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.

The Protestant discourse of the Eucharist begins thus.

Obiection 1.

THe institution of this Sacrament is ex∣pressed in the 3 first Euāgelists S. Mathew, Mark, and Luke, and also by S. Paul, in all which they agree in these 4 thinges, that IE∣SVS 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 cer∣tainly it doth) thar our Sauiour tooke, blessed, brake, and gaue bread to his disciples so, that that which he gaue them, was bread remain∣ing 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 na∣turall 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 ad∣dition 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 added (as they pretend) for greater explication, as appeareth in a thous∣and 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 ap∣peares, how cunningly the Protestant trans∣latours 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 Ori∣ginall no lesse then the others; which not∣withstanding in othet editions, translations, and places of Scripture they signify, not to be in the originall nor Gods word, by print∣ing 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 vn∣learned 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 na∣ture, 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 go∣uernour 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 na∣turall

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 fur∣ther in this manner.

Obiection 2.

For the actions of brake and gaue, were be∣fore 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 misunder∣standing 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 in∣stant 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 discip∣les 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, that is to say, put bread into the hands of his disci∣ples before they tooke it into their hands, which is impossible: or, that he bad them take what they had already taken, which were ab∣surd, because S. Matthew relates the institu∣tion so, that he mentioneth first gaue, and then take Iesus tooke bread, and blessed, and brake, and gaue to his disciples, and sayd, take, eate, this is my Body. If indeed the Scripture had affirmed that our Sauiour gaue to his disciples, after he had sayd, This is my Body, the ar∣gument had been of force: but s••eing it sayes not so, but only mentioneth first, gaue, and after, the words of consecration, as it men∣tioneth gaue before it mentions take, and that common sense tells vs they must be done at, the same tyme, there is nothing against the

reall presence by this rather mistake them ar∣gument.

Obiection 3.

S. Paul obserues, that after he brake and gaue, he sayd, This is my Body which is broken for you.

Answer.

S. Paul's words, according to the Protestant translation, are these, tooke bread, and when he had giuen thankes, he brake it, and sayd, Take, eate, This is my Body. where there is no expresse mention of giuing to his disciples at all: and therefore what the obiection here affirmes, that S. Paul obserues that after he brake and gaue, he sayd, This is my Body, is very farre from truth. Againe, though S. Paul sayd, This is my Body, yet he sayes not that after he brake, he sayd, This is my Body, as the obiection affirmes. Neither sayd S. Paul, when he had broken, he sayd, Take and eate, as he sayes, when he had giuē thankes, This is my Body. for that would haue some shew of proofe that he pronounced the words after he had broken; but only affirmes, he brake and sayd, This is my Body: which words may as properly signify that he brake and spake these words morally at the same tyme, as that he first beake, and then pronounced them. As when it is sayd in S. Matthew, In those dayes came Iohn Baptist preaching in the desert, and saying, Repent &c.

where, though saying be put after preaching in the text, yet no man is so senselesse as to thinke that he preached before he sayd somthing; or, that he preached before he sayd what the Euangelist affirme him to haue sayd as the subiect of his preaching, Repent &c. So also in Iob different tymes Almighty God, Iob, and his friends are affirmed in the English Bibles, then Iob answered and sayd &c. Then the Lord answered and sayd &c. where, though answered be put before sayd, yet no child will imagine they answered before they spake, or spake before they sayd what the text affirmes them to haue sayd.

Whence it is most euident, that words which are set one after another, signify not alwayes, nor euer certainly (meerely because they are set one before another) that the actions done and signifyed by them, follow one another iust as these words do. And so meerely thence can be drawn no forcible ar∣gument in this particular. And yet if we should grant for other reasons and circumstances, that our Sauiour brake the bread before he pronounced the words of consecration, whilst it was yet but bread; what would this helpe our aduersaryes, or hurt vs? for then it would follow, that bread was broken whilst it re∣mained in its own substance; but giuen to the disciples after it was changed into the Body

of Christ, or morally speaking whilst our Sa∣uiour was giuing it vnto them.

Obiection.

Here wee see plainly (both by theyr own rules, and our Sauiours actions) that it was bread which he brake, and gaue, and not the species of bread which was broken and giuen, that is to say the bredth, coulour and tast of bread, but noe bread.

This word broken must needs haue relation to that bread broken before he sayd, This is my Body, because he did not break it againe after he said, it was his Body.

Answer.

If we vnderstand by broken mentioned by S. Paul when he sayd. He brake, and sayd, Take, eate, this is my Body, that he brake the bread changed into his Body by consecra∣tion, or in a morall vnderstanding, whilst he changed and consecrated it by these words, This is my Body, it might happily containe no great absurdity, to grant that this second word is broken may haue relation to the for∣mer he brake: for in both of them (according to this opinion) his Body was mysteriously and sacramentally broken for vs.

But if we vnderstand by brake, as the Ob∣iection supposes vppon a false ground (as I

hauc already demonstrated) the breaking of naturall bread before he sayd This is my Body, then it is wholy false, and iniurious to our Sa∣uiour and the worke of our Redemption to vnderstand that these words whith is broken for you, haue relation to brake which was men∣tioned before. For that were to say, that a meere piece of bread, before it was made either a Sacra∣ment, or his Body, or so much as a signe of his Body, was hroken for vs; which neither Catho∣like, nor Protestant, nor Christian doth or can affirme without blasphemy: for before these words, This is my Body were pronounced, all agree that the bread was neither made his Body, nor any Sacramētall signe of it. Neither can it possibly stand with the other Euan∣gelists, that broken here should be only a break∣ing of common and naturall bread before it was made a Sacrament by these words, This is my Body: for it is certaine that S. Paul here vn∣derstands by broken for you, the same which S. Luke signifyes by this is my Body which is giuen for you; especially seeing that by breaking & giuing thinges belonging to eating, whether temporall or spirituall, the same thing is signi∣fyed in many places of Scripture, according to the Hebrew phrase. Now to say, that a piece of naturall bread vnconsecrated, was giuen for vs, is an intolerable blasphemy. And yet this is clearer in the other species of the

chalice: for S. Marke relates it thus, This is my blood of the new Testament, which is shed for many. and S. Matthew, VVhich shall be shed for many for the remission of sinnes. Which no hart truly Chri∣stian can imagine to haue any relation to pure and common wine before consecration.

To that which the Obiection adds, that therefore broken for you must haue relation to that bread broken before he sayd, This is my Body, because he did not breake it againe after he had sayd these words: I answer first, that it can neuer be prooued from the words of S. Paul, that the first breaking here men∣tioned by S. Paul, was not presently (speaking in a morall sense) after these words were, pronounced; for though it be mentioned be∣fore, yet it followes no more thence that it was not presently after, then when S. Marke sayes, speaking of the chalice, and they dranke all of it before he mention the consecration of the chalice, that the disciples dranke not after the consecration of 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 conse∣cration, 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 Sa∣uiour changed water into wine in the ma∣riage 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 proposi∣tion, 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 Sa∣uiour 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 pronoun∣ced, 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 signifi∣cation 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 phan∣tasies, 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 noth∣ing. 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 vnder∣stood

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 vnder∣stood by the word this it will follow, that the word, this signifyed nothing; and so his com∣mand was nothing, or nothing was his com∣mand, 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 dif∣ficulty 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 in∣tended 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 significa∣tion of the word this, is most common and familiar, euen in ordinary discours, is manifest in a thousand instances: thus when I beginne to draw a circle, and when I haue drawn,

only thus much of it C (precisely when I say the word this) I may truly say this is a circle: wherby my meaning is not, this c beeing a little part of a circle, is a circle; (for that is no circle) but, this figure which now I am a drawing, or shall presently draw, is a circle. Thus, if one beginning to power wine into a glasse, when he hath powred some few dropps, or small quantity, into the glasse, should say, this is a glasse full of wine, it being only full when the last word wine is pronounced, certainly the word this cannot signify that small quantity of wine which was in the glasse precisely when the word this was pronounced; for that is not a glasse full, but the wine which he is then a powring into the glasse, till he haue filled it with wine, must be signifyed by the word this. In the same maner, if one desirous to shew to another, how quikly flax becomes fire, holding flax in one hand and a candle in the other, flax being in its own naturall substance in that precize instant, when the word this is pronounced, should say This is fire, and as he pronounces the words, he kindles the flax, soe that when the whole sentence, this is fire, is pronounced, the flax is kindled, and changed into fire, noe man can be soe simple to thinke, that his meaning is, this flax remāing as it now is vnkindled, is fire, but this which I am now a shewing, to wit, flax kindled is fire▪ noe other

