Christian may be truly said both to haue eaten the flesh and drunke the blood of the sone of man and soe sufficiently to haue fullfilled this declaration of our Sauiour This imagination I say is wholy cut of by what I haue answered to the former opinion to omit the nouelty of this inuention for the community of Christians comply sufficiently with this command if some receiue vnder the forme of bread and others of wine this being amongst themselues to haue both eaten the flesh and drunke the blood of the sone of man though each in particular doe not both of them the command being giuen not in the singular but in the plurall number Now that I may conuince euen from the confession of our Aduersaries that communion vnder both kindes is not necessary to saluation 1. First whatsoeuer Luther holds in some places as he is most vnconstant in his assertions yet in very many others he clearly defines that communion vnder both kindes is not necessary to saluation nor was euer commanded by our Sauiour De capt Babylonicâ c. de Eucharist in Declar. in serm de Eucharist à se habito de formulâ Missae In assertionibus Artic. 16. Epis. ad Bohemos Tomo 2. Germanico fol. 100. In aliâ editione Tomo 7. fol. 360. libro de vtrâque specie Sacramenti Si veneris ad locum in quo vna tantùm species ministratur accipe tantùm vnam quemadmodum ibi accipiunt si praebentur duae duas accipe nec quidquam singulare infer nec te multitudini oppone If thou comest to a place where one only kinde is administred receiue one only if where both receiue both and induce noe singularity nor appose thy selfe to the multitude Thus Luther 2. The same is held by Melancthon in loc com edit 2. nu 1551. sol 78. 3. And in the English Statutes In the first Parlament vnder K. Edward the 6. pag. 818 In case of necessity communion vnder one kinde is permitted neyther is any way condemned the vse of those Churches where communion vnder the forme of bread only is practised Which clearly proue that those English Protestants held not communion vnder both kindes necessary to saluation And here I make an end of this whol treatis which had the spirit of Christian humility and obedience perseuered in the harts of Christians need neuer haue been begunne and was vndertaken for no other end then to let the miflead spirits of our age and country see how little reason they either had in the beginning or now haue to disobey the precepts and contradict the decrees of theyr noe lesse tender then powerfull mother the vniuersall Church that being noe other nor better then a weake pretence of Scripture mistaken the common plea of all sectaries against the generall consent of Christendome For this mistake of a few curious and disquiet Nouelists the mysticall body of Christ must be rent in peeces Kingdomes and Prouinces swinne in each others blood Churches and Religious howses the monuments of Christian pyety rased and defaced citties sacced and pillaged contries dispeopled and desolated castles burned families ruined parents bathed in their own teares theyr children half famisht like those of the Israelites crying out for bread and none found to giue it them and that I may shut vp all in those sad lynes of Vincentius Lirenensis Commonitorio 1. c. 6. speaking of the Arrian beresie and giuing noe lesse a true description of those then a presage of our tymes after he had declared how the whol Romane Empire was shaken the west and easterne Churches eyther by fraud or force dangerously infectcd and all things both sacred and Prophane distempred and distracted he vses these words Tunc temeratae coniuges depullatae viduae prophanatae virgines dilacerata monasteria disturbati clerici verberat◠Leuitae acti in exilium Sacerdotes oppleta sanctis ergastula carceres metalla Then maried woemen were abused widdows dispoyled of theyr purple mourning garments sacred virgins prophaned monasteries torne in peeces clergie men displaced Leuites beaten priests sent into banishment dungeons prisons and mettle mines fild with Saincts O vnhappy and accursed mistake what mischeefs hast thou allready wrought and art still a working in the bozom of Christendom how hast thou hoodwinkt the eyes bewitched the eares clowded the braines and set on fyer the harts of mistaken Christians who are soe deeply besotted with thee that like one in a frenzie they can neyther beleeue nor indure to heare that they are mistaken and yet are not to be deserted as wholy desperate and incurable there is still a sunne which can dart a beame of light into theyr souls to discouer these cymerion clouds a neuer erring truth to correct these mistakes and a most prouident wisdome to lead them to the certaine way of saluation Deare contrymen I haue only exposed before your eyes and more I cannot a cleare looking glasse wherin you may behold the foulest grossest and most dangerous of your mistakes and beholding loath them and loathing leaue them though you leaue the whol world and