reason why it may not now be so in this Sacrament is because I haue shewed that according to the first institution it was our Sauiours will to change bread into his body and so not being at all it could not be his body figuratiuely neither can a figuratiue sense stand with the truth of this proposition This is my Body which is giuen for you That which is lastly added that bread is a Sacrament of his body cannot stand with the Protestant doctrine for they define in the little catechisme in the common prayer booke a Sacrament to be an outward visible signe of an inward spirituall grace now certaine it is that our Sauiours body was as outward and visible to the Apostles in the first institution as was the bread it selfe and so neither an inward nor spirituall grace and consequently it could not be a Sacrament of it and if noe Sacrament it could be noe signe of it for Protestants acknowledge noe other signe here then a sacramentall signe and though after our Sauiours ascension we cannot actually see his body by reason of the distance betwixt vs yet that makes it not an inward spirituall grace for then Rome and Constantinople would be spirituall to those that liue in these climates because for the same reason they cannot see them and yet much lesse could the body of our Sauiour either in the first institution or at any time after be termed an inward grace according to Protestants and yet we are not coÌ„strained to acknowledge that there is not a Sacrament for it signifies that heauenly anâ— diuine grace which by vertu of it is giuen to nourish our soules which is truly inward anâ— spirituall and that which sensibly appeares in it and is called by diuines Sacramentum tantum is a sacramentall signe of our Sauiour sacred body inuisibly but truly existent vnder those shewes or species in this Sacrament and nourishing our soules and bodyes and so may be truly and properly called a spirituall grace or gift and that inward also when it is sacramentally receiued And noe lesse is it now â— sacramentall commemoratiue signe of the passion death and sufferings of our Sauiour which are long since past and so become now inuisible working mysteriously and meritoriously in this holy Sacrament If here should be replyed that hence would follow that this Sacrament might also in the first institution haue been a signe of our Sauiours death sufferings representing them as presently to follow and so these words This is my Body might haue this sense this bread is a representatiue signe of my body as instantly suffering and dying vppon the Crosse which death and sufferings were then inuisible because they were not then existent I answer that our Sauiour might haue pleased according to his absolute power to haue instituted such a Sacrament but because we haue neither â—n Scripture nor tradition that he instituted â—ere any such and the words of the instituâ—ion This is my Body are properly and litterally â—o be vnderstood when there is nothing that â—onstraines vs to the contrary we denye that â—ny such typicall or empty signe as this was â—ctually constituted by our Sauiour in the inâ—titution of this Sacrament especially seeing â—hat the paschall lamme represented much â—ore liuely and perfectly the passion of Christ â—hen the bread and wine and that such typiâ—all representations were proper to the old â—aw which was the shadow of things to come And for Protestants they must confesse that â—hey haue noe ground in Scripture for any other signe of our Sauiours passion then by way of commemoration or remembrance which supposes his suffering and death past â—nd not to come as I haue already prouued And though it were gratis admitted that in this Sacrament such a prefiguratiue signe of our Sauiours passion was exhibited in the first institution yet this would noe more hinder the reall presence necessarily required by vertu of this proposition this is my Body c. â—hen it s being now a commemotatiue signe of his said passion as I haue declared and proued already Obiection In the old and new Testament it is vsual to call the signes by the names of that they signifie why then should it be thought strange that our Sauiour in this Sacrament calling bread his body and wine his blood should speake in the same manner Answer I haue now shewed against Protestants in these principles that there was noe sacramentall signe of the body of our Sauiout in the first institution of this Sacrament Christs body hauing been then as visible and present as the bread and consequently noe signe at all and if noe signe the true and reall body as the opponent hath granted Though therefore where the Scripture giueth cleare euideÌ„ce that there is a signe or that it may be clearely gathered thence that the signe should be called by the name of the thing signified yet there is great reason where noe such euidence is but rather to the contrary that our Sauiour should not speake in the same manner neither is it yet conuinced by all the textes alleadged presently by the opponent that signes are called by the names of the things signified or be that which they doe signifie as will appeare by the particulars Objection Circumcision is called the couuenant with God This is my couuenant betweene me and you now â—hat the word couuenant must be taken for a signe of the couuenant the line following â—heweth where God said And it shall be a signe of the couuenant betweene me and you Answer There were two couuenants or pacts made betweene God and Abraham in this chapter the first ver 1.2.4.6.7 8. which was of the fauour of God promised to Abraham and his seed The second v. 9.10.11 c. which was of Abrahams obedience and his childreÌ„s towards God whereto he obliged them in taking circumcision now this second couuenant was a confirmation signe or seale of the first on Abrahams part and so though being considered absolutely in it selfe it was a true and reall couuenant yet in regard of the former couuenant it was a signe or scale as S. Paul calls it and so it is called here both a couuenant and a signe of the couuenant that is of the first as if one should make a couuenant with an other of inferiour note first that he would fauour and patronize him in all things and then that the other might shew his gratitude and acceptation of this couuenant on his part he makes an other that once a yeare he should come and wayte on him at his table This second couuenant would be as true reall a part of the couuenant or agreemeÌ„t between them as the first and yet would be a confirmation ratification signe or seale of the former Now that this second was a true couuenant is euident out of the words for it is a true command obligation or iniunction of God accepted of by Abraham which being done God of his part obliged himselfe to
tymes after consecration for it follows no more that therefore it should be pure bread remayning as it was before the words of consecration then that the water remained in its own nature after it was made wyne because after the change it is called water Neither doth yet S. Paul if his words be well marked say that the consecrated hoast is naturall and common bréad such as it was before fit to be eaten at an ordinary table as the Protestants must grant it not to be for at the least it is sacramentall bread and consecrated to a religious and holy vse according to them and therefore though he had put the same word bread before and after consecration yet it follows not that the signification of that word after consecratiâ—n should be the same with the signification of the same before consecration for before it signifyes common ordinary naturall and vsuall bread but after sacramentall significant coÌ„memoratiue holy diuine bread according to Protestants and therefore if Ptotestants must confesse that though the word be the same yet the signification is not the same why blame they Romane Catholicques if they giue the same answer saying that by the word bread in S. Paul before consecration or blessing is meant the substance of naturall and vsuall bread but after consecration supernaturall heauenly spirituall diuine bread which our Sauiour termeth himselfe to be in the sixt of S. Iohn six or seauen different tymes and which euery Christian chiefly begs of God in the Pater noster or Lords prayer saying giue vs this day our dayly bread for it is to be noted that bread in greeke familiarly in holy Scripture is taken for all manner os meate and not for bread only as it is distinct from all other meates But to make it yet clearer that S. Paul did not meane naturall bread remaning in its own substaÌ„ce as it was before when he called the Sacrament bread after it was consecrated or designed for a part of that holy mystery it is particularly to be reflected on that in this acceptioÌ„ he neuer calls it absolutly bread but allways with in article determinatiue or restrictiue referring it to that which consecration had made it and so he calls it this bread this cup that bread that cup to wit which was held for a Sacrament and mystery amongst Christians by force of our Sauiours words and to put vs out of all doubt that it was not that naturall bread and wine which it was before it was consecrated he clearly calls it the bread of our Lord and the cup of our Lord v. 29. wherfore whosoeuer shall eate this bread and drinke this cup of our Lord vnworthily c. and as we gather Ioan. 6. v. 48. that when our Sauiour termed the bread whereof he spoke there the bread of life he meant not naturall and visible bread but supernaturall and diuine in the same manner are we to gather from the words of S. Paul that by the like phrase the like bread is signifyed and as our Sauiour termes that bread wherof he spake Io. 6. v. 51.58 this bread to distinguish it from naturall and vsuall bread and to signify that he thereby meant his true body so also doth S. Paul here neyther can it more be gathered from the being tetmed bread by S. Paul that is naturall and substantiall bread then it can be gathered from the canon of our masse that wee