wise happens it in our present case, where our Sauiour, by the word this, intends not to signi∣fie, this bread remaining as it now is, when I prunounce the word this is my Body, but being consecrated, and by consecration changed into my Body, (as flax by being kindled is changed into fire) is my Body. This supposed, as a ground of this truth, I answer to the whole discours of the obiection, that, when our Sauiour sayd, this is my Body, this is my Bloud, his meaning was, This which I am to giue vnto you. and which yee are presently to eate and drinke, is my Body and my Bloud: which, though it were not existent actually then when he pronounced the word this, yet it was to be presently after; no otherwise then when he sayd, this is my command; not of any command which was then giuen, but of one which he was presently to giue when he had pro∣nounced the word this. That this was the meaning of our Sauiour in the institution of this Sacrament, is most cleare to all such as vnderstandingly reade the text for he com∣manded his disciples to take and eate what he was instituting in this holy Sacrament, Take, eate, this is my Body. Therefore his meaning was to signify by the word this, that which his disciples were to take and eate. now his dis∣ciples were not to take and eate any thing but what was instituted and made a Sacramen••

before it was eaten: neither was the Sacrament instituted but by the words of consecration, This is my Body; which I haue allready proued. Therefore the word this, according to our Sa∣uiours meaning, must signify somthing which was to be after the words of consecration, This is my Body. So farre from truth is it that by the word this, our Sauiour intended to signify that which he held in his hands whilst he precisely pronounced that word this, that he signifyed that which he was to giue out of his hands, and put into the hands of his disci∣ples: and therefore he sayes not see, behold, but, take, eate, This is my Body; that is, not what ye now see whilst I say the word this; but what I command you to take and eate presently, is my Body. And yet this truth is made clearer in the institution of the chalice, And he tooke the cup, and gaue thankes, and gaue it to them, saying, drinke yee all of this; for this is the Bloud of the new Testament, which shall be shed for many for the re∣mission of sins. where our Sauiour renders the reason why he commanded them to drinke of it, because it was his Bloud, &c. So that he sayes not, looke yee all on it, for this is my Bloud, &c. which might haue beene done before the words of consecration were pronounced, or the Sacrament instituted, whilst he sayd the word it, or, this; but drinke yee all of it: which was not to be done till the consecration and

institution was past, as I haue already proued, and the objection herafter acknowledgeth.

Objection.

There is not one word which Christ spake, which we do not stedfastly beleeue to be true: for we hold, that this bread is the Body of IESVS Christ since he sayd that the bread which he brake and gaue, was his Body.

Answer.

I doubt not of the sincerity of this profes∣sion for so much as concernes the petson that wrote this paper: there is more want of true information of the vnderstanding, then good affection in the will, and zeale certainly there is of truth, but such an one as S. Paul descri∣bes, not according to knowledge. For I haue clearly now demoustrated, that the meaning of this proposition, This is my Body, is not, this bread which I now hold in my hand whilst I say the words This, is my Body; but, This which I am now to giue you, and ye are to eate after it be made a Sacra∣ment by the words of consecration, is my Body.

Objection.

It is not our parts to glosse the word of God, or ad any thing of our own since then we haue those two things in the Gospell: the

one that IESVS gaue bread; the othet, that, that which he gaue, was his Body, we beleeue both the one and the other: not as they who will beleeue the latter, but the former they will not credit: and though we could not comprehende how this may agree, that it should be bread which we eate, and yet the Body of Christ our Lord, yet it were our dutyes to rest without any scruple.

Answer.

The good disposition expressed in these lines, will no doubt haue a great influence to induce the person that wrote them, to a right vnderstanding of these mysterious words of our Sauiour, after a due and impartiall pon∣deration of what I haue sayd concerning them, where by it may appeare that it was not bread remayning in the nature of bread, as it was before consecration; but bread made the Body of Christ by consecration; which the Apostles did eate and our Sauiour called his Body, and signified by the words this.

Objection.

But the Gospell, in the line following, in∣structeth vs and draweth vs out of all diffi∣culty. for Christ hauing sayd, that that which he gaue, was his Body, added presently that

it is a remembrance, or commemoration therof.

Answer.

The opponent may please to remember, that iust now we read in the former objec∣tion, that it is not their part to glosse the word of God, or to adde any thing to it of their own: & yet presently vppō it in the very next objection, the word of God is glossed, and somthing added which is their own, and not God's word. Christ (saith the objection) hauing said that that which he gaue, was his Body, added pr••∣sently, that it is a remembrance or cōmemoration the∣reof. where, I pray you, in the whole Scripture finde you that our Sauiour sayd in expresse and plaine words, as you affirme he saith, that which I sayd was my Body, is a commemoration or re∣membrance of my Body? or where stands this written in God' word, This is a commemoration of my Body? or where in the whole Bible find you that our Sauiour so much as once pro∣nounced these words, The commemoration of my Body? Certainly in the whol new Testa∣ment no such expresse words as these, are to be found. Seeing therfore our Sauiour sayes in expresse and plaine words, This is my Body, and neuer sayes in as expresse termes, that is to say, a commemoration or remembrance of my Bady, nor so much as once names the commemoration

of his Body, is it not to glosse the word of God, and adde some thing of your own, to affirme that he says what he neuer sayd nor named in the whole new Testament? If therefore you stick to your rule iust now deliuered, of be∣leeuing the expresse word of God without all glosse or addition, you must stedfastly be∣leeue without all scruple, that out Sauiour gaue his true Body to his disciples; seeing what you say of the commemoration of his Body, is no where our Sauiours expresse words, but your own glosse and addition to them.

If you answer, that though he says not in as expresse words, that what he gaue to his disciples, was a commemoration of his Body, as he says, This is my Body, yet that may be gathered to be his meaning by other words: giue me leaue to reply first, that supposing any such matter could be gathered from his words (which I will presently proue to be false) yet the consequence or collection drawn from an others words, is not to be preferred before his direct, cleare and expresse words to the contrary, and if you will follow the rule of good interpreters, you must expound the more obscure words by the more cleere and expresse, and not the cōtrary as you doe here. Secondly when you draw from other words of our Sauiour this consequence that he meant

that that which he called his body was as much as to say, commemoration or remembrance of his Body, either you haue some expresse place of Scripture which warrants that consequence to be good (and that place must be alleaged which will he as hard to find as the other proposition this is a commemoration of my Body, neither the one nor the other being any where in Scripture) or you must beleeue some thing with a Christian faith (as you professe to be∣leeue this consequence) which not withstand∣ing is not in Scripture: which is contrary to your own principle of beleeuing nothing which is not in the written word of God. and if this con∣sequence be not in the written word of God, then it is framed only by your own discours and iudgement. what impiety then would it be to preferre your own discours before the expresse words of our Sauiour, and to ex∣pound them, and draw them from theyr own naturall, proper and direct sense, to an im∣proper and figuratiue by a cōsequence gath∣ered by humane discours only, neither ex∣pressed nor warranted to be good expressely in any place of Scripture.

Thirdly that I may giue a full and compleat answer to this objection so frequently in the mouth of euery Protestāt, I denie that our Sa∣uiour euer speake or meant our could possibly meane that that which his Apostles did eate,

and he affirmed to be his body, was only a commemoration of his Body: or that by these words my Body is vnderstood a commemoration of my Body.

That this may appeare, I only contend for the present that in time of our Sauiours insti∣tution of the Sacrament at the last super that which the Apostles did then receiue and eate, was for that time not affirmed to be a remem∣brance of his Body, nor did our Sauiour speake any words in the said institution where by he signified that he gaue then to his apostles a remembrance or commemoration of his body, which if I proue, I conuince euidently against the obiection, that our Sauiour (not hauing euer said or meant it to be a comme∣moration of his body; and so these words, doe this in remembrance of me, being noe explication of the former word: This is my Body) gaue his true and reall body substātially present vnder the forme of bread to his Apostles in his last supper, and consequently that it is still giuen in the same manner to all true Christians in this Sacrament.

I haue proued, and the obiection it selfe confesses that these words taken in themselues and without relation to any thing going be∣fore, are to be vnderstood of the reall body of Christ, and that our Sauiour said that the thing which he had in his hands, was his body.