your own liues with them for being once discouured left they must be or God will leaue you FINIS THE INDEX A. ANgels haue been worshipped in Scripture pag. 34.35 Angels indued with supernaturall graces 16.17.18 How he Arke is called God 293. B. BEza Translates in all the Euangelists and S. Paul for is my Body signifies my Body 514. Beza sayes that these words which is powred out for you as they stand in the Greeke are crept out of the margent into the text 214.215 How our Sauiours true body is broaken 200.201.102.103 Christ neuer said this is my Body that is to say a cōmemoration of my Body 215.216.217 Nor could say soe 218 c 219. c. S. Paul cals the consecrated elements the bread and cup of our Lord. 253.255.256 Why the consecrated Hoast is called bread 265.266 c. The Hoast is called noe otherwise bread after consecration then wine was called water Io. 6.196 Bread taken but not giuen by our Sauiour 193.194 Naturall bread cannot be really the Body of Christ. 213. 257. True naturall bread cannot be the Body of Christ as his true flesh is called bread Io. 6.281 ad 285. The Apostles did not eate bread remaning bread but bread made the Body of Christ as in Cana of Galilee they did not drinke water remayning water but water made wine 150.251 C. How the Chalice is the new Testamēt 231.232 c. Whol particular Churches aboue 400. yeares agoe communicated publickely vnder one kinde How Circumcision is called the couenant 287.288 Commandements put shorter in one place of Scripture then in other 114.115 The diuision of the Comwandements more reasonable according to Catholicques then Protestants 118.119 Noe Commandement left out of the Romane Bibles 112.113 Council of Trents Doctrine of worshipping of Saincts and Angels 1.2.3.4 and how tbey pray to God for vs. ibidem Concerning Images 69.70.71.72.73 Concerning Iustisiccation 137.138 to the 143. Concerning merit of
added as they pretend for greater explication as appeareth in a thousand other places and in the Bibles of the yeares 1630. and 1632. S. Marke and S. Luke haue the words thus Iesus tooke bread and blessed and brake it and gaue vnto them where the word it is not ioyned to blessed and gaue but only to brake and then the word it is put in a different smaller letter then the other words All which conuince that the word it is not in the originall and so is not holy diuine Scripture but an addition of men and so no solid argumenr can be drawn from the word it as from the word of God not being the word of God but of men And hence also appeares how cunningly the Protestant translatours detaine the ignorāt readers by putting in words seruing as they thinke to their own purpose in the very same print and letter with the rest whieh are ioyned to them and are in the originall as if they were in the Originall no lesse then the others which notwithstanding in othet editions translations and places of Scripture they signify not to be in the originall nor Gods word by printing them in a lesser letter after they were conuinced of fraud and falsity in the former And thus in some editions putting this and such like words in the same letter with the rest and in others in a different the vnlearned which are not able to examine what is and what is not in the Originall may be in doubt which of these translations is the true word of God and cannot be infallibly certain of either of them seeing the translatours of theyr Church which are of equall authority some of them put a word in their text in the same tenour as if it were no lesse Scripture then the rest and others in a different letter to signify that that word is not Scripture but added by them as they suppose for greater clarity If it should be answered that whether the word it be in the sacred text or no yet the argument will haue force for though the text runne thus Iesus tooke bread and blessed and brake and gaue to his disciples yet it may seeme that he blessed brake and gaue no other thing then that very bread which he tooke remayning in its own substance and nature For certainly he must haue blessed and broken and giuen somthing to his disciples and what can that be imagined to be but what he tooke that therefore which he tooke hauing beene true naturall hread as the text expressly sayth Iesus tooke bread he must be supposed to haue blessed and broken and giuen true naturall bread to his disciples I answer that our Sauiour though he be supposed to haue blessed broken and giuen some thing to his disciples yet it follows not that he broke and gaue naturall bread for he might take bread remaining in its own nature and after breake and giue his Body wherinto the bread which he tooke was changed as in the marriage feast of Galilé after the vessells were filled with water and our Sauiour sayd draw now and beare to the gouernour of the feast certainly they drew and caryed and the gouernour of the feast drunk somthing yet it followes not that as they filled the vessells