To the extent possible under law, the Text Creation Partnership has waived all copyright and related or neighboring rights to this keyboarded and encoded edition of the work described above, according to the terms of the CC0 1.0 Public Domain Dedication (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/). This waiver does not extend to any page images or other supplementary files associated with this work, which may be protected by copyright or other license restrictions. Please go to http://www.textcreationpartnership.org/ for more information.
God vnites a matter produced at the exi∣gency of nature, to thé accidents which were of bread, which in the production of wormes from a putrifyed hoast supplyes the want of theyr own.
These, to my best remembrance, are the cheefe difficulties, which according to the principles, of naturall reason, our Aduer∣saries commonly presse against vs in this mistery, in answer wherof, I haue playnly
shewed, that they themselues must answer as great or greater difficultyes, which may be opposed by heathens, and Infidells against other articles of our faith which they beleeue, let them therefore eyther desist to moue any such heathnish objections as these, against the reall presence, or acknowledge that whilst they presse these against it, they giue iust oc∣casion to an Infidell to presse the like against themselues: which when they haue solued in other mysteries, they will haue solu'd theyr own, against this.
Before I end this controuersie, I will summe vp briefly what I haue said at large in this treatis, that the Reader may haue a full sight of it at one Vew. first, I haue (according to my former methode) cited the doctrine of the Concil of Trent. whence clearly appeares that it conteynes nothing, grosse and Capernaiti∣call (as Protestants commonly are made be∣leeue) but a most heauenly, pure, mysticall, liuing, and ineffable presence. Secondly I haue cited the words of the Euangelists and S. Paul touching the Institution, which are not only most clere in themselues (as I haue proued) but are iudged soe to be both by Martin Lu∣ther, in his first Tome printed at Iena, an. 1589. Concione 3. de Confessione, & Sacramento Eucharistiae, parte 2. pag. 329. where after he had cited the words of the Euangelists, he
saith thus: Haec sunt verba quae neque ipsi, ne∣que etiam Sathan negare poterit, in quae fi∣gendus pes est, vt firmiter in iis consistamus. Sunt autem nuda & planissima, quae nullis in∣terpretationibus eludi possunt. Quòd & panis sit Christi corpus. pro nobis traditum, & calix Christi sanguis, pro nobis effusus, & iubemur illa facere in commemoratione ipsius.
These are words, which neyther they (he meanes Romane Catholicques) nor Sathan can denie, vppon which wee are to fix our foote, that we may stand immouuable in them. For they are naked and most plaine which cannot be shifted of by any Interpretations. That bread is the body of Christ, which is giuen for vs, and the cup the blood of Christ, which is shed for vs, and that we are commanded to doe them in remembrance of him. Thus Lu∣ther. which though he here affirmes, to proue his errours, of Consubstantiation, and Com∣munion in both kindes against vs, yet withall he clearely, confesses that the words are most plaine for the reall presence of Christs true body, and blood in this holy Sacrament, which he allwayes held.
These texts also are so vndeniably clere, for the reall Presence, that Zuinglius the first au∣thour of the Sacramentaries changed the word in all the Euangelists, and S. Paul 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 in Greeke, est in Latin, in these words, This is my
Body, this is my blood, into significat, thus, this signi∣sies my body, this signifies my blood, and so printed them in his Bible, dedicated to Fran∣cis King of France, and printed at Tiguris anno 1525. as witnesses Conradus Sclussen∣burgh a learned Protestant, in Theologiâ Cal∣uinistarum Ie. 2. ar. 3. fol. 43. And Zuinglius himselfe approuues of this his translation to▪ 2. de verâ & falsâ religione c. 5. fol. 210.
And Beza. Translating, those words of S. Luke, qui pro vobis effunditur▪ which is powred out for you, puts, them thus in greeke, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, &c. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Hoc poculum quod pro vobis effunditur, this chalice which is powred out for you, and in his Latin translation he puts them thus, hoc poculum &c. in sanguine meo, qui pro vobis effunditur, which blood is powred out for you, referring the word this, to blood and not to chalice, quite contrary to the Greeke construction, which not withstanding he confesses to haue found, in all the ancient Greeke copies which he had read, and hauing noe other shift to auoyd the force of these words as they stand in all these Greeke co∣pies acknowledging that they make quite against him, he is put to that desperate inso∣lensie, as to say, that these words, which (chali∣ce) is powred out for you, haue crept out of the margent into the text, by negligēce of writers, and soe are not the word of God▪ soe Bezaes
translation Greeke, and Latin, printed, by Henry Steenen, anno 1565. Thirdly, I haue discouered clerely the sundry grosse mistakes of Scripture, in the words, it, take, eate this, doe this in remembrance, &c. Fourtly, I haue shewed the mistakes, in the parities brought, of I am a dore, a vine, a way, &c. Fiftly, I haue layd open the mistakes, in the instances, of other Sacraments, and figuratiue speeches alleadged by the opponent in the old Testa∣ment, and many such like misapplications.
The maine things where in I stand are, that the words of S. Luke are soe clere, that Beza hath noe way to auoyd the force of them, then by saing that they crept out of the Mar∣gent into the text, though he confesses to haue found them, as he cites them, in all the Greeke Copies which he had seene.
And secondly, that seeing these words, This is my Body which is giuen for you, may most easily and connaturally be vnderstood in a most proper sense, without violating any other ar∣ticle of our faith, or plaine place of holy Scrip∣ture, that they must be soe vnderstood, onlesse wee will take away all force from Scripture to proue any thing, and destroy the fundamētall rule not only of Interpretation of Scripture, but of all humaine conuersation, which is, that euery one is, so be vnderstood to speake properly, when nothing constraynes to the
contrary, ••eeing therefore, I haue clearly de∣monstrated, that in the instāces alleadged none of the figuratiue speeches, can be vnderstood in a proper sense, without the violation of some article of our faith, proceeding accord∣ing 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.