I will now proue that this plane and cleere signification of these words as they sound, is not hindred or taken away by any thing following these words. The maine ground where vppon is built the obiection, for the figuratiue explication of these words is this that our Sauiour sayes, This is my Body which is gIuen for you: this doe in remembrance of me. and S. Paul, This is my Body which is broken for you, doe this in remembrance of me. From these textes the obiection gathers this consequence that our Sauiour saith that that which he calles in the former part of the sentēce in expresse words, his Body, in this latter he calles (by way of ex∣plication, the remembrance or commemoration of his Body. So that by these words my Body: he meant the remembrance or commemoration of my body: and indeed if our Sauiour had expressely said thus, This is usy Body, that is the cowmemoration or remembrance of my Body: the difficulty had beene at an end. but this was neither said nor meant by him, but imposed vppon him by a false glosse and grosse mista∣ke of Protestants; for to say: doe this in remem∣brance of me, and to say: this is a remembrance of my Body are as different as to say when one friend lends a booke vnto an other: read this in remembrance of me, and, this is a remembrance of my Body, which euery child will see to be quite different: and if any one should say that

these two sayings were the same in meaning and signification he would either be thought to haue no wit, or to haue lost what he had: for the one speakes of an action which passes, doe, or read this: the other of a thing permanent this thing, or this booke. the one speakes of a worke done in remembrance, the other affirmes a thing to be a remembrance. the one speakes of a per∣son, 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 Sa∣uiour cannot possibly be thought to haue meant by these words my Body, a mere remem∣brance of his Body, because this explication must be verified of the bread which was conse∣crated by our Sauiour in his last supper, as it is euident. For he speakes of that euen accord∣ing to Protestants. now that could not be a, remembrance of his body, for nothing is said, according to Protestants to be a remembran∣ce 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 remem∣brance 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 com∣manded 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 after∣wards in the Christian Church, in remem∣brance 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 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 signifies, shall drinke, quo∣tiescumque bibetis, doe this so often as you shall drin∣ke. 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 Sa∣crament 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 con∣teined 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 (ac∣cording to the obiection) are plainely & simp∣ly 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 Sa∣uiours 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 institu∣tion. I answer that though some ancient here∣tiques 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, there∣fore 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 ex∣plieation 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 re∣membrance 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 ordi∣nary 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 suffer∣ing such things: and shall any thence make this consequence: S. Paul writ this in remembran∣ce of himselfe, therefore he was a remem∣brance of himselfe, therefore it was not S. Paul who writ it, for nothing can be a remem∣brance 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 con∣secrated 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 cha∣lice, 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 Sacramēt, and not himselfe or his body, a remembrāce of himselfe as béfore crucified.

Objection.

So that that which he gaue into his disci∣ples hands being a remembrance or com∣memoration of Christ, is not Christ him∣selfe, 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 remembrāce of this ring, or I giue you this bookc for a cōmemo∣ration of this book, certainly the remembràce 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 themsel∣ues 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 pe••son may be a re∣membrance of themselues considered in dif∣ferent circumstances, for though nothing in the same time, place and circumstances can be a remembrance or cōmemoration 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 consi∣dered 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 re∣membrance of themselues, and so are accous∣tomed 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 remem∣brance 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 re∣ceiuing of him, puts vs in remembrance of that same body, blood and person which so many yeares agoe was giuen, shed and cru∣cified 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 them∣selues in different times and circumstances, yet the same thing cannot properly be said to be a remembrance, commemoration or me∣moriall of it selfe euen in those different ti∣mes according to the ordinary cours of speach amongst men. I answer that when a thing re∣maines in its whole visible substance as it was before, there may be some difficulties whether it be to be called a memoriall or re∣membrance of it selfe or noe, though it he ca∣pable 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, com∣memoration, 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, con∣firming 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 se∣cundary 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 re∣membrance 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 va∣liant champion hath atcheeued some notable feate of armes, so long as he weares it him∣selfe, 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 (sup∣posing 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 which followes after, that he tooke bread or doe this in remembrance of me. so they will forget &c.

Answer.

How farre this is from truth cleerely ap∣peares by what our approued authours write in this point who most exactely exanime all

precedents and consequences belonging to these words, which also I haue hetherto in∣deauored to doe in this treatis.

Obiection.

So they will forget that this cup which our Sauiour said was his blood, was after con∣secration called by him the new Testament, for that it was a holy signe of the new Testa∣ment.

Answer.

The obiecter would make vs to be of a very short memory, should we forget these words which vsually we pronounce euery day in saying Masse: we therefore remem∣ber very well that our Sauiour sayd according to S. Luke and S. Paul: This cup is the new Testa∣ment in my blood. but we remember not that either S. Luke or S. Paul or any other writer of holy Scripture euer alleadged this reason here mentioned in the obiection, that this sacred cup was called by our Sauiour the new Testament in his blood, for that it was a holy signe of the new Testament, and I would gladly haue any Protestant helpe the weakenesse of our memory by producing any clere text of Scripture where this reason is giuen, and if there be noe such to be found (as vndoubtedly there is not) then they must giue vs leaue to

esteeme this explication (according to their own principles) groundlesse and noe way be∣longing to Christian faith, but a mere glosse framed from their naturall discours or rather a pure mistake grown from their ignoranee of the true meaning of the word, new Testa∣ment here, according to the Scriptures accep∣tion of that word, which that it may appeare.

We must not by new Testament here vn∣derstand (as many ignorant readers of Scrip∣tures may and doe happily misconceaue) the bookes of the Gospel commonly called the new Testament, for none of those were then written, neither is there any one of vnder∣standing who will thinke that the cup which our Sauiour had in his hand was a signe of the bookes of the new Testament, much lesse that by new Testament in our Sauiours blood should be vnderstood a signe of the said bookes.

Secondly we must conceaue that the very same thing may be a signe in respect of one thing, and an essentiall and substantiall part in regard of another: thus words and sentences are signes of the inward thoughts and affec∣tions of the speaker, but part of his outward discours, and in this manner the words, new Testament were a signe of our Sauiours inter∣nall will and intention, but withall were a necessary part of the compleat Testament of

the new law then inacted by our Sauiour, and so beare the name of the whol Testa∣ment, as we shall presently see.

I answer therefore to the obiection, and deny that by new Testament, is vnderstood a signe of the new Testament, but truly & really (though partially) the new Testament it selfe solemnised by our Sauiour in his last supper not long before his death, and that in his own most precious blood there properly re∣ceaued and diuided amongst his Apostles: whereby he certified and obliged himselfe to be the authour, head, protectour & defendour of his law and all those who should truly pro∣fesse it by giuing what he held in his hands to the Apostles, and they testified and obliged themselues and all Christians representatiuely to teach, professe and continue in that law by receauing and diuiding of it amongst them.

Now to make cleare what I haue sayd, wee must also know in generall what a Testament is. In latin it is called testamentum: of wose ety∣mologie Iustinianus Instit. de testamentis or∣dinandis, sayes, Testamentum ex eo appellatur, quòd testatio mentis sit. it is called a testament, because it is the testification of our mynde, or will: so that a true testament includes two thinges, a reall minde and intention to doe what we testify: and an outward testification of what we intend, or oblige, our selues to doe. so that

neyther this outward testimony without the inward will, nor the inward will without the outward testifying of it, can be compleatly termed a testament. not the inward will alone, because that cannot be vnderstood amongst men vnlesse it be externally testifyed: not the outward testimony alone, because it must haue something reall which it testifyes; but the outward testification as corresponding to the inward will, and exhibiting it to others, is a testament. now all kindes of externall signifi∣cations of our wills ot intentions, are not suffi∣cient, but such as signify by way of a com∣pleate confirmation, that the will of him who makes this testament, is such as it is signifyed there to be: and hence it is that so many wit∣nesses, subscriptions, seales, and other solemni∣tyes are not mere signes, buts parts of the testa∣ment, as the pronuntiation of the wordes in a sermon, though it be a signe of the minde of a preacher, yet it is essentially required as a part of the sermon.

Now this outward part of the testament, or last compliment or confirmation of it, was accustomed to be exhibited in bloud; as wit∣nesses Liuie speaking of a solemne league or testament made betwixt the Romans and the Albans and no lesse Moyses in Exodus, speak∣ing of the testament or pact made betwixt Allmighty God and the Israëlites, vnto which

our Sauiour may we haue alluded in the in∣stitution of the chalice. vsing according to the first two Euangelists, the very same phra∣se, or maner of speech, This is the bioud of the testa∣ment which our Lord hath made with you, &c.

This is my bloud of the new Testawent, &c. the word testament is in Hebrew 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Berith, and in Greeke 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, diatheke, and though the Hebrew word signify a pact, league, or solemne promise mutually obligatory betwixt two parties, and the Greeke word a testa∣ment, or last will of a person before his death, and confirmed by it, as S. Paul sayes Hebr. 9. yet because that last will is the most solemne and strong of all other pacts, or leagues, the Greeke word diatheke often signifyes a pact or promise mutuall, in Scripture. And the Septuaginta translate the Hebrew Berith by the Greeke diatheke, as S. Hierome notes Za∣char. 9.11. and Psal. 82.1. Mach. 1. and often the English Protestant translations for berith put testament; thus they call the arke of Moy∣ses the arke of the testament, Berith in He∣brew.