beleeue it to be the substance of bread because it is often called bread in the said canon after consecration Objection If by this word bread so often repeated by the Apostle he should vnderstand flesh were not he worthy to be blamed to entertayne the people in errour since he knew that sense and reason giueth in euidence that it is bread which man naturally beleeues would he not rather haue aduertised vs to hold our senses in suspension and to beleeue that it is his flesh though it seemeth bread then to ioyne himselfe with the report of our senses calling it alwayes bread without any explication Answer We are not to prescribe to the holy Ghost what he is to disclose to the writers of diuine Scripture he could haue deliuered many other mysteries of our faith in clearer words in the holy Scripture then he hath done if it had seemed good in his diuine Prouidence and therefore though he command vs not here in expresse termes to deny our senses and to beleeue that it is his flesh though it seeme bread as some holy fathers haue done with in the first fiue hundred yares yet he calles it as expressly the body of Christ as he calls it bread and seeing we finde bread often to be taken in a spirituall sense in holy Scripture for the food of out soules but neuer finde the body of Christ which is giuen for vs to be any other then his reall true Body one would thinke that the darker or more doubtfull word should in any reasonable mans iudgement yeeld to the more cleare and certaine and be interpreted by it then the contrary which is here alleadged and though our Sauiour call his flesh bread twice as often as S. Paul calls that which was consecrated bread here Ioannis 6. yet no man dare from thence argue that his flesh was not true flesh but corporall and materiall bread And if S. Paul by calling it so often bread after consecration should ioyne himselfe with the report of our senses as the opponent here affirmes he would draw vs also to thinke that it is mere naturall and vsuall bread after consecration as it was before and therefore we may apply the same objection in almost the same wordes against Protestants which here is brought against vs in this manner If by this word bread so often repeated by the Apostle he should vnderstand a Saerament or mystery as it is beleeued to be amonst all Christians were he not worthy to be blanted to entertaine the people in errour since he knew that sense and reason giueth in euidence that it is vsuall and common bread which man naturally beleeues would he not rather haue aduertised vs to hold our senses in suspention and to beleeue that it is sacramentall and spirituall bread though it seeme vsuall bread then to ioyne himselfe with the report of our senses calling it always bread without any explication Thus whilst Protestants frame arguments fitter for Infidells then Christians against vs they neuer consider what force the like arguments haue against themselues But it is very vntrue that S. Paul called it bread without any explication or that he any way draws vs to what our senses would iudge if they were left to themselues but eleuates our thoughts vnto faith telling vs that it is panis calix Domini the bread and cup of our Lord which our Sauiour confesses himselfe to be Iohn the sixt and besides that he who eats this bread and drinketh this cup of our Lord vnwortily shall he guilty of the body and
is only true of spirituall sheepe for our Sauiour had noe other That which the objection said that our Sauiour was as able to change the Apostles into sheepe as to change bread into his body is true if the Apostles had ceased to be men and had been so conuerted into sheep as Lots wife ceasing to be a weomaÌ„ was conuerted into a pilar of salt but then the proposition which Protestants pretended out of Scripture yee are materiall sheep had not been true neither could the truth of that proposition euer haue caused that conuersion as conformable to it but this proposition only should haue been true yee are made or are become materiall sheep by vertu of a miraculous change of men into sheep noe otherwise then the water in the mariage in Gallilee is said to be made wine fot when one thing is affirmed of an other then that where of it is affirmed is supposed to be existent as when I say I am a man the person must be existent where of it is affâ—rmed that he is a man but contrariwise when one thing is said to be made an other naturally not artificially then that which is said to be made the other ceased to be what it was and is conuerted into the other as when it is said water was made wine water ceased to be and wine was made of it and hence it is a plane contradiction to haue any change or conuersion made in a pure affirmatiue and simple proposition in this manner Peeter is a reall and naturall sheepe for then this person Peeter is supposed to be and not to be at the some time to be because he is affirmed to be a sheepe not to be because he is changed into a sheepe and so ceases to be as water ceased to be when it was made wine And the same absurdity and contradiction had followed if our Sauiour had said this bread which I now haue in my hands is my naturall Body truly and really for bread should haue remained because it was affirmed to be his body and yet it should haue beene destroyed and so not remained because it should haue been changed into his body I am sorry that such speculations as these should be propounded to those who haue not ftudied but the objections require them yet I must adde to make this matter out of question if the propositions I am the vine yee are the vinebranches implyed any change of our Sauiour into a reall materiall vine c. then this proposition adioyned and my Father is the husbandman would haue implyed a power in God the Father to be changed into a reall hushandman and so God himselfe would be changeable wich cannot be affirmed without a blaphemy So then as God the Father is called only a Spirituall husbandman so also our Sauiour a Spirituall vine and the Apostles spirituall branches noe more change being implied in the one then in the other Now that many things affirmed of others are to be vnderstood of those thinges as spirituall not corporall is most euident 1. Cor. 10.3 cited herafter by the Opponent and they did all eate the same spirituall meate and did all drinke the same spirituall drinke for they dranke of that spirituall Rock that followed them and that Rock was Christ. So that as Christ is here called the spirituall Rock soe is he in the places cited in the objection called the spirituall way dore vine c. which he truly and really is without all impropreties of signes or figures for otherwise as Protestants make this is my Body to be this is a signe of my Body soe must they say I am a dore is as much as I am the signe of a woodden dore which were both blasphemous and ridicâ—lous being applied to our Sauiour Obiection And if he was in a figuratiue manner a dore a vine why may not bread be is body figuratiuely and why should they thinke it is a lessâ— change for our Sauiour to call his body bread then to call bread his body doubtelesse he called his body bread in respect of the nourishement which a faithfull soul receaues in the Sacrament euen so the bread is the body of Christ sacramentally and taketh the name of the body of Christ as being a sacred signe or Sacrament thereof Answer I haue before giuen the reason of this difference for certaine it is that in this proposition â—n protestant doctrine by the word this is â—ignified reall and materiall bread and by my Body the reall body of Christ where of they wil haue this materiall bread to be a signe now â—n the other proposition my flesh is meat or I am â—he bread c. though the words my flesh and I signifie really and truly our Sauiour and his sacred body yet the word bread cannot any way signifie true and materiall bread for he expressely calles it the bread that came down from heauen the bread that giues life to such as worthyly eate it and liuing bread which can by â—oe meanes agree with bread made of wheat or any other corne Hence therefore apeares that the flesh of our Sauiour or he himselfe are neither a SacrameÌ„t nor a signe of visible and vsuall bread â—or it would want little of blasphemy to say â—hat our Sauiour or his sacred body were a signe â—f a loafe of bread which seeing it is so there can â—e thence noe argument drawn that bread is called the body of our Sauiour because it is a â—igne of his body but rather the quite contrary our Sauiour or his blessed flesh are tuly and â—eally liuing bread life giuing bread heauenly â—read spirituall bread Therefore that which â—ur Sauiour gaue his disciples was truly and â—eally his reall and naturall body or thus that â—read of our Lord that heauenly liuing spirituall which the Apostles receaued from the hands of our Sauiour was his true substantiall body But if by the words this is my Body should be vnderstood true visible bread as in the objection they are there will be noe other parity or consequence saue this or Sauiour calls his flesh bread because it is true liuing heauenly bread therefore a peece of coÌ„mon bread is called the body of Christ because it is a signe of his body which is quite out of ioynt Now certainely to answer the question heâ—e propounded it is much lesse strange for our Sauiour to call himselfe meat or liuing spirituall bread c. then to call a piece of wheaten bread his true and reall body for he is truely the one but naturall bread can neuer be the other Concerning the other question first propounded why may not bread be his body figuratiuely if it had been set down in this manner why might not bread haue beene his body figuratiuely I would haue answered that there is no reason but it might as were the figures of the old law and amongst them the bread of proposition and of Melchisedech and many such like types of the old Testament but the
