc corpus quod videtis manducaturi estis c. You are not to eat this Body you se Grosly He Means as the Capharnaits Understood And to Drink that Blood which my Enemies will Poure Out I have The Fathers endeavour to remove from us all gross Conceptions of this Mystery The two states of a Body Natural and Spiritual change not the substance of the Body We say usually when one is changed by Age or Sicknes he is not the same men Commended to you a Sacrament which Spiritually Understood will Give you Life c. When I say The Fathers Express Themselves by such Terms And Did so As well to Remove from us all Thick and Carnal Conceptions of this sublime Mystery as to Beget in us so far as we can reach to a Right understanding of the Spiritual Manner of Christ Existing in the Sacrament We must Distinguish with the Apostle 1. Cor. 15. Two States of a Body Natural and Spiritual Whose Dotes and Qualities Though Different Change not the Body Substantially Distinguish I say Thus And then Speak boldly with the Fathers It is not Altogether the same Body But after a Manner For so we Speak in a Vsual Language When we se one Notably Altered from Himself by Age or Sicknes And say He is not the Same He was But quite an Other Man Yet the Difference Here is not so Great as between a Glorified Body in Heaven and a Mortal Body on Earth or Betwixt Christ Body Situally Extended with its just Dimensions And not at all Extended The Fathers Therfore By placing all the Variety on the Mode or Manner of Existing Deny not Christs real Being in this Sacrament But as Learnedly as Literally Express the very Mystery The Fathers Learnedly and Literally Express the Mystery as it ought to be Expressed And We Stand to Their plain Words without Violence offered to the Obvious Sense by any Superaddition of Far-fetcht Glosses Yet Say it is Substantially the same Body 3. And here by the way if you will Parallel a little the Procedure of Sectaries with ours And Ours with Theirs As well in this as in Other Controversies You may see How Faintly Fancy plead's against Reason and Heresy Opposeth Truth Observe it What Catholicks stand to the plain obvious sense of their words and Scripture also ever They Allege out of Gods Word for their Errour VVe Stand to the Plain Obvious and Literal Sense of the Text And yet Deny Their Heresy Drawn from it Which therfore must of Necessity be an Additional Gloss of Fancy Foâ— Example Doth Scripture say Do this in Remembrance of me We admit of the Open Sense of the Words without further Commentaries or Glosses Doth it say The Flesh Profit 's Nothing We say so too But must learn by other Principles what Flesh Signifies in that Place Doth it say That Examples Hereof All the Ancient Hebrewes eat of the same Bread Drank of the same water We without Wresting the Text say so too Dot it say that God Inhabits not Temples made by Hands So say We And Give this Reason Because Gods Divinity infinitly Immense Circumscribed in no Particular Place as if he wanted Lodging is Every Where Doth it say that Christ Risen from the Dead was not Therfore in the Sepulchre We Answer the Illation is good in those Circumstances whilst Those virtuous Women Sought the Living Among the Dead Do the No Fathers make the Sacrament a Sign a Figure on 〈…〉 â—luding Christs presence Fathers say that the Holy Sacrament of the Altar is a Sign a Figure a Type of Christ even There Present We Acquiesce and speak also as They Do But withall Add That no Father makes it a Sign a Figure a Memorial Only as if the Reality of his Body were Excluded from the Outward Species of Bread and VVine Thus we Proceed with all Candor 4. Now let us cast a few Thoughts upon our Sectaries Sectaries contrarywise proceed with Catholicks and violently force both Scripture and Fathers Examples Hereof Dealing with us Catholicks And Se how Fancy only Vphold's every Thing they Assert We Allege our Saviours own Words This is my Body which
is Given for you They Answer No. It was not his Body but a Sign Only of His Body Given for us Observe well This Interpretation of a Sign Only is a Gloss of Fancy For neither the Word Sign is in Scripture Nor a Sign Only is any Ancient Father We Cite Again that Unanswerable Text of St. Luke This is the Chalice the new Testament in my Blood which Chalice is shed for you And mark the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that Relates to 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of the same Case and not to 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of a Different Case What Answer our Sectaries Marry Beza Tell 's us St. Luke Here either spak a Solacism or a Marginal Note Cre'pt by chance into the Text Here is His best Solution And who Tell 's Mr. Beza so But his own Fancy We Produce moreover Those Testimonies of Ancient Fathers Briefly Hinted at Above And say no Wit of Man can solve Them Chiefly That Authority of St. Cyril Of VVine changed into Blood as water was Once changed into VVine They Answer The Change was only Moral of Wine Deputed to a Holy Use which is Against the very Nature of the Instance And consequently a Strong Thought