with water so they drew and carryed and the gouernour of the feast drunk naturall water but as it is sayd v. 9. water made wine or wine wherinto the naturall water wherwith the seruāts filled the vessells was changed yea though the word it had beene in the text or were supposed to be rightly ioyned to it could any one thence proue more that as our Sauiour tooke naturall bread so he brake and gaue naturall bread remayning the very same which he tooke then one can proue from the water of Galilé that as the seruants filled the vessells with naturall water so they drew and caryed and the maister of the feast drunk naturall water remayning the very same which was filled because the text sayes v. 8. and they caryed it and v. 9. the ruler of the feast knew not whence it was But the objection in preuention of this answer vrgeth the former argument yet further in this manner Obiection 2. For the actions of brake and gaue were before the words of consecration This is my Body and consequently not being changed it must be bread which he brake and gaue Answer This argument proceeds from misunderstanding and mistaking this text of Scripture for though it saith our Sauiour brake and gaue to his disciples and sayd This is my Body yet it sayes not as the objection would haue it say that our Sauiour after he brake and gaue to his disciples sayd This is my Body these being very different senses for though the Scripture first mentioneth brake and gaue and then sets downe that our Sauiour sayd This is my Body yet it may well stand with the truth of the words that at the same tyme and instant whilst he brake and gaue he sayd This is my Body and so gaue not bread till it was changed into his Body as if one should giue a peece of bread to a person in want one might say truly he tooke bread and brake it and gaue it to him and sayd take this almes though he spake these words take this almes at the very same tyme when he gaue it And that our Sauiour spake these words This is my Body whilst he was giuing what he gaue to his disciples and not after is manifest first because S. Luke affirmes it to be so he tooke bread and brake and gaue to them saying This is my Body that is whilst he gaue he was pronouncing these words and though in the institution of the chalice S. Marke sayes and he tooke the cup and when he had giuen thankes he gaue to them c. and sayd This is my Bloud of the new Testament which shall be shed for many Yet S. Luke saies Likewise the cup allso after supper saying This cup is the new Testament in my Bloud which shall be shed for you S. Paul also in the same manner also he tooke the cup when he had supped saying This cup is the new Testament in my Bloud Secondly because all as well Ptotestants as Catholikes agree that our Sauiour gaue his disciples a Sacrament and as they say a signe of his Body which was made a Sacrament by vertue of these words This is my Body therefore it were an impiety to say that our Sauiour gaue bread to his disciples before these words were pronounced for then he had giuen a meer peece of bread and neither Sacrament nor his Body nor signe of his Body Thirdly if our Sauiour had perfectly giuen that which he put into the disciples hands before he had pronounced the words of consecration the Scripture sayinge he tooke bread brake and gaue to his disciples and sayd This is my Body then it would follow by the same argument that our Sauiour gaue bread
the sayd chalice and after it was made a Sacrament as all do and must grant they did and so there will not be two actuall breakings but one actuall or mystycall or Sacramentall togeather signifyed by these two words breake and broken for you which happened after consecration But if we say that the first breaking was before consecration and the second broken for you signifyed somthing done after consecration that is the giuing of Christs Body for the remission of sinnes as the Euangelists seeme to signify then it will not be necessary that either the bread should haue beene twice visibly broken or that broken for you should haue relation to the bread broken before he sayd This is my Body as the obiection contends Obiection But to proceed from his actions to the words IESVS added Take eate this is my Body The vnderstanding of these words depends principally vppon the explication of the word this we say by the word this Christ meant that which he held when he spake the word this because transubstantiation is not yet made till the words following This is my Body be fully pronounced They expound all the fower words This is my Body thus vnder the species is my Body but enquire of them what is it which was vnder the species when Christ spake only the word this and they confesse that it was as yet bread which is the same that we mayntaine against them It is bread then and by consequence this there signifyes bread that I hold and these words This is my Body are as much as this bread is my Body