as will presently appeare Hauing therefore as I hope cleared this point of the reall presence in the iust balance of an open and impartiall eye it will not be very difficult to euen an other as a sequell from this concerning communion vnder one kind which though it be not thought vppon in these objections yet this fit occasion the great difficulties which our aduersaries raise against it the earnest desire which many not otherwise ill disposed haue to be satisfied in it and the request of others who haue seene some part of this treatis haue put me vppon necessitie to say something but very succinctly of this matter holding my selfe close to Scripture according to my former methode This point therefore supposes the reall presence and is rather to be treated against Lutherans or such other Protestants as are conuinced of that mysterie then against Caluinists or Suinglians who disbeleeue it for were not our Sauiours body and blood really present there as the practise of receauing one only kind had neuer been allowed so could it not haue been defended This therefore supposed I will indeauour to defend communion vnder one kind and answer whatsoeuer is pressed by our aduersaries against it out of Scripture mistaken Objection First they vrge the institution of this Sacrament as hauing been vnder the formes both of bread and wine which institution is to be followed by all Christians and so both to be receaued Answer The bare institution of a Sacrament drawes with it noe necessitie of frequenting it as appeares in Priesthood and mariage instituted by our Sauiour which not withstanding impose noe necessitie or command to receaue them so that standing precisely in the institution noe man wil be obliged to receaue either both or either of rhem Objection Secondly though the bare institution of a Sacrament impose noe command to receaue it yet it imports a precept that when it is receaued or administted it be done in that manner it was instituted as it appeares in baptisme Priesthood and other Sacraments Seeing therefore our Sauiour instituted this Sacrament both in the consecration and communion in both kinds at least whensoeuer it is receaued it must be receaued vnder both Answer This objection inuolues many difficulties and is first to he vndeestood that Sacraments are to be receaued and administred as they were first instituted in such matters as belong to the substance and essence of the Sacrament not in other accidentary circumstances of time place personnes precedences consequences c. as was the institution of this Sacrament after supper sitting vppon the ground giuen to priests only in a priuate secular house c. Secondly there is something particular in this Sacrament which is in noe other euen concerning the substance of it for the very same entire substance being here put vnder each kind makes that woesoeuer receaues either of them receaues the whole substance of this Sacrament and consequently receaues a true Sacrament instituted by our Sauiour and so that which is able to sanctifie him who worthily receaues either of them Thirdly concerning the substance of this Sacrament all that can be gathered from the bare words of the institution is that it is to be consecrated and receiued by Priests such as were the Apostles who were Priests then made when it was first instituted vnder both kinds but here is noe president giuen about the lay people because none then receaued it That the whole substance of our Sauiour is here receaued I suppose for the present neither is it much questioned by such as grant the reall presence nor can be possibly doubted of by any who beleeues that our Saoiour dies not more and soe both flesh and blood and life and soule and diuinitie are all vnited togeather weresoeuer he is hence therefore followes that lay people receiue as much of our Sauiour seeing they receaue him wholy and interily as Priests doe That he who receaues our Sauiour thus vnder one only kind receaues a true Sacrament is as cleare as the former for who can without absurditie denye that vnder one kind is exhibited an outward visible signe of an inward spirituall grace which is the compleat definition of a Sacrament according to our aduersaries for here the formes of bread only containing vnder them our Sauiour by way of meat signifie that he confers a spirituall grace nourishing and feeding our soules to eternall life and thus much is signified by the English ministers when they distribute the bread to the people saying the Body of our Lord Iesus Christ preserue thy body and soul to eternall life c. and containing his body represented as separated from his blood and so as dead by force of the words of consecration are an outward visible commemoratiue signe of his sacred death and passion and seeing that both bread is composed of many graines and wine of many grapes vnited togeather the mystical vnity of Christians receauing this Sacrament is sufficiently signified hy the species of either of them if then here he an outward visible signe of an inward spirituall grace both exhibitiue commemoratiue and significatiue here must needs be a true Sacrament euen according to the pttnciples of our aduersaries and what I haue said of the forme of bread is by the same reason verified of the forme of wine but not only in their principlcs but in all good Theologie there must be a true Sacrament vnder each kind for certainly seeing that a different grace is conferred by each of them the one of spirituall meate the other of spirituall drinke which how it is to be vnderstood I will hereafter examine each will be sufficient to sanctifie and helpe the soul to eternall life If it should be replyed that in neither of these kinds alone is exhihited a compleate signe either of our spirituall refection or the death of our Sauiour but only a partiall or imparfect signe of them which notwithstanding are compleatly significd vnder both togeather I answer that if by a compleat signe be vnderstood a most full and expresse representation of these two particulars I grant that there is not vnder one only kind so full and expresse a representation and in this sense not so compleat a signe of them as vnder both togeather but then it must be prouued this most full and expresse representation vnder both being exhibited to lay Christians by the consecration and communion of the Priest in the dread full sacrifice of the masse that the substance of this sacrifice requirs that they should be allways so fully and expressely represented in each particular communion of the people but if by a compleat signe be vnderstood a signe sufficient to signifie both our spirituall food and vnion and the death of our Sauiour I denie that there is not a compleat signe of both exhibited vnder each kind This distinction may be much illustrated by an instance from baptisme certainly the mystery of the trinity was more expressely fully and compleatly signified by that
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
are here excluded from ordinary sermons to common people and all curiosities forbidden The Protestant Position That the soules of the faithfull in theyr departure are happy wee often read but noe newes of Purgatory This is proued by Scripture mistaken Blessed are the dead who dye in the Lord from hence sorth saith the spirit that they may rest from theyr labours and theyr workes follow them The first mistake The text saith not they rest presently after theyr death They are not sayd here to rest presently after theyr departure but that they may rest and yet they may be termed blessed as our Sauiour calls the pore in spirit blessed in this world and in theyr misery because the Kingdome of heauen belongs to them as it does to those in Purgatory The second mistake The word labours misapplyed They are not sayd to rest from all labour but from their labours that is such labours persecutions afflictions sorrowes temptations mortifications troubles anxietyes as they suffered in this world from all which they rest after death By theyr labours also may be fitly here vnderstood theyr good workes and patience in suffering the miseries of this life with hope of eternall reward so that they are sayd to rest from their labours because the recompence and crown of their former labours are alloted to them as certainly to follow as the next words declare opera enini eorum sequunturillos for their morkes that is their labours follow them and yet in some of them it may happen that they may not presently receiue the reward of them which hinders not the resting of their labours because they are not to haue any reward for what they suffer after this life The second proofe out of Scripture mistaken For wee know that if the eartly house of this tabernacle were dissolued wee haue a building of God a house not made with hands eternal in heauen This text is mistaken These words say not that presently after death they shall goe into that heueauenly house How follows it hence that so soone as they depart they must goe into this house prepared for them seeing that many may haue houses that are hindred to liue in them especially in these distracted tymes and our Sauiour saith Blessed are the pore in spirit for theirs is the kingdome of heauen euen whilst they are liuing in this world And the Apostle Now therefore yee are no more strangers and furainers but fellow citizens vvith the saints and of the houshold of God And yet more clearly S. Iohn these things I writte vnto you that yee may know that yee haue life euerlasting yee who beleeue in the name of the sone of God That is in full hope and expectation not in actual possession which yet iâ— sayd more clerely to belong to those in Purgatory who haue an infallible certainty of life eternall The third proofe from Scripture mistaken But the soules of the righteous are in the hands of God and no torment shall touch them Mistake The word torment misvnderstood The Latin hath it non tanget illos tormentum mortis the torment of deach shall not touch them which is most true of all the iust departed because they shall liue eternally but Protestants regard not the vulgar Latin translation