Scripture mistaken the ground of Protestants and common plea of all new reformers against the ancient Catholicke religion of England : many texts quite mistaken by Nouelists are lay'd open and redressed in this treatis[e] by Iohn Spenser.

Answer.

But in S. Luke,* 1.1 he calls the cup as much the fruit of the vine before consecration. There∣fore

if you vrge S. Matthew and S. Mark's authotity for the one, giue vs leaue to vrge S. Luke's authority for the other, and know that you haue concluded nothing, vnlesse you proue that we are rather to stand to the nar∣ration of S. Matthew and S. Marke, then of S. Luke, which here you haue not done. Cer∣taine it is that there can be no contradiction nor opposition amongst the Euangelists: the∣refore seeing S. Luke relates these words, I will drinke no more of the fruit of the vine, &c. before the institution of the Sacrament; and the two former Euāgelists after: and yet none of them expressly affirme that our Sauiour sayd these words after or before the Sacta∣ment was instituted, though one put them before, and the other after, we must gather by the context and other circumstances, whether indeed they were spoken by our Sauiour before, or after the consecration of the chalice.

That this may be vnderstood. Nothing is more otdinary with the Euangelists (as all Interpreters note) then to set things down by transposition, or anticipation, somtymes putt∣ing things iust in that order they happened: somtymes transposing them into a former or latter place. This supposed, it is more probable that S. Marke sets down those words, out of their proper place, then S. Luke. for we haue a

cleare testimony that S. Marke in this very institution of the chalice puts those words by way of anticipation, and they drunke all of it, out of their ptoper place, the chalice hauing not then been consecrated, nor any of the Apo∣stles hauing then tasted of it. therefore it is more likely of the two, that S. Marke vses here a trāsposition, then S. Luke, who reckons all othet things in their proper places and orders, as they happened. and if there be a transposition admitted in S. Marke, it must be also one in S. Matthew. But though it were that our Sauiour sayd these words after con∣secration, and that by this fruit of the vine he meant reall and materiall wine, (which I will presently discusse) yet the argument proues nothing at all against vs. for, our Sauiour hauing drunke in his last supper, true and reall wine with his disciples, before the insti∣tution of this holy Sacrament, may very easily be vnderstood to haue referred words to that first dtinking in tyme of his last supper; and so, in relation to that, say,) I will drinke no more of the fruit of the vine, &c. as if some person hauing first drunke wine, & after, some other drinke at a banquet, may vsually say, I will drinke no more of the fruit of the vine till I drinke it in my own house: referring, those wordes only to that which he dranke first. neyther can I see how Protestants according to theyr

principle of beleeuing nothing but what is in Scripture can deny this explication, for seeing our Sauiour sais expresly here, I will drinke noe more of the fruit of the vine, &c. and that we haue noe place of Scripture which eyther affirmes, or insinuates that our Sauiour then drank of the consecrated cha∣lice he must necessarily, referre his drinking the fruit of the vine, to some other wine which he had drunk, before the conscration. Vnderstanding the two first Euangelists in this manner, we clearly reconcile them with S. Luke. for he must probably be vnderstood of that which our Sauiour dranke before the Sacrament was instituted; as according to this interpretation the others also must vnder∣stand it: but it will be much harder to recon∣cile them if those words be referred to the consecrated chalice; for, that hauing not been yet instituted, according to S. Luke's setting down our Sauiour's words, they cannot pos∣sibly be referred to them. for our Sauiour ac∣cording to the Protestant opinion, would presently haue drunke wine in the Sacrament, and so must haue falsifyed his own words as soone as he had spoken them, promising then not to drinke any wine till his father's king∣dome were come, and yet presently after drinking it. which is an euident argument if we stand to S. Lukes relation according this

explication, that it was not materiall reall wine which he drunke in the consecrated chalice.