Answer The maine diffiulty here vrged is about the word this in the words of consecration This is my Body I demand first when our Sauiour changed water into wine in the mariage of Galilee whether he could truly haue sayd these words vppon the water this is wine and by vertue of these words changed the water into wine the water remayning when the word this was pronounced by him and changed into wine when the whole proposition this is wine was spoaken as wee hold it happens in the change of bread into the Body of our Sauiour in the Eucharist I scarce thinke that any Protestant will be se bold and temerarious as to deny that God can do this and yet all the difficultyes that are inuented and vrged against the word this in the words of consecration are the very same here as is manifest So that the obiection about the word this proues not only if it prooue any thing that the Body of our Sauiour is not de sacto put really in the place of bread by vertu of these words This is my Body but that it is wholy impossible for our Sauiour to worke any such change by vertu of these words for if whilst the word this is pronounced water being only there actually must necessarily be signifyed by the word this as the obiection contēds then it is impossible by vertu of this proposition this is wine that water should be changed into wine for the signification of this proposition this is wine would require the presence and continuance of water by reason of the word this which is supposed to signifie water and the change of water into wine would require the absenec or non existency of water it being supposed to be changed into wine and so water would be and not be at the same tyme which is a formall contradiction and acknowledged by all to be wholy impossible So bold are Protestants in restrayning and limiting the Omnipotency of God to defend their own groundlesse phantasies who oppose the Romane Church in this manner And therefore the more moderate and considerate amongst them grant this to be possible and soe vrge not this argument because it proues either too much or nothing Secondly demand when our Sauiour sayd this is my command that yee loue one another what was meant by the word this either somthing or nothing was meant by it if somthing that was either the cōmand which he gaue after the pronuntiation of the word this and so somthing which was not when he pronounced the word this was vnderstood by it And then in our present question why cannot by the word this somthing be vnderstood which was not at that instant when he pronounced the word this Or by the word this in the former speech of the command was vnderstood somthing which was not his command but this is absurd for then he should haue sayd that which is not my command is my command if it be sayd that nothing was vnderstood by the word this it will follow that the word this signifyed nothing and so his command was nothing or nothing was his command or the word of God signifyed nothing all which is absurd Hence therefore it euidently followes that the word this in the text This is my command that yee loue one another c. cannot haue any other sense saue this This which I am presently to say to you to wit that yee loue one another is my command and this sense and manner of speech is so ordinary both in holy Scripture and common discourse that there can be no difficulty in the vnderstanding of it for it is not necessary that the thing which is signifyed by the word this in such manners of speech be then existent or in being when the word this is pronunced for ir may be either past or to come thus it is ordinary to say in the day tyme I hope to sleepe well this night that is the night to come or in the morning I haue slept well this night that is the last night past and this not only by reason of the thing it selfe whereof we speake but also in regard of the meaning and intention of the person who speakes for words were not instituted to signify thinges and obiects only but also and that more immediatly the thoughts and affections of him who speakes and hence it comes to passe when the same word signifyes many things it is to be explicated and taken in that sense only which appeares to haue beene intended by them who speake hence therefore it happens that seeing things not yet in being when the word this is pronounced may be vnderstood by it we must gather that a thing not yet existent is to be vnderstood when it appeares by other cleare circumstances that the meaning and intention of the speaker is to signify somthing which is not actually when the word this was pronounced but after is to be Thus in the forenamed example where our Sauiour sayd This is my command that yee loue one another it is cleare that his meaning was by the word this to signify that which he was presently after to say and not what was iust then when he sayd the word this for then no command was giuen And that this signification of the word this is most common and familiar euen in ordinary discours is manifest in a thousand