The greeke hath 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which according to Scapula particularly signifyes a torment to which malefactours or suspected to be so are put to make them confesse the truth or to try whether they be guilty or no as are the racke or such like Now no such torment as this shall tuch the soules of the iust departed because God hath sufficiently tryed them and approued of them in this life as apeares v. 5. and hauing beene a little chastised they shall be greatly rewarded for God proued them and found them vvorthy of him selfe Which is a playne place for merits but when it is against Protestants it is only apocryphal If any shall demand whether the word Purgatory be expressed in Scripture I answer that it is as much expressed as the word trinity 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 diuine Petson which not withstanding are beleeued by Protestants If it be replied that at least the substance or meaning of those words are expressed in Scripture I answer the same of Purgatory which I demonstrate in this maner Purgatory is nothing else according to the Council of Trent now cited but a place where temporall punishments are suffered by iust persones after death vvich they deserued in this life Now if any iustified soul be and often is liable after death to suffer such punishments then certainly there must be some certaine place where they must be suffered But iustified soules may be and often are liable to suffer such punishments after death ergo there must be such a place where in they are to suffer them That iustified soules may be and often are liable to such punishments I proue thus Iustified persones yet liuing after the remission of theyr sinnes and consequently of eternall torment are liable to some temporall punishment therefore souls departed of iust persones may and often are liable to the like I proue the antecedent out of the 2. Sam. 12. v. 13.14 And Dauid said vnto nathan I haue sinned against the Lord and Nathan said vnto Dauid the Lord also hath put away thy sinnes thou shalt not dy Howbeit because by this deed thou hast giuen great occasion to the enemies of the Lord to blaspheme the child also which is borne vnto the shall surely dy whete for that very sinne which was put away and forgiuen Dauid was punished by the death of his child because thou hast giuen by this deede c. the child shall dy The same is proued by the example of Adam whoe after his sinne was forgiuen him was notwithstanding liable to the punishment of death which is the wages of sinne as are also all iust persones for the same reason The antecedent therefore being clere I proue the consequence by this argument Seeing God is noe respecter of persones and that he rewards euery one according to theyr workes whosouer deserues the like punishmeÌ„t that Dauid deserued shall surely be punished as Dauid waâ—slet vs therefore put this case that at the same time with Dauid there had been an other Person guilty of sinnes as greate as were those of Dauid who should haue also repented with the same degree of sorrow and consequently obteyned pardone of his sinne as Dauid did this sinner must haue been liable to the same temporall punishment that Dauid was now suppose that this other sinnerâ— should haue died the very instant after his sinne was forgiuen him according to the doctrine of the Romane Church he should haue been punished temporally in the other world with a punishment correspondent to that of Dauid and soe God should not haue been a respecter of persones but haue rewarded euery one according to theyr workes but according to Protestants he should
haue had no punishment at all after this life and consequently he should not haue been rewarded according to his workes not suffering the condigne punishment which he truly deserued and God should haue proceeded vnequally in inflicting his punishments and haue had respect to his persone more then to that of Dauid neyther is Purgatory any way injurious to the iustice of God because though he forgiue the guilt of the sinne and the eternall punishment for which man is not able to satistisfie yet he reteynes a parte of the punishment which being finite and temporall may eyther by workes of penance and patience be remitted in this world or payed in the world to come or released by the prayers and penances of other faithfull Christians And this may satisfye for the point of Purgatory THE SIXT CONTROVERSIE Of the Reall Presence of the Body and blood of Christ in the Eucharist The Doctrine of the Church of Rome deliuered in the Council of Trent Sess. 13. Can. 1. SI quis negauerit in Sanctissimo Eucharistiae Sacramento contineri verè realiter substantialiter Corpus Sanguinem vnâ cum animâ diuinitate Domini nostri IESV Christi ac proinde totum Christum sed dixerit tantummodo esse in eo vt in signo vel figurâ aut virtute anathema sit If any one shall denie that in the most holy Eucharist is conteyned truly really and substantially the body and blood togeather with the soul diuinity of our Lord IESVS Christ and consequently whol Christ but shall say that he is in it only as in â— signe or figure or vertu let him be accursed Ibidem Can. 2. Si quis dixerit in Sacrosancto Eucharistiae Sacramento remanere substantiam panis vini vnâ cum corpore Domini IESV Christi c. anathema sit If any one shall say that in the holy Sacrament of the Eucherist remaines the substance of bread and wine togeather with the body and blood of our Lord IESVS Christ c. let him be accursed Ibidem Can. 4. Si quis dixerit peractâ consecratione in admirabili Eucharistiae Sacramento non esse corpus sanguinem Domini nostri IESV Christi sed tantùm in vsu dum sumitur non autem ante vel post c. anathema sit If any one shall say that the consecration being done in the admirable Sacrament of the Eucharist is not the body and blood of our Lord IESVS Christ but only in the vse whilst it is receiued and neyther before nor after c. let him be accursed Ibidem C. 6. Si quis dixerit in sancto Eucharistiae Sacramento Christum vnigenitum Dei Filium non esse cultu latriae etiam externo adorandum c. anathema sit If any one shall say that Christ the only Sone of God in the holy Sacrament of the Eucharist is not to be worshipped with the worship of latria or diuine worship euen externall c. let him be accursed This is part of the doctrine of the Council of Trent in this point the rest may be seen in the Council as drawn from this To dispose the Reader to a right conceipt of this high mystery and to informe him vppon what ground the Church of Rome teaches this doctrine I thought it necssary to cite those texts of the new Testament which deliuer the institution of this SacrameÌ„t that the Reader may with one vew see how largely and clearly the holy Scripture if it be vnderstood according to the proper signification of the words speakes for this doctrine of the Reall presence And that I may not be thought to haue cited the words otherwise then Protestants admit of them I will cite the texts as I finde them in the Protestant English bible Mat. 26. v. 26.27.28.29 And as they were eating Iesus tooke bread and blessed it and brake it and gaue it to his disciples and said take eate this is my body And he tooke the cup and gaue thankes and gaue it to them saying drinke ye all of it For this is my blood of the new Testament which is shed for many for the remission of sinnes S. Marke c. 14. v. 22.23.24.25 And as they did eate Iesus tooke bread and blessed and brake it and gaue to them and said take eate this is my body And he â—ooke the cup and when he had giuen thankes he gaue it to them and they all drank of it and he said vnto them this is my blood of the new Testament which is shed for many Luc c. 22. v. 19.20 And he tooke bread and gaue thankes and brake it and gaue vnto them saying this is my body which is giuen for you this doe in rememberance of me Likewise the cup after supper saying this cup is the new Testament in my blood which is shed for you S. Paul 1. Cor. 11. v. 23.24.25 For I haue receiued of the Lord that which also I deliuer vnto you that the Lord Iesus the same night in which he was betrayed tooke bread And when he had giuen thankes he brake it and said take eate this in my body which is broken for you doe this in remembrance of me After the same maner also he tooke the cup when he had supped saying this cup is the new Testament in my blood doe this as often as yee drinke in remembrance of me The Protestant discourse of the Eucharist begins thus Obiection 1. THe institution of this Sacrament is expressed in the 3 first EuaÌ„gelists S. Mathew Mark and Luke and also by S. Paul in all which they agree in these 4 thinges that IESVS tooke blessed brake and gaue bread for he that saith IESVS tooke bread blessed brake and gaue it saith plainely enough that he brake and gaue bread and not the species of bread as they hold Answer If this objection intend to proue as certainly it doth thar our Sauiour tooke blessed brake and gaue bread to his disciples so that that which he gaue them was bread remaining in the same substance of naturall bread which it had when he tooke it I deny that our Sauiour gaue bread to his disciples or that the three Euangelists and S. Paul cited agree in this the proofe that our Sauiour gaue naturall bread to his disciples because saith the objection he that saith Iesus tooke bread brake and gaue it saith plainly enough that he brake and gaue bread is grounded in a false translation or addition to the text of holy Scripture in the English Protestant Bibles for neither hath the greeke nor latin the word it and though the Protestant Bible of the yeare 1630. and 1632. haue these words Iesus tooke bread and blessed it and brake it and gaue it to his disciples all in the same letter and print as if the word it were no lesse in the originall then the others adioyned yet the latter Bibles and namely that of the yeare 1646. put the word it in a different letter to signify that it is nor in the originall but