Seeing therefore in the 24. of Exodus, the bloud is there sprinkled first vppon the aultar, which supplyed the place of God, and then amongst all the people wherby, as Interpret∣ours, and ancient authours obserue, was signi∣fyed that the bloud of that party who first

broke this pact, or testament, should be shed, and dispersed as that was, and that our Sa∣uiour in S. Matthew and S. Marke commāded his bloud to be deuided amongst his disciples, drinke yee all of this, ir is so farre from any signes, or figures of our Sauiours bloud, as the oppo∣nent here imagines, that hence is drawn a most forcible argument, that as in Exodus there was shed and dispersed true reall bloud, and not a signe or figure of it, which was called the bloud of the testament, so hcre also must needs be vnderstood the true bloud of our Sauiour, as it is called by him; both Moy∣ses and our Sauiour vsing the same maner of speach, as I haue shewed, and such a solemne le••gue or testament as this was, requiring no lesse, but rather much more, to be confirmed by true bloud, then that in Exodus, or in other ancient times.

And hence may clerly enough be gathered, first, that our Sauiour himselfe held, the cup of his bloud, to confirme this league, or pact betwixt him and mankinde, of his part, as the Apostles tooke it and drunke it to confirme it of th••yrs; and so it is called, as it is, his bloud of the new testamens, that is, whereby the te∣stament of the law of Grace was stregthned, confirmed, and accomplished on both parts. Secondly, that as in a testamēt, an authenticall instrument drawn of any dying mans wili,

witnessed, subscribed, sealed, &c. is rightly and ptoperly called his last will, and testament; so in our present occasion, the couenant, or will of our Sauiour, testifyed or confirmed by his bloud, is rightly called the new Testament of Christ, and that sacred bloud of his as testi∣fying and confirming this will, and decree, is most properly termed by our Sauiour, in S. Luke, and S. Paul, the new Testament in his his bloud, that being the authenticall instru∣ment wherby this will of his was confirmed, and testifyed. And hence euidently appeares how vaine & false the explication here giuen by the opponēt is, for if here by new Testamēt be only to be vnderstood a signe of the new Testament, then Exod. 24. by Testament should be only vnderstond, a signe of the Te∣stament then made betwixt God and the Isrealites, (the very same phrase being vsed in both places) which were ridiculous.

Objection.

He called the cup is bloud, in the same maner as he called the bread his body.

Answer.

Still more glosses, additions, and mistakes: where did our Sau••our call the cup is bloud? where read you these woades, this cup is my bloud? he saith indeede, haiung taken the cup,

this is my bloud of the new Testament, but neuer, this cup is my bloud: he sayd, this cup, the new Testa∣ment in my bloud; but he neuer sayd, this cup is my bloud, no more then he euer sayd, This bread is my Body. Such propositions as these therefo∣re, are not to be put vppon our Sauiour, vnlesse you can eyther shew them in Scriptu∣re, or proue them euidently out of it.

Obiection.

And if the cup must be the Testament or signe of his bloud, wy should not the bread be the Testament or signe of his body.

Answer.

The cup was iust now called the new Te∣stament, (according to the opponent) for that it is a holy signe of the new Testament: now it is called the new Testament; or signe of his bloud; so that new Testament now signifyes a figure of the new Testament, and then a signe of our Sauiours bloud, & what it pleases the opponent, according to different apprehensions and phantasies framed of it, without Scripture or ground; so inconstant are Protestants in theyr assertions! neither is therefore new Testamenr here, a signe of tha new Testament, nor a signe of our Sauiours bloud as I haue proued, but his bloud is the bloud of the new Testa∣ment, and the cup the new Testament in his

bloud, as he declares expressely in the Gos∣pell; and if that which he called here his bloud, must needs be (as I haue shewed) his true reall bloud, why should not that which he called his body, be his true reall body? whether his body here may be termed the new Testament &c. seeing we haue nothing in Scripture or fathers, concerning it, I will not determine, it is a curious and needlesse question; and we see that the leagues betwixt persons were confirmed by bloud, yet seeing it was the custome both in antiquity, and in Exodus c. 14. now cited, to kill and sacrifice the bodyes of those creatures whose bloud they sprinkled, and that, as it seemes in confir∣mation of the couenant betwixt them, and that here our Sauiour made a true sacrifice of his sacred body, putting it, as Diuines tell vs, mortuo modo, in the maner of a dead body, ex∣hibiting it as separate from his bloud and his Apostles receauing it from his hand, it might happily be termed his body of the new Testament, or the new Testament in his body vnbloudily sacrificed; but then will follow, that here must be no lesse his true body then were the true bodyes of those creatures sacrificed in Exodus the 24 or then I haue prooued his true bloud to be there by the like argument: but I will not be authour of any such new maners of speech,

and so conclude nothing in this particular, as conducing little to the poynt in question.

Obiection.

They will not indure any figure, or im∣propriety of speehe in these wordes this is my Body, though in affect they themselues wrest them, for whether by this word this, they vnderstand, vnder this, or vnder those species, or that they will that this word this, signifyes nothing present &c.

Answer.

I am not obliged to defend euery mans different opinion, each hath his particular reasons, and wayes to maynteyne his own: it is sufficient that I defend what before I haue answeared, and demonstrated out of Scriptu∣re, that our Sauiours meaning by the word this, was to signify nothing precisely present by way of a Sacrament when the word this was pronounced, but what was to be present when the Apostles tooke, and ate it, or pre∣sently before; that is, so soone as the wholl proposition this is my Body, was pronounced. which sense, by way of instance may be ga∣thered out of the expression vsed here by the opponent, when it is sayd, for whether by this worde, this, and, or that they will by the worde, this.

for when the obiection sayes, this word, not hauing yet set down the word which is meant by it, but presently after, to witt, this, certainly the opponent cannot signify any thing pre∣sent precisesy when these two words, this word were written, but what was presently to be set down, to witt, this, so that by the opponents own writing is conuinced that the word this may, & doth ordinarily signify something not present when it is pronounced, or written, but presently after to be set down, or spoken.

Objection.

Or whether by this word, is, they vnderstand shall become, or shall be transubstantiated: surely these distractions can be no testimonyes of truth.

Answer.

Here again the objection, puts the word this, and that which is signified by it, to wit is, follows after it. To this objection I answer that it is a mere calumnie forged by Caluin, and from him dispersed amongst the vulgar, that any Romane Catholicque Doctours by the word is vnderstand shall become, or, shall be transubstantiated; for though they gather, as a necessary sequel, transubstantiation, from the reall and proper signification of these words, this is my Body, yet they all vnderstand the word

is, in its own natiue, common, and ordinary signification, and none of them take it for transubstantiated, or become my Body, neyther indeede can they, vnlesse they destroy their own principles, for if they should by is vnder∣stand, become, or transubstantiated, then they must vnderstand by the word this, bread; (seeing they all affirme that bread only beco∣mes, or is transubstantiated into Christ's body) but that were plainly to contradict themsel∣ues, it being one of the maynest points in this controuersy betwixt Caluinists and vs, they affirming that hread is vnderstood by the word this, and we denying it.

That which is added, that, those distractions can be no testimonyes of truth, that is, the diuersi∣ty of opinions amongst vs here reckoned vp, about the vnderstanding of these wordes this. and is, seemes to me to haue something of that eye condemned in the Gospell, which sees a mote in anothers eye, and discouers not a beame in it selfe. The opponent summes here vp fower differēt opinions, whereof the last, I haue proued to be a false imposition and no opinion of ours: the first and second, of the word this signifying vnder this, or vnder these species, are one and the same opinion, set down by the opponent in different words; for seeing by vnder this, none of our Authours vnderstand vnder this bread, they must needs

meane by it, vnder these species of bread, to omit that no Catholicque Authour sayes, that the word this, precisely signifyes, vnder this, or vnder these species, &c. but, that which is vnder these spe∣cies, is my Body: the third opinion, that by the word this, is signifyed nothing present, if by noth∣ing present, be meant, nothing present after consecration, it is another imposition vppon Catholicque Authours, making them speake like Caluinists, against themselues: but if ther∣by be meant, nothing present precisely in that momēt when the word this was pronounced, it is true, and Catholicque, as I haue shewed; but then it is not opposite to the former opi∣nion, for seing no Catholike teaches that the body of our Sauiour is vnder the species of bread, till the substance of bread be transub∣stantiated into it, agrees well with their opi∣nion that nothing in particular be vnderstood by the word this, which is existent when that word was spoktn, bread being then vnder its own species. Thus, vppon a iust examination, we finde that in truth there is but one only opinion of Catholicques in the whol reckon∣ing, and therefore vnderseruedly termed dis∣tractions, or no testimonies of truth. But had the opponent put some reall diuersity of opinions amongst Catholicque Authours about the vnderstanding of these words, and brought them to the number of fower, as here is a

shew made, yet seing they all agree in the proper and natiue signification of these words This is my Body, without all figures or impro∣prieties, which exclude the reall presence: this variety can be no more termed no testimony of truth in this poynt controuersed, then are other different opinions of Schoolemen in many other mysteries of faith, being nothing but diuers wayes which learned men take to explicate or defend the same point of faith wherin they all agree against Infidells or He∣retiques. But had the Opponent known or considered the diuersityes of opinions risen vp within the space of few more then a hundrcd yeares, about the vnderstanding of these words this is my Body amongst Protestants, and that in the mayne signification of them, which Luther confesses to haue amounted to the number of ten before his death, and another not many yeares after rekons vp to the number of two hundred there had beene iust occasion giuen to say, these dis••ractions can be ne testimonyes of truth.