vnder this or vnder these species if they grant that the word this signifies bread as they must needs being spoken before consecration will they make it signify nothing after consecration can it both be somthing and nothing If the word this signifie bread then we must vnderstand that this bread is my Body but no other thing can they make it signifie but bread not the species of bread why because yet it was not when he sayd this not his body for his body could not signify his body neyther as yet was it consecrated when he sayd this they must therefore confesse it to signify bread or nothing if bread then of bread he sayd This is my Body which is as much as to say this bread is my body Answer Here is only a repetition of what hath been objected before wherfore I referre the reader to my former answer wherin I auoide all these difficultyes by replying that the word this iust when it was pronounced by our Sauiour neyther signified the species of bread nor vnder the species of bread nor bread nor that which he precisely then held in his hands before he pronounced the other words nor yet nothing but this which I am presentely to giue you and you are to take and eate is my Body and this well considered let any man iudge whether opinion is lesse forged and more naturall ours which puts a plaine proper obuious signification both to the word this the subiect the word is the copula and the word body the predicate of this proposition This is my Body agreeing with the wholl context and intention of our Sauiour or theyrs which will haue signifyed a mere peece of naturall bread not yet made a Sacrament by the word this â—nd by is my body is a commemoration of my body â—nd that not only without all ground in Scripture but contrary to the plaine text contrary to the mystery here instituted and contrary to common sense discourse all which I haue already proued Obiection Now that it is discouered what our Lord brake and gaue what he bad them take and eate and what he sayd was his body none need doubt but that the disciples did eate that which he tooke blessed brake and gaue and which he bad then eate it was bread by their own rule for as yet he had not sayd it is my Body if they did eate that which he sayd was his body what can any conceiue it to be but bread for what sayd he was his body was it not bread which he tooke blessed brake and gaue and bad them eate saying it was his body if they could disproue the Protestant church in this poynt they could neuer maintayne transubstantiation by the words of institution which in all circumstances words and actions of our Sauiour is agreeable to what we beleeue but we may safely conclude that the Apostles did eate bread and that it remaynes bread after consecration both by that which hath beene sayd c. Answer Here the same thing seemes to be repeated twice or thrice ouer and altogeather is nothing but a new repetition of what hath been answered before only here seemes another objection to be pointed at which may be framed as it is more clearly by other Protestants in this manner That which our Sauiours tooke blessed brake and gaue was bread for certaine it is that which he tooke was bread and is confessed to haue been so by both sydes but that which he tooke he blessed that which he blessed he brake that which he brake he gaue therefore from the first to the last that which he gaue his disciples was bread I answer that all this is true for it was bread in denomination both which he tooke blessed brake and gaue but the bread which he tooke was bread remayning in its own nature the bread which he gaâ—e was bread made his body and yet it was the same bread in denomination for the very same bread which was yet in its own nature when he tooke it was made his body when gaue it Now if one should reply that this is sayd gratis and seemes to be a mere shift for obscuring and inuoluing the matter to escape the difficulty or rather an explication destroying and contradicting it selfe I will shew that this is sayd with great ground euen in Scripture it selfe for if an Infidell should oppose the change of water into wyne in the second of S. Ihon with the like argument say that that wherewhith the seruants filled the vessels at our Sauiours command was that which they drew out of the vessels that which they drew out was that which they carryed to the maister of the mariage-feast that which they carryed to him he drunke but that which the seruants filled the vessels first withall was water therefore that which the maister of the feast drunke was water A Christian vnto such an objection may answer that all this is true if we respet only the name or denomination of the thing for that which was put into the vessels the maister drunke and as it is true that water was put into them so is it true to say that the master of the feast drunke water but the very same