of a person of me the other of a Body which is but one part of the person who consists both of soul and body vnited so that the whol proposition is quite different the one from the other Secondly though these propositions had not beene so different as they are yet our Sauiour cannot possibly be thought to haue meant by these words my Body a mere remembrance of his Body because this explication must be verified of the bread which was consecrated by our Sauiour in his last supper as it is euident For he speakes of that euen according to Protestants now that could not be a remembrance of his body for nothing is said according to Protestants to be a remembrance of a thing which is actually and visibly present as the body of our Sauiour then was to the Apostles being seene heard by them neither could it be a remembrance of his passion because we remember things past not to come as the passion of our Sauiour then was and so it should haue been a type of our Sauiours death as the ceremonies of the old law were before he dyed and not a remembrance or commemoration Therefore it is euident that by the thing which he called his body in his last supper could not be meant a remembrance of his body as Protestants would haue it and so this explication is very false Therefore when our Sauiour commanded his Apostles in these words doe this in remembrance of me he could not meane any action or thing then present or done at that time but an action which he enioyned the Apostles and their successors to doe afterwards in the Christian Church in remembrance of his passion principally which is cleerely deliuered by S. Paul 1. Cor. 11. v. 26.27 This is the new testament in my bloud this doe as often as you drinke in remembrance of me where the greeke word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifies shall drinke quotiescumque bibetis doe this so often as you shall drinke and so it is translated by Beza in his latin translation quotiescumque biberitis as often as you shall drinke and should haue been by our English Trāslatours had they closely followed the greeke text as they pretend to doe but here it made not for theyr pourpose and soe they put it eyther falsly or at least obscurely soe often as you drinke which euidently shews that our Sauiour meant by doe this not any action which was done in time of the last supper or institution and receiuing of the Sacrament by the Apostles but what they were to doe in the future and that our Sauiour in these words doe this in remembrance of me did not command the present action of eating and drinking when our Lord celebrated his last supper is euident because had it been of the present action it would follow that he twice commanded the same action to be done at the same time for he commanded his Apostles to doe what was then to be done when he said take eate drinke c. therefore to free our Sauiour from a nedelesse tautologie must be vnderstood the command of doing some thing else and at some other time to be conteined in these words doe this in remembrance of me especially considering that the mention of remembrance could not be vnderstood of any thing then visibly present or after to come as I said before These words therefore being to be vnderstood of the consecrating and frequenting of this Sacrament for the future only cannot possibly be an explication of the former words this is my Body which speake only of a thing that is then present as is euident and consequently those words according to the obiection are plainely simply to be beleeued as they sound without any glossing of the words of our Sauiour there being no ground in this place of Scripture for any such figuratiue glosse as I haue prouued and each Christian must beleeue that that thing which our Sauiour gaue his Apostles was his very body as his affirmed it to be If happily not withstanding that this were granted some Protestants should gather from these words doe this in remembrance of me that this Sacrament in times insuing after our Sauiours death was only to be a remembrance of his body and so not his body whatsoeuer is to be said of rhat Sacrament in the first institution I answer that though some ancient heretiques haue been of this opinion yet I neuer heard of any Protestant who held that the Christians after our Sauiours time receiued not the same which the Apostles did from his hands and so this obiection is to noe purpose for the Protestants Yet that I may cleare all difficulties which may probably occurre against what I haue said in this matter I answer that this is noe good consequence our Sauiour would haue this Sacrament celebrated and frequented in remembrance of him therefore the hoast after the consecration is only a remembrance of his body and not his true body or thus therefore that which Christ called his body in the institution is now amongst Christians only the remembrance of his body for if these words doe this in remembrance of me were not an explication of those others This is my Body in the first institution they will neuer be any explieation of them and so there will be noe reason to say that the meaning of thesc words this is my Body is this this is a remembrance of my Body by reason of these words doe this in remembrance of me for these words only signifie that the action here commanded doe this is to be in remembrance of me not that the thing conteyncd in the Sacrament was to be a remembrance of him now who can doubt but the same person may doe one action in remembrance of himselfe that is of some action which he had done before how ordinary is it for any one to write his own workes and what he himselfe hat done or suffered did not S. Faul doe this and was not this done in remembrance of himselfe doing or suffering such things and shall any thence make this consequence S. Paul writ this in remembrance of himselfe therefore he was a remembrance of himselfe therefore it was not S. Paul who writ it for nothing can be a remembrance of it selfe who sees not how false and childish this discours is may we not say the same of our Sauiour when he appeared to S. Thomas whom he put in remembrance of himselfe suffering vppon the crosse when he commanded him to put his hand into his side and looke vppon his hands and feet c. and shall we then say that our Sauiour was not himselfe or that is Body was not that which suffered because it did something in remembrance of his body crucified what Christian will dare to discours in this manner if then our Sauiours own body that suffered vppon the crosse can doe something to put vs in remembrance of the same body crucifyed once for vs why should we denie
that the same body sacrificed vppon the altar or consecrated vppon the table of God should be able to put vs in remembrance of the passion of our Sauiour and of the very same body crucified that is those actions there done of consecrating the hoast separate from the chalice of sacrificing of giuing to others eating drinking c. should signifie that our Sauiour there inuisibly present suffered for vs many yeares agoe and sacrificed himselfe to nourish vs to eternall life and so our Sauiour not hauing said this is a remembrance of my Body but doe this in remembrance of me by vertue of these words precisely made the actions done to him in this SacrameÌ„t and not himselfe or his body a remembraÌ„ce of himselfe as béfore crucified Objection So that that which he gaue into his disciples hands being a remembrance or commemoration of Christ is not Christ himselfe for nothing can be a remembrance or commemoratian of it selfe for who would not thinke him to speake simply that should say I giue you this ring in remembraÌ„ce of this ring or I giue you this bookc for a coÌ„memoration of this book certainly the remembrà ce of things are otherwise then the thing it selfe Answer Though these words of our Sauiour doe this in remembrance of me by force of themselues signifie only that the action which the Apostles were commanded to doe was to be in remembrance of him that is of him crucified yet speaking independently of these words it is noe absurdity but a truth to grant that a thing or peâ—son may be a remembrance of themselues considered in different circumstances for though nothing in the same time place and circumstances can be a remembrance or coÌ„memoration of it selfe for that were to signifie idem per idem the same by the same which is absurd and in this sence the obiection sayes well yet it would nor be absurd to say I giue you this ring now to be a remembrance or commemoration here after that this same ring was giuing you by me for who can doubt but that very same ring when he lookes or thinkes vppon it who receaued it is apt to put him in remembrance that it was giuen to him by such a friend so many dayes or yeares before and so at one time it is a remembrance of it selfe as considered in a nother different precedent time Thus when friends and ancient acquintance after a long separation meet first togeather they presently put the one the other in remembrance of themselues and so are accoustomed to say I remember you very well Thus if a king or Generall should act his own part vppon a stage he would put his subiects or souldiers there present in remembrance of himselfe fighting or becoming victorious in some precedent battel Thus our Sauiour appearing to S. Thomas made him presently beleeue and remember that he was the same person who not many dayes before was crucified for him and to say Dominus meus Deus meus my Lord and my God Hence appeares manifestly that the very same body which was giuen and that very blood which was shed for vs remaning in its own proper substance and nature in this Sacrament which it then had but after an inuisible and diuine manner by reason of the visible actions of consecrating sacrificing eleuating and receiuing of him puts vs in remembrance of that same body blood and person which so many yeares agoe was giuen shed and crucified out of pure mercy for vs. If any one here shouid replye that though in the fore