our Religion and tending finally to the acknowledgment of God and our Sauiours honour as authour of our faith and Religion Soe that hauing these references to Gods honour though those Acts of Religious worship tend immediately to the acknowledgement of some created supernaiurall excellence in that which wee worshipp by them yet that hinders not theyr beeing Religious acts in this larger sence As appeares by these following texts of Scripture where Moyses is commaunded to prescribe certaine ceremoniall rites in Sacrifices Holocausts amongst which one was that the brest right Shoulder of that which was offered in sacrifice should be giuen to the Priests as belonging to them by right and ordinance of God The giuing of these two parts of the thing offered to the priest was an action done immediately to a pure creature and not to God and yet it is called Religion as appeares by the words These things God commaunded to be giuen to them that is to Aaron and his ofspring as it is in the precedent words from the children of Israell by a perpetuall Religion in theyr generations Secondly S. Iames. Pure and vndefiled Religion with God and the father is this to visite the orphanes and widowes in theyr tribulation and to keepe himselfe vnspotted in this life where a worke of mercy to the pore is called Religion that is a worke proceeding from Religion and belongrg to Religion though done to creatures such as are orphanes and wedows All that I haue cited out of Scripture in the discouery of this second mistake will I hope haue coÌ„uinced the iudicious and well minded Reader that there is a Supernaturall created excellency communicated liberally from Allm God to some creatures infinitely below the diuine excellency of God and yet far aboue all naturall and ciuill worth which therefore must deserue honour and worship seeing that naturall and ciuill excellencies euen according to protestants though far inferiour to them deserue it which worship seeing it is done in acknowledgment of the Spirituall and supernaturall dignities which are only proper to Gods true religion and soe are religious excellencies may be rightly termed a religious worship in the fore named sense For seeing the humble acknowledgmeÌ„t of diuine perfections is deseruedly termed diuine worship and of ciuill perfections rightly styled ciuill worship soe the humble acknowledgment of religious perfections for the like reason is to be named Religious worship which will yet seeme lesse strange to an indiffereÌ„t eye if one consider that the some different degrees may be found in Acts of other vertues which are here fouÌ„d in worships I haue allready proued from Scripture that there are different kinds and degrees of feares and loues whence it followes that when one feares the iustice and wrath of some ciuill Prince or magistrate it may be called ciuill feare but when one feares the iustice and authority of an Apostle a Prophet c. whose power is drawn from Religion it may be named a Religious seare Thus the feare of Adam hiding himselfe from God was a diuine feare The feare of Adonias flying from king Salomon was a ciuill feare but the feare of the Primâ—tiue Christians of S. Peeter when Ananias fel down dead at his feete was a Religious feare And the same distinction is in differeÌ„t ordres of loue S. Peeter loued our Sauiour as his God and Redcemer with diuine loue Ifack loued Esau with a ciuill loue but the Primitiue Christians loued S. Paul with a Religious loue And in the same manner as I haue allready Proued Moyses worshipped the infinit maiesty of God with a diuine worship the children of Iacob worshipped the power and excellency of Ioseph with a ciuill worship but rhe Sunamite worshipped Elizeus and the captaine of fifty men Elias whose authorities were deriued known and acknowledged only from faith and Religion with Religious worship And the giuing such a Religious worship as this which I haue described to a creature is soe far from derogating any thing from the due worship of God or from ascribing any worship proper to him to any creature that it would be an insufferable iniury to God And horrid Sacriledge to affirme that he is to be worshipped with any such worship for that were to acknowledge in him only a created finite imperfect excellencie which were to make him an Idoll a false God Neyther can his honour be any thing diminished by exhibiting this kinde of Religious worship to a creature indued with spitituall graces for his honour cannot be iniured but by giuing to a creature the wotship proper and due to him only seeing therefore this is no worship due to him neyther only nor at all it cannot be any way a preiudice to his honour For as ciuill and religious feare and loue commanded to be giuen to creatures is no way preiudicious to the diuine feare and loue which we-owe to God Soe neyther can ciuill nor religious worship commaunded to be exhibited to creatures as I haue proued be preiudicious to the highest diuine worship which we owe to God And thus much Allm God seemes to say by his Ptophet Isay. I am the