water which remayned in its own nature when in was put into the vessels was denominated water made wyne when the maister drunke it And that this may appeare to be no fiction of myne all that I affirme herof is plainly deliuered in the Protestant Bible the words are these Iesus saith vnto them fill the water-pots with water here behold water was to be put into them and they filled them to the brimme see here is water put into them by the seruanrs and he sayd vnto them draw out now and beare to the gouernour of the feast and they bare it marke yet here the seruant bare it that is that which they had put into the vessells which was water when thc Ruler of the feast had tasted the water which was made wyne and knew not whence it was behold it is still called water not water remayning in its owne being but water made wyne but the seruants which drew the water knew still it is called watcr and the water that is the very same that it was in denomination when it was put in but changed into wyne Apply this in each particular to the present mystery and it will appeare how light the objection is fit only to deceiue vnlearned people who are not acquainted with such subtilityes and sophismes as such like objections conteyne Obiection And likewise that S. Paul called the consecrated bread bread three tymes after consecration for as often sayth he as you eate this bread and so let him eate of this bread and whosoeuer eates this beead vnworthyly but we do not eate till after consecration it is then bread after consecration Answer I haue giuen iust now a full answer to that which is objected here that S. Paul calls the hoast bread three
tymes after consecration for it follows no more that therefore it should be pure bread remayning as it was before the words of consecration then that the water remained in its own nature after it was made wyne because after the change it is called water Neither doth yet S. Paul if his words be well marked say that the consecrated hoast is naturall and common bréad such as it was before fit to be eaten at an ordinary table as the Protestants must grant it not to be for at the least it is sacramentall bread and consecrated to a religious and holy vse according to them and therefore though he had put the same word bread before and after consecration yet it follows not that the signification of that word after consecratiâ—n should be the same with the signification of the same before consecration for before it signifyes common ordinary naturall and vsuall bread but after sacramentall significant coÌ„memoratiue holy diuine bread according to Protestants and therefore if Ptotestants must confesse that though the word be the same yet the signification is not the same why blame they Romane Catholicques if they giue the same answer saying that by the word bread in S. Paul before consecration or blessing is meant the substance of naturall and vsuall bread but after consecration supernaturall heauenly spirituall diuine bread which our Sauiour termeth himselfe to be in the sixt of S. Iohn six or seauen different tymes and which euery Christian chiefly begs of God in the Pater noster or Lords prayer saying giue vs this day our dayly bread for it is to be noted that bread in greeke familiarly in holy Scripture is taken for all manner os meate and not for bread only as it is distinct from all other meates But to make it yet clearer that S. Paul did not meane naturall bread remaning in its own substaÌ„ce as it was before when he called the Sacrament bread after it was consecrated or designed for a part of that holy mystery it is particularly to be reflected on that in this acceptioÌ„ he neuer calls it absolutly bread but allways with in article determinatiue or restrictiue referring it to that which consecration had made it and so he calls it this bread this cup that bread that cup to wit which was held for a Sacrament and mystery amongst Christians by force of our Sauiours words and to put vs out of all doubt that it was not that naturall bread and wine which it was before it was consecrated he clearly calls it the bread of our Lord and the cup of our Lord v. 29. wherfore whosoeuer shall eate this bread and drinke this cup of our Lord vnworthily c. and as we gather Ioan. 6. v. 48. that when our Sauiour termed the bread whereof he spoke there the bread of life he meant not naturall and visible bread but supernaturall and diuine in the same manner are we to gather from the words of S. Paul that by the like phrase the like bread is signifyed and as our Sauiour termes that bread wherof he spake Io. 6. v. 51.58 this bread to distinguish it from naturall and vsuall bread and to signify that he thereby meant his true body so also doth S. Paul here neyther can it more be gathered from the being tetmed bread by S. Paul that is naturall and substantiall bread then it can be gathered from the canon of our masse that wee beleeue it to be the substance