named instances he proued that one thing or person may put vs in remembrance of themselues in different times and circumstances yet the same thing cannot properly be said to be a remembrance commemoration or memoriall of it selfe euen in those different times according to the ordinary cours of speach amongst men I answer that when a thing remaines in its whole visible substance as it was before there may be some difficulties whether it be to be called a memoriall or remembrance of it selfe or noe though it he capable of putting one in remembrance of it selfe as existent in some other time because it hath other functions and perfections properly belonging to it which being of cheefer and more primary vse and consequence giue the name to the thing and so it is not rightly termed a memory or remembrance of it selfe but when it actually reduces any one to the temembrance of it But when a thing is so changed in respect of its proper functions amongst men though it remaines the same in substance and all other proprieties that it was that one of the maine ends for which it is put in that manner is to be a remembrance of what it did or suffered in former times then it may properly be called a memoriall commemoration remembrance or memory of it selfe Thus though our Sauiour appearing to his disciples after his resurrection in a visible and liuing forme put them in remembrance of his passion or that he was the same who suffered and yet because his other actions of teaching inlightning comforting confirming in faith c. were his primarie actions he had his appellations according to to them and not from the remembrance which he caused in them because that was secundary and of lesse consequence But by reason that in this holy Sacrament he hath noe vse of any of those functions or the like but is put in an inuisible and hidden manner as the food of our soules and the end why he is so put is cheefly to continue a perpetuall remembrance of his bitter death and passion he is most deseruedly termed a memoriall of himselfe suffering vppon the crosse Thus for the like reason a sword wherewith some valiant champion hath atcheeued some notable feate of armes so long as he weares it himselfe or any other vses it it cannot properly be said to be a remembrance of it selfe as the instrument of those famous exploits but if it be hung vp as a monument for those exploits in some publike place or temple it becomes a memoriall of it selfe as working those noble actions and in this sense the sword of Golias vsed by Dauid in the beheading of that tower of flesch and kept in the temple as a monument was a true memoriall of it selfe as the instrument of atcheeuing that victorie Obiection All that hath beene said of these words This is my Body may and ought to be applied to to these This is my bloud and there is nothing more conuenient then te receaue the same manner of speech in the distribution of the one kinde which is in the distribution of the other Answer All that is conteined in this paragraphe of the obiections may easily be granted supposing there be a right explication giuen of these words This is my Body as conteining nothing against vs. Obiection But as they repeate only these words This is my Body without relation either to that which goes befote or to that
was conceiued and borne in the ordinary maner of other childrē that he was a mere man c. and was holy ignorant both of his mothers virginity and that his humaine soul and body were vnited to the diuine person Thus the Capernaites hauing no more knowledge of his diuinity then Herod had thought that his flesh was to be eaten after the same ordinary maner that other meates vse to be eaten merely to feed the body and went noe sarther But all true Catholiques beleeue that his sacred flesh is liuing and vnited to the diuine persone and eaten by vs though truly and really as he was truly and really borne yet after a most pure heauenly and in effable manner as he was brought into this world wherby his blessed flesh cōsidered absolutely in it selfe is neyther rent nor torne nor deuided nor consumed but remaines as whole perfect and intire after he is eaten by vs as it was before as the Apostle S. Andrew sais In this maner though our Sauiour spoake of his reall flesh yet were his words Spirit and Life noe lesse then these words of S. Iohn the word was made flesh and a thousand such like are though they speake of the true flesh of our Sauiour because his very flesh it selfe by reason of its vnion to the diuine person and glorious proprieties wholy deifyed and spiritualizd in such sort that receiuing it we receiue a Spirituall body though true and reall Here the earnest Reformer will tell mee that I speake contradictions for it is as vnpossible that a body should be spirituall as a Spirit corporall I answer If I speake cōtradictions I haue learned them out of the Protestant Bible and common prayer booke where S. Paul sayes of a body after the resurrection it is sown a naturall body it rises a Spirituall body And yet this wonder full body of Christ exists in the Sacrament much more like a spirit then doth any other glorious body according to ordinary prouidence viz whole in the whole host and whole in euery part of it as the soul exists in the body an Angel in the place he possesses and God in the world And as this admirable body hath the proprieties of a Spirit so hath it the properties of life being liuing bread and giuing life eternall to those who worthily receiue it as our Sauiour pronounces of it and according to S. Iohn what was made in him was life diuinity and humanity and soul and body and flesh and blood in him are all life foe great reason had our Sauiour to say speaking of them the words which I haue spoaken to you are spirit and life These are the cheefe arguments against the reall presence which Protestants vse to draw from Scripture others there are fittet for heathens then Christians which they draw from naturall reason where to though I be not oblidged to answer in this treatis yet because I am exceedingly desirous to giue all the satisfaction I am able to euery one I will breefly set the cheefe of them down and as breefly answer them but because I suppose for the present that I dispute against such as make profession to be Christians I esteeme my selfe to haue giuen a sufficient satisfaction to theyr difficulties if I giue them cleare instances in some article of Christian faith which they beleeue wherein they must solue the like difficulty to that which they vrge from naturall reason against this mystery Objection How can accidents exist without a suhstance as here they must doe Answer How can a humanc nature subsist without its propet personality as in the Incarnation of Christ it must doe vnlesse Protestants with Nestorius will grant that in Christ be two Persons Objection How can one and the same body be in many places at the same time as they must be if the reall presence be true Answer How can one and the same soul Angel and God be in many places at the same tyme which they must be if theyr spirituality and Gods vbiquity be true Objection How can the parts of our Sauiours body so penetrate one an other that the whole body may be conteyned in the least part of the host or drop of the chalice Answer How can the body of our Sauiour penetrate the dore and passe through his mothers wombe when they both remayned shut Objection How should the body of our Sauiour in the consecrated host be distinguished from others when it is put amongst them Answer How should a drop of our Sauiours blood he distinguished from the blood of other men if in tyme of his passion it had been mixed with them Objection If our Sauiours flesh and blood be really present in the Sacrament then cats and Rats may eate them Answer If our Sauiors flesh and blood were truly in the passion particles of his sacred flesh being rent of and drops of his blood shed here and there then dogs and cats might haue as well eaten them Objection How is it possible that the whol bulke of a mans body should be so light that a fly should be able to crary it Answer How should the whole bulke of a mans body be so light that it should mount vp like a flame of fyer into heauen as our Sauiours did in his ascension Objection If there be so many miracles as you must hold wrought by our Sauiour in the reall presence why were none of them seene as the other mitacles of Christ were Answer If there were so many miracles wrought in the Incarnation of our Sauiour as you must hold why were none of them seene as the other miracles of Christ were Objection How can we possibly conceiue a body with out any extention of parts or locall forme and figure Answer How can wee possibly conceiue a humaine nature subsisting without a humaine personality Objection What difference will there be betwixt a body without all extention and locall figure and a spirit Answer What difference will there be betwixt the soul of a new borne infant and that of a brute beast which cannot actually vnderstand the one hath a power to vnderstand will you say and not the other the one hath a power to be extended and haue a locall figure say I and not the other Objection If our Sauiours body be truly in the Sacrament then all wicked persons and greeuous sinners who frequent it receiue his true body into theyr mouthes and brests Answer If our Sauiours body was truly in the wildernesse then the Diuel receiued it into his armes and carryed it to the pinnacle of the temple and if it were a true body in tyme of his Passion then Iudas the traitour kissed it the hard harted Iewes and Barbarous souldiers tutcht it abused it scorgd it crucified it and troad his most pretious blood vnder their feete is not this as much disgracefull to his body and blood as now to be receiued into sinners mouthes Objection If there be nothing visible or sensible but species accidents