Lord this is my name I will not giue my glory to any other nor my praise to Idols where he saith not I will not giue glory to any other for that would be contrary to the words of the Psalmist speaking of man in his first creation Thou hast crowned him with glory and honour but I will not giue my glory to an other that is that infinite glory which properly belongs to God only wich is specifyed in the precedent words I am the Lord this in my name soe that God wil neuer giue that which is his proper name and title to be Lord of all things to an other which is yet more expressely set down by the same Prophet And I will not giue my glory to an other heare o Iacob and Israell whom I call I I my selfe am the firrst and I am the last And my hand also layd tbe foundarions of the earth and my right hand measured the heauens c. This is that glory proper to him alone of being the eternall God creator of heauen and earth which he will not giue to an other which soe long as he keepes inuiolable to him selfe all vnder glories limited and created which are like soe many little motes compared with the infinite extent and light of his glory he both liberally giues himselfe and wills they should respectiuely be giuen to his creatures If not withstanding all these euidences both of Scripture and Reason any one should remayne soe strangely willfull and immouable by force of education and continuall custome from his infancie as to deny all kind of Religious worship in how large a sence soeuer it be taken to be lawfully exhibited to any saue God alone I say if any such should be found soe long as he yeelds to the thing it selfe that is to
that there are two kinds of worship the one interiour the other exteriour the interiour is in the minde and soul only the exteriour is that interiour signifeyd by some humiliation of the body soe that though one may haue the inward of the soule without any outward or exteriour in the body yet one can heuer haue a true act of exteriour or bodily worship without an interiour worship in the soule thus the souldiers in the tyme of our Sauiours passioÌ„ though they bended their knees to him which is one part of exteriour worship taken Separately and absolutely in it selfe yet because it was not accompanied with the inward humiliation of the soule it was noe act of worship but of mockerie I say it followes that as the outward corporall humiliation is constitured an act of true worship by the inward intention of the minde Soe are the different kinds of worships distinguished only by the different intentions and humiliations of the soule For the very same externall comportment and prostration of the body may be vsed both when wee worship God an Angell a Saint an Apostle a Bishop a Priest a King a Magistrate a father a mother c. thus the very same hebrew and greeke word is vsed in these different worships the same bowing and kneeling is practised to them all as I haue allready proued But though the same externall gestures of the body may be vsed to all yet they bâ—ome different kinds of worships according to the different humiliations intentions and acknowledgments which he who worships desires to exptesse by those outward deportments of the body Thus if when I kneele I intend to exhibite worship to the Creatour and maker of all tkings that kneeling will be a diuine worship proper to God only If I kneele with intention to acknowledge only some ciuil dignity or morall exccllency in the person before whom I keele it will bc a meere ciuill worship but if I kneele before or to some other thing or person with intention to acknowledge in them 'a worth or dignity neyther infinite nor diuine but finite and createed neyther yet ciuil morall humane and naturall but christian spirituall and supernaturall such a kneeling will neither be an act of diuine worship proper to God only nor of ciuill worship proper to persons or things indued with meare humane and naturall excellences but will be an act of supernaturall and religious worship taken in a larger sense as I shall presently declare Thus wee see that the different intentions of the mynde make the same externall kneelings of the body to be differeÌ„t kinds of worships by intending there by to acknowledge a worth in that which is worshipped diuine Supernaturall or ciuill soe that all the difficulty in this matter consists in shewing clearly that there are these three different worths or excellencies to be acknowledged and honored by an act of worship Two of these to witt diuine and ciuill excellency the one found in God alone the other in the ciuill Magistrate all Protestans Acknowledge the difficulty therefore at the last comes to make it eleare that there is allso a third worth and excellency which is neyther infinite nor increated nor diuine nor yet humane or naturall but wholy spirituall and supernaturall inspired or communicated aboue all reach of naturall force and light from the holy Ghost and giuen to men through the only merits and by the authority of our Sauiour These heauenly excellencies I find to be of two