Objection.

In the middest of these discords, they make these words, this is my Body, but halfe true, for they all hold that there were two things in the hands of Christ when he spake these words, his Body, & the species of bread; wherof

it followeth that these wordes are true but of the halfe of that he held in his hands; and if he had sayd, this is not my body, hauing re∣gard to the other halfe of that he held, the species of bread, he had also spoken the truth.

Answer.

This difficulty arises from want of know∣ledge in Philosophy, to distinguish an acci∣dent from a substance, so that it cannot well be so explicated, that the vnlearned will be capable of it; and so will be better vnderstood by a familiar instance, euen in this present matter, then by a philosophicall discourse. The Opponent cannot deny but our Sauiour might haue sayd of that which he had in his hands (this is bread) when he sayd the word this. now I demand, seing according to all, there were two thinges (as the Opponent termes them) the substance of bread, and the species of bread, whether these words this is bread had been only halfe true, or no? if it be answered that they had been but halfe true, it will follow, that whensoeuer we demonstrate any thing; in ordinary conuersation, saying, this is a man, a horse, a tree, a stone &c. we speake but halfe truly, because there is al∣ways the substance, and species, or accidents of those things, yea when S. Iohn Baptist sayd, behold the lamb of God, or the heauenly

Father, this is my beloued Son, our Sauiour hauing both substance and species, those propositions had been but halfe true. if it be answered, that this proposition this is bread, is absolutely and entirely true, then I answer the same to all that is here opposed; for species, or acci∣dents are not different thinges, absolutely speaking, but relatiue appendixes, dependan∣ces, adjuncts, or exhibitions of thinges which are so absolutly denominated, that is, sub∣stances; as when we see a person cloathed, it is absolutely, and wholly true to say, this is Peeter, or Iohn; for though there be two things, the person, and the cloathes, yet the cloathes being only adjuncts, or meanes to demonstrate the person whose they are, are not intended to be included in this demon∣stration. and so, if one hauing only regard to the cloake of a person, should say, this is not Peter, meaning this cloake is not Peeter, though he should speake true to such as know his mean∣ing; yet in ordinary conuersation, vnlesse by some particular signe he gaue to vnderstand his meaning, he would either not be vnder∣stood, or vnderstood to speake false, because the demonstration this is instituted in such circumstances, to signify the person or thing demonstrable, and not their adjuncts, ot acci∣dents. Apply this to our present purpose, and all is solued.

Objection.

Now let any iudge which opinion is lesse forged, and more naturall; ours who say, tbis signifyes, that which Christ held; or that of theyrs who say vnder this, or, vnder these species: if they grant that the word this signifies bread, as they must needs, being spoken before con∣secration, 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 signi∣fy his body, neyther as yet was it consecrated when he sayd this: they must therefore con∣fesse 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 Sa∣uiour, 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 na∣turall; ours, which puts a plaine, proper, ob∣uious 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 in∣tention of our Sauiour; or theyrs, which will haue signifyed a mere peece of naturall bread not yet made a Sacrament by the word this, ••nd by is my body, is a commemoration of my body; ••nd that not only without all ground in Scripture, but contrary to the plaine text, con∣trary to the mystery here instituted, and con∣trary 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 main∣tayne transubstantiation by the words of in∣stitution, 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 noth∣ing 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 Prote∣stants, 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 con∣fessed 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 natu∣re, the bread which he ga••e, was bread made his body, and yet it was the same bread in de∣nomination; 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 gra∣tis, and seemes to be a mere shift, for obscuring and inuoluing the matter to escape the dif∣ficulty, or rather an explication destroying and contradicting it selfe; I will shew that this is sayd with great ground, euen in Scrip∣ture 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 ves∣sels 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 denomi∣nation 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 re¦mayned 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 de∣liuered 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 gouer∣nour 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 so∣phismes

as such like objections conteyne.

Obiection.

And likewise that S. Paul called the con∣secrated bread, bread three tymes after conse∣cration: 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 re∣mained 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 conse∣crated to a religious and holy vse, according to them, and therefore though he had put the same word bread, before and after consecra∣tion, yet it follows not that the signification of that word after consecrati••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, cōmemoratiue, holy, diuine bread, according to Protestants, and therefore if Ptotestants must confesse that though the word be the same, yet the signifi∣cation is not the same, why blame they Ro∣mane 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 Scrip∣ture 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 substāce 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 acceptiō he neuer calls it absolutly bread,

but allways with in article determinatiue or restrictiue, referring it to that which conse∣cration 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 natu∣rall, 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 ca∣non, 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 him∣selfe 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 di∣uine 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 Scrip∣ture 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 ma∣teriall 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 eui∣dence that it is vsuall and common bread, which man naturally beleeues, would he not rather haue aduer∣tised 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 ar∣guments 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 bloud of the Lord, which giues enough to vn∣derstand what kind of bread, and cup he meant here: for they cannot be properly sayd to be guilty of the body and bloud of Christ, who receiue vnworthily an externall signe, or remembranee of it, (though otherwise they may highly offend him) as a subiect cannot be rightly said to be guilty of the body and bloud of his King, who receiues not his seale or signet with that reuerence which becomes a subiect te shew to his Prince; but in the opi∣nion of Catholikes, it is litterally and pro∣petly true, being a most high affront and in∣iury done to the very body, and bloud of

Christ there present: and yet this is more clearly insinuated in the 29 verse: for he that eateth and drinketh vnworthily, eateth and drinketh damnation to himselfe, not discerning the Lord's body: where the Greeke word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 signifies a determinate iudging one thing from another, which is cleare in Catholique doctrine, but not easy to be vn∣derstood, in the Protestant; for how can one be sayd properly to discerne that which he acknowledges not to be present in that thing which he receiues Vnworthily? and though happily in some improper and far fetcht sense, this might be sayd, yet according to the true rule of interpreting holy Scripture, we must vnderstand the wordes of it in a proper sense when nothing compells to the contrary, as the Opponent acknowledges.

Obiection.

And which is more, attributing to this bread, things which cannot agree to the Body of Christ, to wit, to be broken.

Answer.

I haue before answered to this, and shewed that the word broken is familiarly taken for giuen, by way of diuision, or distribution amongst many; which is vsed by other Euan∣gelists: so that giuen and hroken here may signi∣sy

the same thing. But if by broken be vnder∣stood a breaking in peeces of that which was whol before, who can deny that such a breaking agrees with▪ the Body of our Sa∣uiour absolutely speaking? was not his sacred flesh all torne, and broken with the nayles, thornes, and scourges: as the Prophet fore∣tolde, ipse attritus est propter scelera a nostra, he was broken for our wickednesses. and though naturall bread be properly sayd to be broken; yet it cannot be affirmed by any Christian, to be broken for vs, as the Apostle here sayd it was, that is, for our saluation, as onother Euan∣gelist affirmes of the chalice. And therefote Christians must beleeue and confesse quite contrary to the Opponent here, that S. Paul is attributing here to this bread, that which cannot agtee with naturall bread, but only with the true Body of Christ, to wit, to be broken for vs, as that only was mystically in this Sacrament; by may of an vnbloudy sa∣crice: and visibly vppon the Crosse.

Obiection.

And Christ himselfe called the cup. after consecration, the fruit of the vine, both in S. Matthew, and S. Marke.

Answer.

But in S. Luke, he calls the cup as much the fruit of the vine before consecration. 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: 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, 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.

Obiection.