of Fancy We say No Universal Tradition No Ancient Church ever Opposed the Doctrin of the Roman Catholick Church concerning this Mystery Herein our Ad 〈…〉 rsaries are Silenced And cannot Design the Orthodox Church that opposed our Doctrin as both We and the whole world beside now oppose their Novelty Parallel therfore the Proceedings of Sectaries Against us A Parallel between their Proceeding and ours Sectaries mangle and pervert most clear Authorities with ours Against them And you will find them to stand upon Quicksand without Principles The very Straits They are put to Demonstrat this Evidently whilst as you have seen They Mangle Pervert Misconstrue and Gloss Every clear Authority cited against Them And We on the other side candidly Admit both of Scripture and Fathers Quoted by Them without Any other Gloss but what the very Text and Context of the Testimonies Allow of 5. And Hence it is that you Always have our Adversaries Sectaries bold in asserting but weak at their Proofs bold in Asserting But Cold Vnmanly and Weak at their Proofs Besides what is now said the true Reason is No Proof can touch much less Vainquish a Verity that Stands firm upon undeniable Principles Plain Scripture the Vnanimous Consent of Fathers undeniable What our Catholick Proofs are Tradition the Authority of a Holy and Vniversal Church and this Negative No Church ever blamed our Doctrin are Strong Supports for the Faith we Profess And can our Sectaries who are as Scriptureles as Fatherles as Fatherles as Churchles and Finally Destitute of All other Principles Think to Dant us with a few Gleancings Gathered Sectaries cannot deny Them now out of This now out of that Ancient Writter when They Evidently se with their Eyes the whole Torrent of Antiquity contrary to Them Can they Perswade Themselves that Because one Theodoret For example Of Theodorets Authority Saith the Mystical Signs after the Sanctification Recede not from Their Nature but Remain in their first Substance Figure and Form are Seen and Touched as Before which words are literally True if we Speak as We Admit of his Words this Author Doth of the visible Accidents of Bread and Wine Can we I say Think that this one Authority Though it were a Hundred times more Difficil Hath Weight enough to turn the Scales Force Enough to Drive us from the Faith which Scripture Church and Fathers most manifestly Deliver It is impossible The obscurer places of Scripture and Fathers are to be Interpreted by the clearer All know when Divines Explicate Scripture or Fathers They Interpret the obscurer Passage by the Clearer And never make the Darker Place to give Light to the more Evident Observe Now. Theodoret saith the Mystical Signs Recede not from their Nature But Remain as before I say so too The only Difficulty is what he Meanes by the Word Signs and Sectaries Glosses without Proof Theodoret cannot be supposed to contradict other most Learned Fathers He is to be Explicated were he obscure by the sense of other Fathers Nature Sectaries Tell us The Sense is Bread and wine Recede not from Their True Substance First This is their Gloss without Proof For the Visible Signs of bread and wine are not the Invisible Substance of Bread and Wine 2. Theodoret in all law of Arguing when His plain Words Force not on us this sense of Sectaries ought to be Catholickly Interpreted And Had we no other Reason but this That it cannot be Reason To make so Learned a Father Though once he stray'd a little to Clash with all Antiquity it were Enough At most His Words are Doubtful And upon that Account capable of Explication is it not Therfore more Just to Explicate Them by the Clear and Vndeniable Doctrin of a Whole Church And other Fathers then to Draw these Fathers from their Open and Manifest Sense to His if it be supposed Obscure as in Truth well Pondered it is not Let Reason Judge Here. 6. By what is said Already We may well pitty the desperate Condition of Sectaries who Pertinaciously Defend an Heresy without so much as a colour of Sectaries want Principles Scripture Church or the General Consent of Fathers For these Principles and none can Parallel them Most evidently Fail our Adversaries Urge them Again and Again to speak more Pertinently to their Cause then is Don hitherto You get nothing but the Old Story told over again And it will never be Better for I se too Plainly Their Humor It is God knows Sectaries Tristing and wherin it Appear's To spend or rather to Mispend their whole Life and Labour in Trifles They Think to Cavil at the Proofs of our Doctrin Establisheth Theirs As if it were sufficient to make their Novelty good Because they can Talk against our Ancient Faith Just as if One to Prove Himself an Honest Man might do it Pithily by calling his Neighbour a Knave 7. I must yet Add one Significant Word more And 'T is very Necessary to lay forth our Adversaries Weaknes as well in This as in All other Controversies Observe Solid Proofs for a Doctrin stand firm and unshaken against all Opponents it VVhen Proofs of a Doctrin Stand on solid Grounds and Principles the Objections Against it are like Fathers cast Against the Wind forceles And return upon the Opponents to their Confusion wherof I think you Have Already seen Enough in this Present Controversy But contrarywise When the Proofs are Meagre Barren and Void of Strength They are ever so with Sectaries The Very Opposite Principles for Truth Dash All Discountenance All and Evidently Shew those Arguments to be Feeble And Truely would our Did Sectaries Proceed Candidly They would se Themselves Convinced Adversaries once Deal Ingeniously Candor would