sorts the one internall and iustifying graces and gifts or at the least giuen freely to men as other supernaturall things the other externall powers and authorities both which I will conuince out of holy Scripture to be such supernaturall gifts of God as I haue affirmed S. Iames speaking of the internall graces saith thus Euery best and perfect gift is from aboue descending from the father of light And S. Paul by the grace of God I am what I am and his grace was not voyd in me and that of our Souiour without me yee can doe nothing And S. Iohn Soe many as receiued him he gaue them the power to become the sones of God who are not born of blood nor of the will of the flesh nor of the will of man but of God And many like texts which euidently proue that all true grace and Sancttitie is a free gift of God aboue the force of mans nature vnderstanding and will and this Protestans commonly graunt and noe Christian can deny without falling in to Pelagianisme Concerning the externall authority dignity and preheminencie of Ecclesiasticall persones in the true Christian church they are as euidently ascribed to Christ and the holy Ghost as the former Thus S. Paul And some verily God hath set in the church first Apostles secondly Prophetes thirdly Doctours next miracles then graces of doing cures helps gouermens kinds of tongues Which he ascribes with many other heauenly gifts to the holy Ghost towards the begining of this chapter in the words following And there are diuisions of graces but the same spirit And there are diuisions of ministries but the same Lord. And there are diuisions of workes but the same God who workes all in all But to euery one is giuen the manifestation of the spirit to profit To one by the spirit is giuen the word of wisdome but to another the word of knowledge according to the fame spirit to an an other faith in one spirit to an other the worke of power to an other Prophesie to an other discretion of spirits to an other kinds of tongues to an other interpretation of speeches All these workes one an the same spirit diuiding to euery one as he will And to the Galathians And he that is our Sauiour hath giuen some to be Apostles others to be Prophets others to be Euangelists but others to be Pastours and Doctours to the consummation of the Saints into the worke of the ministry to the edifying of the body of Christ till wee all meete in the vnity of faith and the acknowledgment of the sone of God in a perfect man in the fullnesse of the age of Christ whence it is eleare that not only in the Apostles tyme but through all ages till the end of the world the dignities in the church were to be guifts of our Sauiour and not conferred by any authority purely humane and naturall And as those testimonies couince that both inward holinesse and ecclesiasticall dignities are gifts of the holy Ghost and conferred by the power and Authority deriued from Christ soe lickewise the worth and excellency of the Saints in heauen are to be accounted the highest and chiefest supernaturall gifts and graces of God Thus S. Paul The grace of God Protestants reade the gift of God is eternall life which all the Saints of heauen inioy And S. Iohn Be faithfull vntill death and I will giue the a crowne of life And S. Mat. Yee shall sit vppon
twelue seates iudging the twelue tribes of Israell And S. Paul Know you not that the Saints shal iudge the world if the world shall be iudged by you are you vnworthie to iudge of small matters Know you not that vvee shall iudge the Angells how much more things of this life And S. Iohn brings in the 24. Elders saying thou hast made vs a kindome and Priestes and vve shall reigne vppon the earth whence most clearly appeares that the Saints in heauen haue those two highest dignities which are in esteeme amongst men of Iudges and Kings of the whole world which notwithstanding is aboue the power of all mortall men to confer vppon them and only in the power of God and therefore these iudiciary and Royall powers must be of a higher ranck and order then are any dignities meerely ciuill humane and naturall And the like dignities are ascribed in holy writ to the Angells for our Sauiour calls them holy Angells and soe they must haue true holinesse wihch is a gift of God aboue the force of nature They were the Promulgers of the ould lavv the Embassadours of God in matters of highest concernment the inflicters of Gods punischments Gen. 19.1 Reu. 15. trough out The captaines generalls of the armies of God Iosua 5.14 The Gouerners controulers of kingdomes Dan. 10.12.13.14 The. deuiders of the Reprobate from the elect in the day of Iudgment Mat. 13.49 And the Sendres of the wicked in to hell fier ibidem with many such like dignities and preheminences all great and high in them selues and aboue the reach both of all humane and Angelicall nature bestowed freely vppon them through the liberality of God And as this supernaturall excellency is found in Saints and Angells soe is it ascribed all soe to other things in Scripture to which God hath freely communicated certaine