contrary â—eeing therefore I haue clearly demonstrated that in the instaÌ„ces alleadged none of the figuratiue speeches can be vnderstood in a proper sense without the violation of some article of our faith proceeding according to true discours euen confessed by our aduersarios I conuince also that they haue no force to proue that these sacramentall words are to be vnderstood figuratiuely THE SEAVENTH CONTROVERSIE Concerning Communion vnder one kinde The Doctrine of the Church of Rome deliuered in the Council of Trent Sess. 13. cap. 3. SEmper haec fides in Ecclesiâ Dei fuit Statim post consecrationem verum Domini nostri corpus verumque eius sanguinem sub panis vini specie vna cum ipsius animâ diuinitate existere sed corpus quidem sub specie panis sanguinem sub vini specie ex vi verborum ipsum corpus sub specie vini sanguinem sub specie panis animamque sub vtraque vi naturalis illius connexionis concomitantiae quâ partes Christi Domini qui iam ex mortuis resurrexit non ampliùs moriturus inter se copulantur Diuinitatem porrò propter admirabilem illam eius cum corpore animâ hypostaticam vnionem Quapropter verissimum est tantumdem sub altetutrâ specie atque sub vtrâque contineri totus enim integer Christus sub panis specie sub quauis ipsius speciei parte totus item sub vini specie sub eius partibus existit This faith hath been alwayes in the church of God that presently after consecration the true body and blood of Christ did exist vnder the species of bread and wine togeather with his soul and diuinity But his body vnder the species of bread and his blood vnder the species of wine by force of the words but his body vnder the species of wine and his blood vndet the species of bread and his soul vndeâ— both by force of that naturall connexion and concomitancy whereby the parts of Christ our Lord who is now risen from the dead not to dy any more are ioyned togeather moreouer also his diuinity both with his body and soul by reason of that admirable hypostaticall vnion with them wherefore it is most true that as much is conteyned vnder eyther kinde as vnder both togeather for whol and intire Christ exists vnder the species or kinde of bread and each part of it and whol Christ exists vnder the species of wine and vnder each part of it The same doctrine is confirmed sess 13. can 3. Item sess 21. cap. 3. Insuper declarat quamuis Redemptor noâ—ter vt anteà dictum est in supremâ illâ coenaÌ„â—oc Sacramentum in duabus speciebus instiâ—uerit Apostolis tradiderit tamen fatendum esse etiam sub alterâ tantùm specie totum atque integrum Christum verumque Sacramentum suâ—â—i ac propâ—ereà quod ad fructum attinet nulâ—a gratia necessariâ ad salutem eos defraudari qui vnam speciem solam accipiunt Moreouer the Council declares that allthough our Redeemer as is aboue said instituted this Sacrament in his last supper vnder both kindes yet it is to be confessed that vnder one only kinde whol Christ and a true Sacrament is receiued and therefore for soe much as belongs to the ftuict that those who receiue it only vnder one kinde are not defrauded of any grace necessary to saluation Ibidem cap. 2. Praetereà declarat hanc potestatem pepetuò in Ecclesiâ fuisse vt in Sacramentorum dispensatione saluâ illorum substantiâ ea statueret vel mutaret quae susâ—ipientium vtilitati seu ipsorum Sacramentorum venerationi pro rerum temporum ac locorum varietate magis expedire iudicaret Id autem Apostolus non obscurè visus est inuisse cùm ait Sic nos existimet homo vt ministrâ—s Christi dispensatores mysteriorum Dei atque quidem hac potestate vsum esse satis constat cùm in multis aliis tum in hoc ipso Sacramento cum ordinatis non nullis circa eius vsum caetera inquit cùm venero disponam Quare agnoscens sancta mater Ecclesia hanc suam in administratione Sacramentorum authoritatem licèt ab initio Christianae Religionis non infrequens vtriusque speciei vsus fuisset tamen progressu temporis latissimèiam mutatâ illâ consuetudine grauibus iustis de causis adducta hanc consuetudinem sub alterâ specie communicandi approbauit pro lege habendam decreuit quam reprobare aut sine ipsius Ecclesiae authoritate pro libito mutare non licèt Further the CouÌ„cil declares that this power hath allwayes been in the church that in the dispensation of the Sacraments the substance being kept inuiolated and intire she might appoint and change such things as she iudged to be expedient for the profit of the receiuers or the veneration of the Sacraments according to the variety of things times and places And this the Apostle seemes not obscurely to haue insinuated when he sayes Let a man soe esteeme vs as Ministers of Christ and dispsnsers of the mysteries os God and that he made vse of this power is clere enough both in many other things and particularly in this Sacrament when ordayning some things concerning the vse of this Sacrament he said I will dispose the rest when I come wherefore our holy mother the church taking notice of this her power in the administration of Sacraments though in the beginning of the church the vse os both kindes was frequent yet in processe of time that custome being now notably changed being induced by iust and important reasons she hath approuued this custome of communicating vnder one kinde and hath decreed that it be held for a law which it is not lawfull to change or reproue at ones pleasure without the authority of the church The like doctrine is deliuered in the first chap. of this session From these texts it is manifest that the Council was induced to command this practice first because whol Christ is vnder both kindes 2. because in each kinde is the whole essence and substance of this Sacrament 3. because noe sacramentall grace necessary to saluation is lost by communicating vnder one kinde 4. because many important reasons toutching the honour and respect dew to soe diuine a SacrameÌ„t mouued her to it 5. because there is noe diuine command to the contrary as appearrs sess 21. cap. 1. 6 because the church hath power to dispence the Sacraments as she finds most eoÌ„uenient soe long as Gods commands and theyr substance are not violated 7. That it is not in any ones power saue only of the church to change this costome The Protestant Position Deliuered in the 39. Articles of the English Church Art 30. THc cup of the Lord is not to be denied to the lay people For both the parts of the Lords Sacrament by Christs ordenance ought to be ministred to all Christian men alike This is proued by Scripture mistaken
Scripture that it rather confirmes the proper and natiue signification of these words he who eateth this bread shall liue for euer when he saith as I liue by my father so he who eateth me shall liue by me whence is at the least more probabily then Protestants can proue the contrary inferred that as our Sauiour liues totally and compleately by his father without the addition of any thing else so Christians liue by worthily eating this heauenly bread without the addition of drinking or any other action necessary to giue life as a part of this Sacrament But that I may make the exposition which I haue giuen of these words yet more plaine and forcible I will propose an instance of a command of this kind giuen to the Israelites euen in matter of a Sacrament where they are in generall commanded by families to celebrate the passeouer by taking killing and shedding the blood and sprinkling it vppon the posts of their dores rosting and eating the paschall lambe c. not that euery one in particular was obliged to performe all these actions but some to one and others to others with decency and proportion though absolutly speaking euery one in particular must haue concurred with the rest to the performance of them all and yet the whol familly by concurring partially were obliged to the performance of all and happily this mystery beeing a figure of the Eucharist the only command of eating without any mention of drinking may giue some aduantage to the coustome of eating alone amongst Roman Catholiques but this only by the way as a congruence And yet to come nerer to our present Question when our Sauiour in the command giuen in the institution doe this c. commanded that what he had done as substantially belonging to this Sacrament should be done in his church that is that this mystery should be celebrated the host and chalice consecrated the body and blood of our Sauiour vndloodily be sacrifized and receaued yet noe Christian dare affirme that all these actions here commanded were to be performed by euery Christian in particular for then all Christian men weomen and children were to performe the office of Priests but that euery one was to concurre to the performance of this precept by doing what belongs to his degree and calling and seeing all these actions now mentioned were not to be performed by each Christian how can it be euer prouued that each was both to eate drinke seeing that by performance of either of these actions separately each might partially concurre to the accomplishment of that precept as they may also to this nisi manducaueritis vnlesse you eate the flesh of the sone of man and drinke his blood you shall not haue life in you that is vnlesse you concurre each in particular to the performaÌ„ce of this command either by eating alone or drinking alone or performing both togeather each respectiuely to his calling office and order prescribed by the church you shall not haue life amongst you that is these actions are necessary that life may be found in the Church of Christ or amongst Christians for this is à command which must be fulfilled amongst them and all are bound in particular to concurre one way or other to the fulfilling of it seeing there is noe reason that one should be more obliged then an other and so if any one were not obliged none in particular would be bound to fulfill it and then euery one in particular might lawfully abstaine and consequently there would be noe performance of this command amongst Christians which would make the command to be void and of noe effect quite contrary to the expresse words and intention of our Sauiour From this whol discours may appeare what an vnworthy and base