If the Churches Interpretation were as fallible as the Arians Christians might follow either as they please were as fallible as the Arians Christians might indifferently Adhere to Either yea and changeably now take one then the other as they please A greater Probability can ballance nothing in this or the like particulars as I shall largely prove hereafter In the mean while by what is now said we may learn first Though Scripture in this and other Mysteries hath its Darknes yet by the good Providence of Almighty God we are provided of a Sure Interpreter which is absolutely Necessary For if Every one interpret according to fancy Haeresy is easily Drawn out of Gods Word And if none interpret Faithfully the Scripture still lyes hid in Obscurity which makes it for that part a Useles Book to Christians The necssity of an infallible Interpreter Learn farther That None can ever know exactly by Human Industry or his Sole pondering the Bible let him be another Salomon for Wisdom what God hath Revealed in these difficil Mysteries of our Faith without an Infallible Interpreter To prove my Assertion I 'll give you one Instance 3. Suppose that two or three most learned Heathen Philosopher well versed in Languages and all Human Literature had this Book of Scripture put into their Hands and were perswaded by the extrinsecal An instance of Philosoohers reading the Bible Authority of all Christians that God here speak's his Eternal Verities Withall That if they read the Book and by their Sole reading without Recours to any Interpreter possess the True sense of it They have True Saving Faith Well They read it and with as much Humility as any Protestant can do yet If They ask of none but Their own Iudgement errour followes Ask of none But their own judgement what it means in the more difficil Passages Tell me I beseech you And here I appeal to the moderate Iudgement of every Christian whether Catholick Arian or Protestant What Faith or Religion would these Philosophers produce out of Sole Scripture Solely Read and pondered by them My Thought is 'T is no more but a Thought That the Result of their Reading would end in Coyning a Religion different from all Others now in Christendom I am very confident They would never pitch upon Protestancy no nor Their doubts would be Endles upon any Sect now extant Alas they would Doubt and Stagger at every hard passage in Scripture yea and by the very Instinct of Nature if they own'd Scripture for Gods Book would humbly Supplicate Those who gave them the Book to lay open the Mysteries therin and Assure them of its meaning in a hundred Places yet none can do this good office for them But One only Society of Christians that layes claim to Infallibility and proves it Demonstratively if Faith be in the World 4. Be it how you will thus much I conclude Our Protestants are in the very same Case without an infallible Interpreter as the Philosophers are with Sectaries are in the very same case without an Infallible Interpreter no Interpreter These make Scripture speak what They think it speaks right or wrong And Protestants do the like whilst They give their sentiment on Mysteries above their Reach without an Infallible Teacher Pray you Reflect Had Christ Iesus and his Apostles never Taught any thing by Word of Mouth But only thrown the Book of Scripture amongst Christians Strange Confusions Had Christ and his Apostles given to Christians a Bible without an Interpreter when They left the World and commanded them to make that use of it which every Private Iudgement thought best what a Religion think ye should we have had at this day in Christianity any or none or a thousand different ones as good as none God only knows I do not Yet will say This is out very present Condition if an infallible Interpreter of Scripture be Rejected We may wrangle to the Dissentions would have followed without hope of union Worlds end but agree in nothing Dispute but conclude nothing we may raise Difficulties one against another But allay none And thus the contest must run on without Redres or Remedy All Appellation here to Antiquity to Councils Fathers Appellation to Antiquity remedies nothing being fallible with Protestants and Tradition help 's nothing Becaus they are Fallible And were they otherwise we vary as highly about the Sentiments of Fathers in every debated point of Controversy as we do about Scripture it self 5. We se thirdly How utterly impossible it is for a Protestant to draw from the Objective Verities revealed in Scripture the True Sense and meaning of Gods Word in any controverted point of Religion The