But it might be objected, why might they not call it bread, and the fruit of the vine? in respect they had beene so before consecra∣tion: as the serpent is called a rod: and God sayd vnto Adam, thou art dust, because he was

made of dust. But if things be named by the names of what they were before, it doth not follow that we should so take it of the body of Christ. for it is not only false, but impious to thinke that the body of Christ is called bread for that it had been bread before the consecration. the serpent indeed had been a rod, but the body of Christ had neuer been bread. So Adam was called dust because he had been dust: but Christ is not made of bread. The holy Scripture saith well that Moyses rod became a serpent, but the Scripture doth not say that bread was conuerted into flesh.

Answer.

I answer first that we doe not say that the body of Chtist was bread before consecra∣tion at least I remember not euer to haue read any such proposition in Catholike authours: because his sacred body still existent visibly and gloriously in heauen cannot be said ab∣solutely to haue been bread, it hauing been made of the sacred virgins most pure blood for that in its full sense would signifie (if any such proposition were in vse) that the thing which is affirmed to be made of an other, is not existent in an other place, whilst that whereof it is made is changed into it: as neither Adam nor the serpent made of the rod of Moyses were (for then only they

began to be) when the rod of Moyses, and dust were changed into them.

Secondly I answer that the objection pro∣ceeds 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 ser∣pent any thing then what the being of a ser∣pent 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 Scriptu∣re. so that the supposition and fundation of the ob••ectiō 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 vnder∣stood only that the body of Christ succeds to the substance of bread vnder the same acci∣dents 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 con∣secration, as the wine in Cana in Galilee is called water because it was made of water, and the serpent called the rod of Moyses, be∣cause 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 philoso∣phicall termes, is nothig but this, that the sub∣stantiall

matter which was vnited to the sub∣stantiall formes of a serpent and wine, was im∣mediately 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 sub∣stantiall 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 affir∣mes) 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 Sacramēt (for we affirme it noe other∣wise?) was bread? there being noe more diffi∣culty in the one then in the other. fourthly this change being made in a way wholy super∣naturall 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 su∣pernaturall 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 Sa∣crament 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 noth∣ing 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 chang∣ed 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 explicitenesse of words, for we haue noe where expressed in Scripture, that the bread our Sauiour did eate was conuerted into his flesh as we haue that the rod of Moyses was conuerted into a ser∣pent, and notwhithstanding euen Protestants must beleeue it. so though we haue it not in expresse termes that bread is changed into the flesh of our Sauiour in this Sacrament, as we haue that Moyses rod was conuerted into a serpent, yet we must heleeue it, because the truth of Scripture cannot stand vnlesse this be granted: for seeing our Sauiour sayd This is my Body, and it is wholy impossible and im∣plying contradiction that a piece of bread re∣maining in its own nature should be the true and reall body of our Sauiour (as we haue shewed that those words must import) it fol∣lowes necessarily that the nature and substan∣ce of bread cannot be vnder those visible spe∣cies, and therefore bread must cease to be out of the force of Christs body, which must suc∣ceed in place of bread, vnder the same species which is nothing else then to haue bread changed into the hody of our Sauiour.

Objection.

Why should they only take these words This is my Body: in a litterall sense and noe other? doth he not as well say: I am a dore: I am a vine? doubtlesse he was able

to transforme himselfe into a dore, or a vine but did he therefore doe so? he said to his disciples: yee are branches, yee are sheep. did they therefore become so in respect either of his power or words?

Answer.

I Answer that there is a maine difference betweene these propositions and the other where of wee treate This is my Body both in the subiect and in the predicate, that is in the first and last word of them. for the first word or subiect in the former is (I yee) which signifie determi∣nately and expressely our Sauiour and the Apostles to whom he spake. But in the latter, the first word, or subiect is (This) which neither expressely nor implicitly signifies bread, but this which I am about to giue you, as I haue already said. the last words also: doore, vine, vinebranches, sheép in the former propositions are indetermined and fit to take a spirituall, mysticall and metaphoricall sence: for he doth not say, I am a doore made of wood and boardes which is vsed to shut and open in visible houses. nor I am a vine which visibily springes from the earth and beares such grappes as men vse to make wine of, neither said he that his Apostles were such sheepe as feed in the fields, as beare wool to make cloath of as are boyled and rosted to be eaten at the table: nor such vine branches as are cut of from the vine, and either rot, or are burned, or beare grappes in

the vine visibly &c. For it had been an impossi∣bility and a plane contradiction to affirme that liuing men remaning in there own natu∣re as they did, should be such things as those, truly and really, and therefore those last words dore, vine, sheepe, vine branches being not determined in Scripture to these ma∣teriall and visible things which we commonly vnderstand by these words, giue full scope to interpret them of things in a spirituall and mysticall sense, in which only these proposi∣tions are true. but in these words, This is my Body: the last word body is not left indetermi∣nate and applyable to a metaphoricall sense as it is in holy Scripture, and the discours of our Sauiour expresly determined it to signifie his true naturall, materiall, substātiall body which was there present before the Apostles: for if our Sauiour had only said these words, This is my Body, and added noe further explication: some scope might seeme to haue been giuen to haue interpreted it either of his reall or mysticall body which is his church whereof S. Paul speakes: but he takes away this liberty when he addes presently: This is my Body which is giuen for you. This is my blood which shall be shed for you. which cannot b•• vnderstood of his mysticall body, but only of his true reall body & blood which only were giuen & shed for our redemption. so that the subiect or first

word of the former proposition I yee being wholly determinate to those particular per∣sons of Christ and the Apostles: and the predi∣cate or last words: dore, vine, sheepe, vinebranches, being wholy indeterminate in themselues; neither expresly naming corporall nor spirituall: seeing it is contrary to all reason and wholly impossible that thereby those things in a cor∣porall sense should be affirmed of our Sauiour and his Apostles, as I haue faid, those propo∣sitions must make this sence which is true and orthodoxe: I am a spirituall dore or vine, yee are spirituall vine branches, or sheepe &c. but on the contrary the indetermination or indifferency of the first word or subiect of this proposition, This is my Body: being considered in it selfe making it noe way limited to bread: and the last word or predicate, Body which is giuen you, being expressly determined to the reall and substantiall body of Christ, it must make this sense: This which I am about to giue you, is my reall and substantiall body, which is a true and Catholike proposition and not this: This bread is my true and reall Body: which implies as much contradiction and impossibibility, as this other that Christ is a dore of wood &c. For it is as im∣possible that a peece of bread actually existing should be the reall body of Christ as that Christ should be a wooden dore. nay if we consider it in greeke 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, in Latin, hoc, disagreeing with

bread in gendre 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 panis, which are both masculine, it cannot be referred to bread. Now to shew out of Scripture it selfe that our Sauiour calls himselfe the dore in a spi∣rituall, mysticall and metaphoricall sense only, is cleare out of S. Iohn c. 12. v. 9. I am the dore, if any man enter by me, he shall be saued, &c. which is not true of a naturall dore of wood, for all such as enter in by such a dore are not saued, but such only as enter by the spirituall dore of there soules which is our Sauiour. so also when he calls his Apostles sheepe, he shewes clearely that the speakes of metapho∣ricall or spirituall sheepe: for he affirmes that they heare his voyce, or know him: and hence appeares also. (by the way) another mistake contrary to theyr own English Bible which Protestants ordinarily vrge against vs, mistaking the words of the Gospel: they tell vs that our Sauiour said he was a dore, a vine, a way, which he neuer sayes according to their English Bible; but thus: I am the dore, the vine, the way &c. which deter∣mines the words to a spirituall and metapho∣ricall sense, as when he sayes: I am the bread of life, I am the good fheapherd &c. and when he calles his disciples sheepe, he vseth alwayes this restraining and limiting particle, my sheepe: which is only true of spirituall sheepe, for our Sauiour had noe other. That which the ob∣jection

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 weomā 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 proposi∣tion euer haue caused that conuersion as con∣formable to it. but this proposition only should haue been true: yee are made, or are become mate∣riall 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 sup∣posed to be existent, as when I say: I am a man: the person must be existent where of it is aff••rmed that he is a man. but contrariwise when one thing is said to be made an other natu∣rally, 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 A∣postles 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 ob∣jection, called the spirituall way, dore, vine, &c. which he truly and really is, without, all impropreties of signes, or figures, for other∣wise,, 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 ridi∣c••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 less•• 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 sa∣cred signe or Sacrament thereof.

Answer.