blessings and priuileges Thus we read in Iosua Loose the shoes from thy feete for the place where thou standest is holy And in Exodus Loose thy shoes from thy feete sor the place where thou standest is holy ground Thus the bread of the temple is called holy bread and sanctifyed bread The Temple is called holy yea soe holy that our sauiour saith that the temple Sanctisieth the gold which is in it and the Alter sanctifieth the gift which is offered vppon it Thus the most inward place of the temple had noe other name then Sanctam Sanctorum the holy of holies that is the most holy place of the whole world The holinesse of these and the like things where in soeuer it consisted issued not from any ciuill or humane power but was drawne from the power and authority of God as authour of the true Sauing religion of those times Thus I haue made it cleare out of Scripture that there is a worth a dignity a power an excellency which is meerely created and infinitely inferiour to the attributes and perfections of God and yet far excelling all ciuill and humane worth and aboue the reatch sphere and force of all ciuill power and authority The most cleare rule to the capacity of the vulgar to distinguish ciuill worths and excellencies from Spirituall and supernaturall is that those which are common to the true religion with all other kinds and professions of men are only ciuill and naturall such as are wit vnderstanding knowledge learning eloquence nobility valour Gouernment Magistracy c. But those which are proper to the true religion are Spirituall and Supernaturall as are the dignity of a Saint in heauen of an Angell a holy man yet liuing a Prophet an Appostle a Bishop a Priest a Godfather a God mother c. And because these and the likc excellencies are proper to religion they may in a large sence be termed religious excellencies or dignities· That this may be better vnderstood the Reader may take notice that the word Religion may eyther be taken in a strict sense for the vertue of Religion as it is distinguished from othet infused and supernaturall vertues whereby true worship and honour is giuen to God or in a more large and generall sence for the whole profession of those who esteeme them selues to haue the true sauing way of seruing God and attaining Saluation And this is the more obuious and vulgar vnderstanding of this word Religion thus we commonly say the Catholicque Religion c. that is theyr whole beleefe and profession In the first strict and and rigid sense Religion is taken amongst the Schoole doctours when they dispute of the nature of infused vertues and in the like sense it is often taken in the bookes of Moyses Exod. 12.26.43 Exod. 29.9 Leuit. 26.31 n. 19.2 where it is restrayned eyther to sacrifice or or some other worshrp of God In the Second more large acception it is found both in the old and new testament Hester 8.17 Soe that many of an other nation and sect ioyned them selues to theyr Religion and ceremonies Hester 9.27 Vppon all those who would vnite them selues to theyr Religion Acts 26.3 Saint Paul saith that before his conuersion Hee liued a Pharesie according to the most certaine sect of his Religion Iames e. 2. If any one seeme to be religious and bridleth not his tongue this mans religion is vaine In which texts it is manifest that Religion is taken for the whole beleefe and Profession both of Iewes and Christians Hence it followes that as the word Religion soe the word Religious deriued from it may be taken in the two fore said differēte senses yet I find it vsually in Scripture in the secōd larger acception where a Religious Persone signifies nothing but a person truly deuout vertuous and fairhfull Thus Acts 2.5 But there vvere dvvelling in Ierusalem Ievves Religious men of all nations vvhieh are vnder heauen And Acts 10.2 where it is said of Cornelius that he vvas Religious and fearing God vvith his vvhole houshould giuing many almes to the common people and all vvayes praying God And Acts 13.50 The Iewes stirred vp certaine Religious and honest woemen and the chiefe of the citty c. And Iames the 1.26 If any man seeme to himselfe to be Religious not bridling his tongue this mans Religion is vaine where Religious is taken for pious vertuous c. For ells the ill gouernment of the tongue would not hinder a true exercise of the vertue of religion strictly vnderstood as it differs from other theologicall and morall vertues as it hinders not the true exercise of faith and hope as they are particular vertues This large acception therefore of these words Religion and Religious being soe clearely deliuered in Scripture It will be sufficient for defence of the Catholique Romaine faith in this point to affirme that when our Doctours say that any thing created may be or is worshipped with Religious worship that it is Religious in this large acception found soe familiarly in Scripture that is vertuous pious christian a worship belonging to our Religion proper to
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
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