And hence followes another conuincing argument against Protestants in this particu∣lar. for seeing our Sauiour sayd, I will drinke no wore, &c. and that they referre these words against vs, to the consecrated chalice, and consequently must affirme that our Sauiour dranke of it, (for he could not say he would drinke no more of that whereof he had neuer drunk) I demande of them, whether our Sa∣uiour dranke this as a Sacrament? This they cannot deny: hence it will follow that he tooke it as a memoriall, or commemoration of himselfe in their opinion: and thence it will necessarily follow that Christ had forgot him∣selue, hauing need of a remembrance of him∣selfe. Secondly, that a man present to himselfe, can without an absurdity take a momoriall of himselfe. Thirdly, this memoriall was to he taken by the mouth of fayth, as they say, and so our Sauiour should be depriued of his most diuine, all-cleare and beatificall vision, and knowledge of himselfe & all things, (wherby S. Paul affirmes that faith is euacuated) and led by the darke light of faith:* 1.2 which no Christian can say without blasphemy. Fourtly he commanded not himselfe, but his Apostles to doe what he did in remembrance of him. and so there is no ground in Scripture to say,

that out Sauiours receiued this Sacrament a a remembrance of himselfe: and yet he must haue done so if that first Sacrament had been essentially only a signe and remembrance of our Sauiour, as our aduersaries teach. If there∣fore our Sauiour be supposed to haue drunke of the consecrated chalice, and that he could not possibly drinke a remembrance or signe of himselfe, or his Bloud, he must needs haue drunke his own reall Bloud: for according to the Opponent, if it be not a rememhrance of his Bloud. it must be vnderstood to be his reall Bloud; but if he drunk that which was his own blood, it was not wine, therefore when he sayes, I will drinke noe more of the fruit of the vine &c. it cannot be referred to what he drunke after consecration, but to what he drunke before, as S. Luke relates it.

Hitherto I haue argued, admitting, not granting that when our Sauiour sayd, I will drinke no more of the fruit of the vine, &c. he meant reall and naturall wine. now I wil shew, that though those words were referred by the Euangelist to the consecrated chalice, and vnderstood of a reall and materiall fruit of the vine; yet it is not necessary to vnderstand wine by them: for there be many fruits of the vine which may be drunk beside wine: the iuice pressed out of grapes not yet ripe, is properly the fruit of the vine, which may be

drunke, and yet is no wine; nay should one presse the young branches, and draw liquour from them, it would be that which is here called in Greek a 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, genimen vitis, the ge∣neration, or the thing produced naturally by the vine: and yet it would be no wine. and euen wine corrupted, and quite changed is the generation and effect of the vine: and yet it is no wine. so also in our present case, the accidents or species of wine are genimen vitis, the true effects or productions of the vine, & yet are not the substāce of wine, Seeing there¦fore here euen after consecration, according to the Romane Catholike tenet, those species remayne; our Sauiour might truly be sayd to haue drunke ex genimine, or generatione vi∣tis, of the fruit or propagation of the vine, though there had beene no substance of wine there, but in place therof the Blood of Sa∣uiour vnder those species. so that the very literall sense of the words retayned, and re∣ferred to the consecrated chalice, con∣clude no more then this, that our Sauiour spake of the species of wine; which is pro∣perly the propagation or generation of the vine.

But the words beare and admitt as well another explication (plainly suting with the Romane tenet) as of the fruit or issue of a reall vine. For our Sauiour stiles himselfe, as

the Opponent presently obserues, the vine. Why then might he not call his Blood here the fruit of the vine? and so referring it to the consecrated chalice, confirme that it was the chalice of his Blood proceeding and issuing from his Body, as the wine or species of wine proceeds from the vine.

All these explications shew how little this place proues against vs: or rather how much it aduantages our cause. But if the text be con∣sidered entirely as it stands in the Euangelists, it will neither hurt vs nor helpe them, nor so much as tuch the matter in question: for our Sauiout saith thus,* 1.3 But I say vnto you, I will drinke no more of the fruit of this vine till that day that I drinke it new with you in the kingdome of my Father. Verily I say vnto you, that I will not drinke of the fruit of the vine vntill that day that I drinke it new in the kingdome of God. where he expressly affir∣mes that he speakes of such a fruit of the vine as he is to drinke with them in heauen: which, whether it be materiall wine, or no, I leaue to the Protestants to consider.

Notes

• * 1.1

  Luke 22. v. 22▪
• * 1.2

  1. Cor, 1••. v. 8.
• * 1.3

  Mattk. 26 v. 29. Marke 14 v. 25.