I haue before giuen the reason of this diffe∣rence,

for certaine it is that in this proposition ••n protestant doctrine by the word this, is ••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 ••n the other proposition: my flesh is meat, or I am ••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 ••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 Sa∣cramēt, nor a signe of visible and vsuall bread: ••or it would want little of blasphemy to say ••hat our Sauiour or his sacred body were a signe ••f a loafe of bread which seeing it is so, there can ••e thence noe argument drawn that bread is called the body of our Sauiour because it is a ••igne of his body: but rather the quite contrary our Sauiour or his blessed flesh are tuly and ••eally liuing bread, life giuing bread, heauenly ••read, spirituall bread. Therefore that which ••ur Sauiour gaue his disciples was truly and ••eally his reall and naturall body: or thus, that ••read of our Lord, that heauenly, liuing spiri∣tuall

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 ob∣jection they are, there will be noe other pa∣rity or consequence saue this: or Sauiour calls his flesh bread because it is true liuing, hea∣uenly bread: therefore a peece of cōmon 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 he••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 pro∣pounded, 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 Mel∣chisedech, and many such like types of the old Testament: but the reason why it may not now be so in this Sacrament is be∣cause 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 in∣ward 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 ack∣nowledge noe other signe here then a sacra∣mentall 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 cōstrained to acknowledge that there is not a

Sacrament, for it signifies that heauenly an•• diuine grace which by vertu of it is giuen to nourish our soules which is truly inward an•• spirituall: and that which sensibly appeares in it, and is called by diuines Sacramentum tan∣tum, 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 sacra∣mentally receiued. And noe lesse is it now •• 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 merito∣riously 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 Sa∣uiours 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 be∣cause they were not then existent. I answer that our Sauiour might haue pleased accord∣ing to his absolute power to haue instituted such a Sacrament, but because we haue neither

••n Scripture nor tradition that he instituted ••ere any such: and the words of the institu∣••ion, This is my Body, are properly and litterally ••o be vnderstood when there is nothing that ••onstraines vs to the contrary; we denye that ••ny such typicall or empty signe as this was ••ctually constituted by our Sauiour in the in∣••titution of this Sacrament; especially seeing ••hat the paschall lamme represented much ••ore liuely and perfectly the passion of Christ ••hen the bread and wine: and that such typi∣••all representations were proper to the old ••aw which was the shadow of things to come. And for Protestants they must confesse that ••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, ••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. ••hen its 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 stran∣ge 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 sacra∣mentall 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 there∣fore where the Scripture giueth cleare euidēce that there is a signe, or that it may be cleare∣ly 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 ap∣peare by the particulars.

Objection.

Circumcision is called the couuenant with God. This is my couuenant betweene me and you. now ••hat the word couuenant, must be taken for a signe of the couuenant, the line following ••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 childrēs towards God. whereto he obliged them in taking cir∣cumcision: now this second couuenant was a confirmation, signe or seale of the first on Abrahams part: and so though being consi∣dered 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 couue∣nant, 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 couue∣nant

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 agreemēt 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 stand to his former couuenant of shewing his grace and mercy vnto Abraham and his children. So that that which the objcctiō saies that the word couuenant is here taken for the signe of the couuenant: if it meanes thereby that it signifies not a true couuenant in it felfe which was a signe of a former couuenant, is farre ftom the truth. And though this solution be cleare and cannot be questioned, yet if one would stand meerely in the words cited, one might easely answer that the obligation of cir∣cumcision put here vppon Abraham and his children was a true couuenant, but the actuall performance and execution, that is, circumci∣sion in it selfe performed vppon the Israëlites was a signe of this obligatory couuenant. and so it is said. ver. 10. hoc est pactum meum &c. cir∣cumcidetur. this is my couuenant &c. euery mal child shall be circumcised, that it may be a signe of the

couuenant between me and you, that is, that the actuall circumcision may be a signe of this couuenant. So that neither is here the obligation to be circumcised, called a signe of the couuenant, nor circumcision called the couuenant as the opponent affirmes, not out of Scripture, but from the Protestant glosse or addition to it. And these answers which I haue giuen are clearly confirmed by S. Paul Rom. 4. v. 11. where speaking of Abraham he said: he tooke the signe of circumcision, the seale of the iustice of faith &c. that he might be the father of all beleeuers: where not the obligation ap∣pointed by Allmighty God to be circumcised, but circumcision it selfe is called the signe, and chiefly the signe or seale of his being the father of all beleeuers, which was the first couuenant here made with him.

Objection.

So the lambe of the Passouet was called the Passeouer because it did figure the passing ouer of the Angell.

Answer.

The Scripture in this place calls not expres∣fely the Lambe the Passeour. Ye shall gird your loines and put shooes on your feet, holding staues in your handes, and ye shall eate hastily for it is the Passeouer of our Lord. the hebrew hath it the Passeouer to our Lord. which whether it be meant of

the lambe it selfe, or of the whole compliment of the ceremonies required, or of thc lambe as eaten in that manner or order imports little, because it makes nothing at all against vs. for we must obserue that the word pascha hath a double sense: sometimes it is taken properly and primarily for the reall passing of the An∣gell from one house to another through Egypt: at other times and that commonly improperly or figuratiuely for the solemnity or feast ordained on that day when he passed, and so yearely vppon the same in insuing ages. Thus we take ordinarily the words Natiuity, Resurrection, Ascension of our Lord, either for his reall birth, rising from the dead, or his ascending into heauen; or for the solemnities of Christmas, Easter or Ascension: and to come to our purpose we take the word, Corpus Christi, the body of Christ either for his reall and true body, or for the feast in honour of his body called amongst vs (Corpus Christi) so that vppon that day one might say: Hic dies est corpus Christi. this day is Corpus Christi.

Now the same was amongst the Iewes, and instituted by Allmighty God in this place: so that by the word Pesach or Passeouer was vn∣derstood not the reall passing ouer of the An∣gell, but the feast or Passeouer in honour of it, and so it is not called in hebrew (as I haue noted) the passing ouer of out Lord, but, to our

Lord; that is in his honour for the great be∣nefit represented in the feast of the Pascha. Now if the Scripture had said: This is that very Passeouer wherein our Lord killed so many thousand Egyptians, and saued so many of our forefathers, as here is: This is my Body which is braken for you. This is my blood which shall be shed for many for the remission of sinnes, whereby the words body and blood are determined to his reall body and blood. for noe figure or type of them was brooken or shed for our finnes: it might haue had some shew of pari∣ty. for then must the paschall lambe needs haue been called the reall passage of the an∣gell, and not the festiuityes nominated by the same word. Thus vppon Corpus Christi day one may say: This day is the body of our Lord; vnderstanding by Corpus Christi, the solemnity so called as it is ordinarily vnderstood: it might well passe. hut if one should say vppon that day: Hic dies est Corpus Christi quod pro nobis datum est: this day is the body of Christ whieh so many hunderd yearcs a goe was giuen for our saluation. all the world would condemne him noe lesse of foolery then of falshood and impiety. Though therefore the thing it selfe, and the picture, memoriall and solemnity of it may be called by the same name in a large or ge∣nerall acception (thus the picture of Caesar is called Caesar, the solemnity of Corpus Christi is

called Corpus Christi) yet when there be cer∣taine other particles and words adioyned which tye it to a signification of the thing it selfe, and distinguish it from the picture or me∣moriall of it, then the figure or memoriall can neuer be vnderstood by that word accom∣panied with such adiuncts: neither can the pourtraict or solemnity be euer ioyned with that word explicated with those said restricti∣ue particules. Thus though seeing the picture of the present King of Spaine, I can say: this is King Phillip the fourth: for that word signi∣fies as wel King Phillip painted as really existing, yet I cannot say with truth if the word, is, be taken in its proper and substan∣tiall signification which for the present is sup∣posed I this is that King Phillip who liues now in Spaine, and whom this picture repre∣sents. neither can I say seeing the King him∣selue: this is King Philip which stands in such a chamber painted in the low countryes: for that is not the reall, but painted King, seeing therefore in the words of the institution, that which our Sauiour gaue his. Apostles is not only called his body which happily alone were indisserent to fignifie his body painted or reall; substantiall or figuratiue naturall or mysticall: but addes this restrictiue (which is giuen for you) which particle can agree only with his reall body. the opponent will proue

nothing at all against Roman Catholikes vn∣lesse there be produced out of Scripture some text where the word signifiing the thing it selfe, be applyed to the signe or figure with the same restrictiue and limiting particles, as proper to that thing it selfe; as here the word, my Body, is affirmed of the word, this, and de∣clared to be that body which was giuen for vs, so that the words, my Body which is broken or giuen for you, can neuer be taken for any signe or figure of his true body for then a mere signe of his body should be broken for vs.

Obiection.

In the same sense, the arke the signe of the presence of God, is called God. for when the arke was brought into the camp, it is said, God is come into the camp.

Answer.