of bread because it is often called bread in the said canon after consecration Objection If by this word bread so often repeated by the Apostle he should vnderstand flesh were not he worthy to be blamed to entertayne the people in errour since he knew that sense and reason giueth in euidence that it is bread which man naturally beleeues would he not rather haue aduertised vs to hold our senses in suspension and to beleeue that it is his flesh though it seemeth bread then to ioyne himselfe with the report of our senses calling it alwayes bread without any explication Answer We are not to prescribe to the holy Ghost what he is to disclose to the writers of diuine Scripture he could haue deliuered many other mysteries of our faith in clearer words in the holy Scripture then he hath done if it had seemed good in his diuine Prouidence and therefore though he command vs not here in expresse termes to deny our senses and to beleeue that it is his flesh though it seeme bread as some holy fathers haue done with in the first fiue hundred yares yet he calles it as expressly the body of Christ as he calls it bread and seeing we finde bread often to be taken in a spirituall sense in holy Scripture for the food of out soules but neuer finde the body of Christ which is giuen for vs to be any other then his reall true Body one would thinke that the darker or more doubtfull word should in any reasonable mans iudgement yeeld to the more cleare and certaine and be interpreted by it then the contrary which is here alleadged and though our Sauiour call his flesh bread twice as often as S. Paul calls that which was consecrated bread here Ioannis 6. yet no man dare from thence argue that his flesh was not true flesh but corporall and materiall bread And if S. Paul by calling it so often bread after consecration should ioyne himselfe with the report of our senses as the opponent here affirmes he would draw vs also to thinke that it is mere naturall and vsuall bread after consecration as it was before and therefore we may apply the same objection in almost the same wordes against Protestants which here is brought against vs in this manner If by this word bread so often repeated by the Apostle he should vnderstand a Saerament or mystery as it is beleeued to be amonst all Christians were he not worthy to be blanted to entertaine the people in errour since he knew that sense and reason giueth in euidence that it is vsuall and common bread which man naturally beleeues would he not rather haue aduertised vs to hold our senses in suspention and to beleeue that it is sacramentall and spirituall bread though it seeme vsuall bread then to ioyne himselfe with the report of our senses calling it always bread without any explication Thus whilst Protestants frame arguments fitter for Infidells then Christians against vs they neuer consider what force the like arguments haue against themselues But it is very vntrue that S. Paul called it bread without any explication or that he any way draws vs to what our senses would iudge if they were left to themselues but eleuates our thoughts vnto faith telling vs that it is panis calix Domini the bread and cup of our Lord which our Sauiour confesses himselfe to be Iohn the sixt and besides that he who eats this bread and drinketh this cup of our Lord vnwortily shall he guilty of the body and
them Secondly I answer that the objection proceeds vppon a false supposition for the rod of Moyses is not called a rod when it was turned into a serpent because the serpent had been a rod before nor Adam dust because he was before dust for though it be true to say that that which was become a man or a serpent was dust or a rod by reason of the subiect which remaines common to them both called in philosophie materia prima yet it is not true in any formall philosophicall sense to say Adam was dust the serpent was a rod for Adam neuer was nor neuer could haue been any thing else then what his essence made him viz a man and a reasonable creature nor a serpent any thing then what the being of a serpent requiers to wit to be a serpent when therefore in holy Scripture Adam is called dust and the serpent the rod of Moyses it is not because Adam was once dust and the serpent a rod for how can that be proued out of any place of Scripture but because Adam was made of dust and the serpent of the rod of Moyses which is cleerely testified in Scripture so that the supposition and fundation of the obâ—ectioÌ„ failing that which is built vppon it viz that the body of our Sauiour is called bread after consecration by S. Paul because it was bread before must needs fall to the ground For we say not that the body of Christ was euer bread but because that which was bread is now become the body of Christ bread casing to be vnder those accidents by vertu of Christs body coming in the place of it so that though this sacred body cannot be said to be made of bread ' as a house is made