Reason is Scripture never speak's plainly and expresly the Protestants Sense in these debated Controversies observe it in All and you 'll find it so What do they therfore to help themselves They first Reject an Infallible Interpreter and next as the Arians do superadd their own Fallible glosses to make Sectaries make Scripture to speak what They would have it say not what God speak's Scripture speak not what it Truly says But what They would have it say And thus they think Scripture cleared and Their Work don Take here one Instance for many Catholicks and Protestants have been at Variance a hundred years and more about these Sacred Words Matt. 26. This is my Body The different Senses drawn from them are Contradictory And therfore cannot be True This is my Body Really saith the Catholick and here is my internal Faith No saith the Protestant This is my Body figuratively or a Sign of my Body And this is my Belief Arians and Protestants vitiate Scripture after the same manner Mark I beseech Just as the Arian saith I and my Father are one and superadds his Gloss of one in Affection so the Protestant here vitiates the Text by his Gloss and adds to Scripture what God never spoke a Trope a Figure a Sign and I know not what And after This Injury don to the Words He Believes not for Gods Express Word But for his own far-fetcht and dear bought Interpretations which are no more Scripture then if he should tell me That An Example That text of St. Matthew cap. 3. verse 17. This is my beloved Son were to be forcibly stript of its Verity and misinterpreted Thus This is only a Sign or Figure of my Beloved Son No more doth Scripture through the whole Gospel warrant in the least an Improperty of speech in the one Text now cited then in the other I little Regard The Protestant dscourses and glosses contrary to this Mystery of Faith let us have plain Scripture much les their Inferences which are all Human and Fallible O but to say that Christ Body is Really Present under the Species of Bread yea and in a thousand places at Once is an Vnintelligible Mystery Why more Unintelligible then a Trinity of Persons in one Essence
or the unchangeable Divine Word seemingly Changed when he took Flesh upon him and became an Infant These are Higher Mysteries and greater Difficulties If Human Reason might be judge and give a final Sentence But I 'll tell you once for all That man shall never be a Proficient in Christs School that will undertake to conquer High Mysteries no to be pried into by our weak discourses as I may say the great Difficulties of Faith by Examining the High Mysteries of it If he goe so to work he is cast into a Labyrinth and can find no Exit All therfore he is to do is to Learn and Examin whether God the Infallible Truth hath Revealed and taught us these Mysteries by any unerring Oracle Next How we are to submit in matters of Faith He is to Captivate his understanding And humbly Submit to him without further search who neither can be Deceived nor will Deceive us But enough of this Digression 6. We se thirdly Though Protestants Anathematize The whole Religion of Protestants is nothing els but addition to Scripture or subtraction from it all that Add to Gods Word or Take from it yet I 'll tell you Their whole Religion as Protestancy is either made up of no Scripture at all or is nothing els but a meer Addition of their own Glosses to Scripture or finally a wilful Subtraction from it To the Words now cited they add a sign a figure and God knows what more Is this Scripture When St. Iames 2. cap. 24. Dogmatically teaches that a man is Justified by Works and not by Faith only our New men tell us the Apostle speak's not of Justification before God but before Men. Is this Scripture When St. Paul Rom. 2. 6. plainly Affirm's That God will render to every one according to his Works Calvin and Beza Assure us He will do so indeed if there were any such But the Mischief is None can do a Good Work before God Is this Scripture No. These and such like Interpretations Our Adversaries do not own for Scripture yet They must own them as Tenents Essential to their Religion Ergo I say Meer Fallible Glosses which are no Scripture make up Protestant Religion as Protestancy And hence Doctrin of the 39 Articles as Protestancy not Scripture it is that their Doctrin delivered in the 39. Articles stand's there with all Clearnes that is you know what they say But when 't is Brought to the Test and is examined by Scripture you may seek long before ye find a word like it as 't is Protestancy 7. You see lastly That the Interpretations which Protestants give to those Texts of Scripture cited by How Sectaries abuse Scripture cited for Catholick Doctrin Catholicks for their Doctrin are meer Human Extra-scriptural and Anti-scriptural Glosses of their own Fancy We cite the Apostle 2. Thess 2. 15. For Tradition beside the Written Word For the Real Presence This is my Body Matt. 26. For Iustification by Good Works that of St. Iames 2. 14. For a Sacrifice to be continued to the Worlds End Malac. 1. 11. For Extream-Vnction Iames the 5. 