esteeme our aduersaries frame of the most sacred body and blood of our Sauiour not thinking that either of them as they are in this Sacrament is fit and capable to conferre sauing grace to such as deuoutly receaue them which cannot buâ— derogate insufferably from that infinite worth and dignity which all Christians haue euer conceaued in them for as it is a most certaine and receaued tenet that not only the shedding of the least drop of his most precious blood but the least action or motion of his most sacred body was abundantly sufficient for the redemption of the whol world and a million of worlds more why should they now call in Question the sufficiency of the same body and blood receaued apart each of them to communicate ineffabâ—le fauours and graces all grounded in his sacred passion to the worthy receauers of them Obiection If they answer that they doubt not of the worth and power of each of these but of the will of our Sauiour whether he ordained that they separately or only ioyntly should conferre grace or commanded that allwayes both should be receaued Answer I answer that seeing noe lesse the body then the blood of our Sauiour as separately taken in the Eucharist is abondantly in it selfe fit and able to sanctifie the soule of him who dewly receaues it and that there is noe cleere text in Scripture which conuinces that one of them alone can not sanctifie or rather that there be most cleere texts which proue that one alone can doe it and that there is noe expresse command giuen in Scripture to all patticular Christians to receaue both and the coustome both of the primitiue ancient late and moderne church is euidently to the contrary I cannot see what can haue mouued ouâ— aduersaries to thinke that one kinde suffices not saue a low and meane esteeme they haue of the vertu and force of our Sauiours body and blood considercd separately in themselues in this Sacrament The second defect of respect and reuerence which our aduersaries shew to the sacred blood of Christ in this particular is the little care they haue how much of that diuine chalice and how often it be spilt vppon the ground sprinkled vppon the cloarhes of communicants cast out of the sacred vessels abused lost trod vnder foot by a thousand indiscretions irreuerences negligeÌ„ces mischances by reason of the great multitudes of people of all most all ages sexes conditions who not only once or twice a yeare as amongst the new reformers but each month forttnight and weeke communicate through out the whol Roman Church as dayly experiences teach and especially in the former age in Bohemia where leaue hauing been granted for the Catholiques to receaue both kindes for theyr comfort they found not withstanding all the diligences which morally could be vsed so many and great inconueniences in this kind both to the communicanrs and Priests that they quicly grew weary of it and were compelled to leaue it of But our aduersaries eyther not beleeuing it is his precious blood or little regarding what becomes of it if they beleeue it will and must haue the vse of the chalice though it be affected with a thosand irreuerences to satisfie theyr
willfull and vngrounded importunity But Roman Catholiques beare both a tender loue to this most pretious blood of our Sauiour and so indeauour all they can to preserue it from all irreuerences and preuent all occasions as much as is possible of indangering the least drop of the consecrared chalice to be spilt or lost and frame a most high esteeme of his sacred body as conteyned vnder the formes of bread to be alone sufficient to feed them to eternall life Imitating in both these the care and esteeme of the primitiue church which both imposed very heauy and seuere penances vppon all such as permitted any the least quantity of the sacred chalice to be spilt and was accoustomed to giue this Sacrament sometimes in forme of bread only both to hermites in the wildernes pilgrimes in theyr iournies sicke persons in theyr beds laymen in theyr houses and children in the church and in forme of wine only to little infants in their cradles which cleerely conuinces that the primitiue church had noe beleefe or knowledgement of any absolute necessity or diuine precept to receaue alwayes both which not withstanding as it read as diligently so vnderstood it more clearly and obserued more punctually the laws and commāds of Christ then our aduersaries now doe Some there are who being conuinced of the reall presence and that there is neither necessity nor command in Scripture of receauing allwayes both notwithstanding for the precedent places objected say that euery particular Christian is obliged sometimes in his life to communicate vnder both at the same time and thus they esteeme themselues both to agree with those places of Scripture now cited which affirme that by eating alone eternall life is acquired and auoid those inconueniences which happen to the blood of our Sauiour amongst such multitudes of Christians so frequently communicating by granting that this Sacrament ordinarily may be receaued vnder the formes of bread only and agree with the practise of the primitiue Christians who though they often receiued vnder one priuately or when the other could not conueniently be had yet at other times they receiued publickly vnder both and on the other side conforme themselues both to the institution of our Sauiour and those other precepts of receiuing both by doing it sometimes in their liues when the precept obliges This opinion though it seeme fairely to compose all difficulties yet the newnesse and vnhardnesse of it where there nothig else render it suspect of superficiality and falshood for how is it possible that each Christian should haue so weighty an obligation and neither any doctour in the moderne Roman Church so much as dreame of it nor any amongst her present aduersaries once presse it against vs or thinke of it themselues or if we looke to the late fiue hundred yeares before vs where in it hath been the coustome in many particular churches to communicate publickly vnder the formes of bread only without the least reflection or practise of any such precept as S. Thomas wittnesses those churches always communicating the laity vnder one kinde only or if we ascend to the primitiue times there is noe step nor impression to be found of any such precept for then they not sometimes only or euer by way of diuine precept for so much as can be gathered from the authours of those times but frequently in publick celebrations of those mysteries communicated vnder both and those childeren which communicated vnder one only kinde we neuer read to haue communicated vnder both though they died in their childhood which not withstanding they should haue done had the Christians of the primitiue times beleeued any such need as is here conceiued of sometimes communicating vnder both how I say is it possible that this opinion should be true solide seeing neither moderne nor ancient nor primitiue times nor friends nor aduersaries of the Roman Church so much as once mention it but beside the newnesse it hath other reasons enough to conuince it of falshood for first when the primitiue Christians communicated little infants presently after baptisme vnder the formes of wine only they neuer are read to haue giuen it vnder both if they came to be in dāger of death when they had acquired strength enough to receaue both which notwithstanding they had been obliged to doe had there been any diuine precept obliging all Christians to receaue both sometimes or at least once in their liues Secondly the same difficulty may be pressed against this new hatched opinion of children arriued to the age of six or seauen yeares who being accoustumed in the primitiue Church to consumate the particles or reliques of the sacred hosts raceaued vnder the formes of bread only for there is not a step imprinted in antiquity of conferring both kindes to them when they came to dy about that age The like is of hermites who liued perpetually in the deserts and had the coustome of taking with them the most blessed Sacrament vnder the formes of bread only But that which discouuers most cleerely the non existency of this new fangled opinion is that it hath noe ground in holy Scripture for when our Sauiour saith Ioh. 6. he who eateth this bread shall liue for euer whosoeuer holds this opinion must say that he who receaues deuoutly vnder the forme of bread only receaues grace and spirituall life in his soul suppose therefore that still perseuering in that grace receaued he come to die before he teceiue vnder both kindes certainly he will be saued which shewes euidently that the receauing of both kindes before death is not necessaty to saluation necessitate medij as the schoole speakes that is so necessary that saluation can noe more be acquired without it then it can be without faith or the grace of God neither can communion vnder both kindes be said to be necessary to saluation necessitate praecepti or by diuine precept for these words of S. Ioh. c. 6. nisi māducaueritis carnem filij hominis c. being a mere declaration of a truth cānot properly be said to be a precept or command and rather seemes to include necessitatem medij then precepti and whatsoeuer command may be deduced from those words or pressed from any other place of Scripture I haue allready shewed to be of noe force to put a necessitie vppon all Christians to receaue vnder both kindes either all wayes when they frequent this Sacrament or at any time in their liues What I answer to this opinion will easily preuent the forging of an other of the like nature that might happily occurre to some quaint nouelist that though there should be noe necessity of euer receauing both kindes at the same time yet these words of S. Iohn Vnlesse you eate the flesh of the sone of man and drinke his blood you shall not haue life in you import a necessity of both eating and drinking at the least at seuerall times now doing the one and then the other which being done each