of wood and stones which remaine in their own substances to compose it nor as fire is made of wood where the matter common to them both remaines yet if there be vnderstood only that the body of Christ succeds to the substance of bread vnder the same accidents and so issues from it as the day issues from the night as from the terme from which it beginnes to be as one may say ex necte fit dies of the night is made the day so may one say ex pane fit corpus Christi of bread is made Christs body as it is mysteriously in this Sacrament and might be therefore called bread after consecration as the wine in Cana in Galilee is called water because it was made of water and the serpent called the rod of Moyses because it was made of the rod of Moyses or which is the same in other termes because that which became wine was water and that which became a serpent was the rod of Moyses which if it be resolued into philosophicall termes is nothig but this that the substantiall matter which was vnited to the substantiall formes of a serpent and wine was immediately before vnited to the substantiall formes of the rod of Moyses and of water which happens in other changes of one thing into an other Thirdly it is not the ordinary way of speach to say that all things which are made by substantiall changes were such things as were changed into them thus though fire be made of wood or wood be changed into fire yet it is an ordinary manner of saying to affirme this fire was wood neither say we these flowers were earth though they were made of earth changed into them In like manner when our own flesh is produced of the different meates we eate we vse not to say our flesh was beefe or mutton or hearbes or btead or drinke c. and yet it is made of all these when they are changed into our substance and hence is true the same proposition of our Sauiour in time of his nourishment for his meate was as truly changed into his flesh as our meate is into our flesh and consequently the bread which he did eate was changed by nourishment into his flesh and so it is true euen out of holy Scripture which speakes of his eating and drincking and increasing and by consequence of his nourishment that the flesh of Christ at least in some part was made of bread and yet it is not the ordinary manner of speech to say that those parts of the flesh of Chrtst were bread not withstanding it would be neither impious nor false to say that some parts of Christs flesh were once bread supposing it were true that the serpent had been a rod and Adam dust as the Opponent here affirmes to wit those into which bread was changed by naturall nourishment if then it might be truly affirmed of some parts of Christs flesh that they were bread in this sense for-named why should it be not only false but impious to affirme that the flesh of Christ as it is in the SacrameÌ„t for we affirme it noe otherwise was bread there being noe more difficulty in the one then in the other fourthly this change being made in a way wholy supernaturall where noe part of the substance of bread remaines to wit neither forme nor matter as we speake in the schooles which happens not in any naturall nor in many supernaturall changes where the matter and substance still remaynes now receiuing one forme now an other by reason whereof the thing that succeeds may be sayd as the opponent contends to haue been the thing that was changed into it by reason I say that noe such common subiect remaines here but the whol substance of bread is changed into the substance of Christs body it will not be so proper a manner of speech to say that the flesh of Christ was bread as the like would be in other naturall and ordinary changes if that manner of speech were allowable Fiftly the objection mistakes the compleat reason of Catholikes why S. Paul calls thc Sacrament bread after the consecration for it is not only because the bread is changed into the flesh of Christ for this might haue been done so inuisibily that neither the body of Christ nor the species of bread should haue appeared and then we should haue had nothing common to them both to haue continued the denomination of bread but the entire reason giuen by Catholike Doctors is that the bread is changed into the flesh of Christ which is put vnder the outward shewes or species of bread which giue occasion or ground of giuing it the same denomination it had before Thus we call the dead carkase of a lamme a lamme and the dead body of a man a man by reason of these outward organs and proportions which remaine the same they were before though the thing be quite changed from what it was Vnto that which is added that we haue noe where in Scripture that bread is conuerted into the flesh of our Sauiour as we haue that the rod of Moyses was conuerted into a serpent I Answer that it is not necessary to haue all things in Scripture in the like clearnesse and
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