14. For the Verity and Infallibility of the Church that of St. Paul 1. Timot. 3. 15. And what for Gods sake have we from our New Men to these plain Passages speaking Popery But a Return of meer Mock-fool Glosses Hatch't in their own Heads which have so little Shadow of Scripture in them That with force they drive the very life and sense out of Gods Word And They proceed so unluckily Sectaries make Scripture clear where 't is obscure and obscure where 't is clear That where Scripture is clear They make it obscure and where it is obscure They will seem to make it Clear by superaded glosses What can be more clear for our Catholick Doctrin of the Real Presence then those words of St. Luke 22. v. 19. Hoc est corpus meum quod pro vobis datur This is my body which is given for you Yet with their Glosses they so Torture the Text That every Particle in it suffers Violence In so much that Iacobus Scripture tortured by Sectaries Gordonus observes in his first Tome of Controversies printed anno 1612. Controversia prima de Verbo Dei cap. 26. n. 11. pag. 121. No fewer then two hundred different Glosses have been added by Protestants to Obscure the plain sense of Christs own Words Some as this Author notes abuse and misinterpret the Pronoun Hoc Others the Verbe Est Others Corpus Others meum Others the Relative quod Others the Proposition pro Others the Pronoune Vobis Others finally the Verb Datur Yet after all this perverting and woful mangling of Gods Word we must Believe that our Protestants speak forsooth Scripture and nothing but clear Scripture On the contrary side we have seen more then enough in the Beginning of this Chapter how Vainly They cry up the Clarity of Scripture in Mysteries most difficil not fully expressed in Gods Word What man in his Wits can say That any Scripture through the whole Testament Speak's half so clearly of the Consubstantiality of the Eternal Son with his Eternal Father as the Text now quoted is for the Real Presence Yet those Scriptures must be Clear for that Christian Verity and this Obscure for the Real Presence 8. To conclude this point Methinks it highly imports when we deal with our Adversaries concerning How to proceed with Sectaries when They Explicate Scripture Their Explications of Scripture That we do not so much at least in the first place make it our Work Positively to Disprove them by other Texts and Authorities which our Writers usually do and laudably as to put them to the Proof of their wild Glosses which seem's most Reasonable For Asserenti incumbit probatio When therfore They go about to Obscure Scripture where it is plain with new Interpretations the world never heard of bid them not only Interpret but Prove Their Interpretations For example That the words of our Saviour now cited must be alienated from their genuin Sense and tortured as they are by Protestants Proceed thus with them put them to the Proof and you 'l soon see them at a Nonplus CHAP. IV. Sole Scripture without an infallible Interpreter can be no Rule of Faith Protestants have no Scripture for their Religion as it is Protestancy 1. MY first proposition Draw's Proof enough from the precedent Chapter For if Scripture be Obscure and speak not clearly all Verities revealed in the book it cannot Regulate Faith without an Interpreter But 't is more then evident that it speaks not clearly many Verities Concerning the Highest Mysteries of Religion Therfore it cannot Regulate Faith relating to These Mysteries without an Interpreter I prove the Minor Scripture which solely considered according to the Exterior Letter both may The bare letter of Scripture may and doth easily beget error and Doth as easily beget Error as Truth in the Intellectual Power of man Speak's
might yet Go on And to clear all Answer now to a few Fals Supposed Grounds of Sectaries But the Learned Bellarmin Hath done the work to our Hands and Contributed more then Enough to Their Not one word of Scripture in the whole Bible for Sectaries utter Overthrow Truly is very pittiful to Se How after all their Braggs of Scripture Scripture is Here so Scarce with them That they cannot Find a Word through the whole Bible so much as remotely Favourable for this Heresy Observe wel what Straits They are put to 12. First the Particle EST in our Saviours Proposition must either Sound as much as Significat How they Trifle in a most weighty matter Signisies or Sectaries are undon And who Tell 's Them so but Fancy O It often Hath that sense I answer no such matter For EST ever retains its own simple and pâ—â—per Signification in every true Proposition and doth no more but joyn's the Predicate with the Subject what ever it be The reason is If any Trope or Metaphor lie hidden in the Copula EST it may certainly be Resolved into an other Word They Err in their Interpretations of Christs Words or Diction of a more Simple Clear and Open Signification Then EST by its own force Expresseth But this is Impossible For no Word can be clearer then the Clearest more Open then what is most openly significant This Copula is Always so and therfore cannot No Trope or Figure found in the verb Substantive though often in the Attribute or subject be Resolved into any clearer Diction And hence it is That when your Rhetoricians Treat of Figurative Speeches or Locutions They never Place the Trope or Figure on the Verb Substantive But either on the Attribute or Subject 'T is true the Predicate or Subject in many Propositions known Aliunde or by other clear Grounds to be Metaphors must be Explicated by clearer Terms whilst yet the Copula EST Holds its most Simple and Proper Signification Take one Instance Semen An Instance est verbum Dei The seed is the word of God The Word Seed as it is a Sign made by Institution essentially to Signify so in this place it is a Trop or Metaphor also For certainly Christ said not That material Seed cast into the Earth is really his Word if Therfore it be here both a Sign and Metaphor you must ultimatly Resolve the Proposition into a clearer Sense Thus. The very Essence of a Sign is to Signify This Word How Figurative Propositions are to be Resolved Seed is a Sign Ad placitum Metaphorically Representing the Word of God Therfore as well as a Metaphor can Do it Signifies this Divine Word where you se EST keeps its proper Signification And Therfore The whole Proposition finally Resolved Renders this Sense This Metaphor Seed is a Sign signifying Gods Word Now if you say We Grant at last That the Copula May here be Expounded Significat I Answer most True Yet without any Trope in EST For in such Enunciations Praedicatur Signum de Signo as Bellarmin notes The Sign is Predicated on the Sign As in this Proposition Amare Est diligere That is Amare is a synonimal Sign or signifies the same as Diligere And therfore is Explicated by Significat Because Sectaries explicate Christs proposition without placing the Trope on the verb Substantive the essence of a Sign is to signify But it is not so in other Propositions where that which is predicated is neither formally a Sign Only nor any Metaphor at all 13. You shall se what I say now Evidenced in our Sectaries Opinion For whilst they Explicate Christs Proposition This is my Body the Copula EST Retain's purely its own proper Signification without any Trope I prove it When we find a Trope in a Proposition it must lie There or in that Part of it into whose place when the whole Proposition is Resolved We put an other more plain and Significant Word to explicate the Trope clearly by this Resolving of a whole Proposition into its Parcels we easily judge where the Trope is Now Observe Our Sectaries resolve Christs Proposition Thus. This is my Body Hoc est signum corporis mei This is a Sign of my Body Mark well The words Subrogated to Explicate the The words subrogated to explicate the Trope with Sectaries be long to the Attribute Trope are these Two Signum Corporis But these two Words which belong to the Attribute or Predicate are not as is most evident Substituted in the place of the Copula EST Therfore the Trope lies not in the Copula which Keep 's still it s proper Significaiton But according to this Resolution in the word Corpus or Body Now How Fals it is That any Trope lyes in the word Body And consequently no where in the whole Proposition is Evidently Convinced by our Saviours true Assertion This is my Body which shall be given for you Believe it No sign of his Body was given for us But his Real Body Be it how you will Thus much is Clear That the Verb Substantive even here Retain's its Simple Proper and most Common signification 14. You may se more of this subject in Bellarmin lib. 1. de Euchar. c. 10. § secundo and cap. 11. per totum Where He Learnedly Explicates other Propositions Alleged by Sectaries as Petra erat Christus Agnus est Pascha c. All I 'le now say And 'T is what I noted Above Although it were granted that the Copula EST sometimes sound 's as much as significat Yet unles this sense Hold in All other Locutions of Scripture which is absolutely Fals our Adversaries are far enough from Proving their Intent Becaus they cannor Convince by any probable Principle That EST in this place Sectaries are far from proving their intent were all granted they pretend to A second Objection Hath that Determinate meaning which They would give it Therfore Fancy or something Worst must Help them to Mantain this Improbable Gloss 15. They Object 2. Those Words of Scripture Do this in Remembrance of me And then Discours We Commemorate no Body nor Celebrate any Ones Memory unles He be Absent But Christ As we Teach is Always Present in the Holy Eucharist Therfore we cannot make a Commemoration of Him as of One Absent If is one thing to say Do this Action you se me Do in Remembrrance of me And another to say the Sacrament is only a Remembrance of Christ The Apostle 1. Corrinth 11. Answer 's the Difficulty For After He Had sayd Do this in Remembrance of me He add's Quotiescumque enim c. As often as you Eat this Bread and drink this Chalice You shall shew the Death of our Lord until He Come But the Death of our Saviour is long since Pas't and not Present Therfore we may wel Commemorate his Death and Passion as Priests do in every Masse they say In Rigour therfore