It is said so indeed but not by the Israëlites which were the faithfull people of God, but by the vnbeleeuing philistines who esteem∣ed the Israëlites to haue an idoll for their God, as well as themselfes: and the philistines feared much and said: God is come into the camp. and by this argument the opponent may proue as well that it was a signe of many Gods, be∣cause the philistines called it Gods. who will

saue vs from the hands of these high Gods? these are the Gods &c.

Objection.

So the rock is called Christ, because it is a figure of Christ.

Answer.

The words are these: They dranke of the spiri∣tuall rocke which followed them, but the rocke was Christ. where seeing that the text speaks ex∣pressely of a spirituall rock and sayes that rocke was Christ, it speakes not of any rocke which was a signe of Christ (for that must haue been a materiall visible rocke) but of that which was Christ himselfe: for he is truly a spirituall rocke without all signes and figures, as he is our spirituall phisician, our good shepheard &c. and this spirituall rock only from which as the true supernaturall cause that water flowed, and which alone can truly be said to haue followed the childeren of Israel in the desert, was properly our Sauiour.

Obiection.

The seauen eares ares said to be seauen yeares.

Answer.

Certaine it is that Pharao knew well enough that those were not reall but imaginary eares

framed in his phantasie in time of his dreame, and so neuer intended to demand what they were in themselues, but what they portended, or what was signified by them, for it was the interpretation of his dreame which he sought for. and if Ioseph had answered him that these seauen eares were cettaine representations which passed in his minde (as in themselues they truly were) he would haue deserued dis∣grace and punishment, rather then praise and reward: for Pharao knew that as well as he. Ioseph therefore answered according to Pharaos intention, that those seauen eares signified seauen yeares: and though in the English and Latin be the word (are) are seauen yeares septem sunt anni: yet the Hebrew ac∣cording to the proprietie of that language, hath noe word expresly signifiing (are) which may (for any thing that can be conuinced srom the Hebrew text) haue as well the verbe signifie or represent vnderstood as the verbe, are, seauen eares, seauen yeares, that is, seauen eares signifie or prefigure seauen yeares: so that standing close to the originall the argument proues nothing. yet though we should with the English translation vnderstand the words are seauen yeares, yet it would proue as little: for they were certaine Hieroglyphikes, emble∣mes, or characters defining or prescribing what was portended by the dreame. noe other∣wise

then when one seeing a virgin painted with her eyes blinded and a paire of scales in her hand, should aske, what is this? if one should answer him that it is a pi••ture drawne vppon a painted cloth, he would scarce haue patience with such a folly or mockery: for he could not prudently be supposed to demand that which he saw with his eyes. but if it should be answered that it is iustice, he would presently be satisfied. or if one who I know, could read Latin, and not vnderstand it seeing this word, domus, should aske me what it is, and I should answer him that it is, domus, he might thinke I mocke him: but if I answered him that it is a house, he would take it for an answer. but if I knew he could not yet read, I might answer him that the word he asked me was, domus. thus according to the different circumstances and reasons that one hath to iudge that he who demandes, what this or that is, intends to know either what it is sub∣stantially in it selfe, or significantly in respect of some other thing which it figures out vnto vs, the answer is to be framed, but yet with this caueat, that when the subiect of the de∣mande is a thing absolute of it selfe, and not a signe, figure, or embleme of anothcr thing, then we are truly to answer what it is sub∣stantially in it selfe, vnlesse it be cleare that the demanders intention be to know what in

some extraordinary case it signifies. but when the subiect in question is it selfe a signe, figu∣re, embleme or representation of some other thing, it is to be answered what it signifies, vnlesse it appeates euidently or very probably that the intention of the demand is to know not what it signifies, but what it is.

Thus when Pharao demanded what those eares weare, they being only conceiued by him to be certaine presages or tokens of so∣mething else, noe man could in common sense answer him but by telling him what was pre∣saged or intended by them. that is, what they were in that sense in which he demanded, which answer could not be true in any other sense then a figuratiue. for when Ioseph gaue this answer that seauen eares were seauen yeares, had he vnderstood it properly and sub∣stantially, it had concluded a formall contra∣diction and implication in the termes. For it is impossible that the thoughts of ones head which passe in an houre should be truly and really one or many yeares. So the truth of holy Scripture and Iosephs answer necessarily re∣quiers a figuratiue sense. and had our Sauiour said as expressely, this bread which you see is my body, as Ioseph said seauen eares are seauen yeares, he should haue beene vnderstood to haue spoken for the same reason only in a figura∣tiue sense. but seeing he neither sayd, nor in∣tended

to say any such matter, but only, This is my Body &c. that is, this which I am now to giue you, and you receaue is my body (as I have shewed) he must be supposed to affirme in a reall, proper and substantiall sense without all signes or figures, that that which he was then about to giue them was his true body. for the word this both in it selfe and in those cir∣cumstances signifying a thing absolute in it selfe and noe signe or figure, as the word eares doe in the place obiected, cannot be thought to haue any figuratiue signification: neither the word, my body (being expressed by that which followes, which is giuen for you to be his reall body) can be impropetly nor figuratiuely vnderstood to signifye a signe, figure, remem∣brance or commemoration of his body for it was not a signe, figure and remembrance of his body, but his reall and true body which was giuen for vs. neither can there be any fi∣gure or impropriety in the word, is, as though it were nothing but signifies or commemorates: for seeing the subiect of the proposition this, that is, which I am to giue, and the predicate, my Body which is giuen for you: properly vnder∣stood, can be truly and really the one affirmed of the other thus: This which I am to giue you, is really and substantially my body which is giuen for you, according to the rules of all good interpreters it must be vnderstood so as the opponent also

acknowledged before. if therefore the oppo∣nent, or any other Protestant will proue any thing against vs in this particular, there must be produced some text of Scripture where a proposition (all things considered) can be ve∣rifyed in a reall and proper sense: as I haue proued this proposition: This is my Body which is giuen for you, can be, and yet is to be vnder∣stood figuratiuly and improperly. for so long as they produce ptopositions which cannot possibly be vnderstood in a reall and proper sense as this is which they haue cited: seauen eares are seauen yeares, and the like, there is a manifest disparity, because the former can very connaturally be vnderstood in a pro∣per sense, and these not. and the fundamentall and vnanswerable reason is because the words of Scripture as also of all other authours, must be vnderstood properly when soeuer they can be vnderstood so, or when nothing compels vs to the contrary.

Obiection.

Euen before the fall of Adam there were two trees, the one whereof was called the tree of life, because it was a signe and memo∣riall to Adam that so long as he obeyed God, he should inioye life: the other of knowledge of good and euil, because it was a signe and memoriall vnto him, that if he obeyed God,

he should know by experience the diffe∣rence betweene good and euill.

Answer.

These are only glosses and additions to Scripture contrary to what was before pro∣mised. where read you in the Bible that those two trees were so called because they were signes, the one of life, the other of knowledge of good and euill? if there be any such place, why was it not cited in the margent? if noe such, what can it be but glossing and adding to Scripture? & not only without, but against Scripture, in the very places cited, if we stand to the expresse words? for if the tree of life had been so called only because it was a signe or memoriall to Adam that so long as he obeyed God he should enioye life, as the ob∣jection affirmes, why then did God Allmighty prouide euen after his disobedience that he should not eate of the tree of life by putting a cherub in the way least by eating he should liue for euer?

Thus farre I haue answered the objections, and laid open the mistakes which are extant in the paper: some others there are which are commonly objected and mainely stood vppon by our aduersaries in this most weighty point of the reall presence, least therefore some might stik vppon them, as not being

yet solued, I will propound distinctly some of the cheef of them obseruing the methode which I held before, of objection and answer.

Obiection.

What soeuer may be answered to any fi∣gure or signe in these wordes, my body which is giuen for you, as being so cleare and determi∣nately signifying the reall body of Christ, yet why can there not be a figure in the word, is. which may be as much as, signifies, so that those words of our Sauiour This is my Body: may haue this sense: this signifies my Body?

Answer.

I haue in effect already satisfyed this diffi∣culty, or at least giuen sufficient grounds to satisfye it. for the word, is, is neuer to be drawn from its ordinary and proper signification when it can with all conueniency retaine it, as I haue iust now demonstrated, it may here, beside that which is more cleere and known, cannot prudently be signifyed by that which is more obscure and remote from our know∣ledge, now the body of Christ visibly present before the eyes of the Apostles was more cleerely known to them then the significant figure of the bread, and so could not be signi∣fyed without absurditie by the bread in time of the first institution of this Sacrament, as if

I show my naked hand to any one, it were absurd to hold vp my gloue to signifie that my hand is there.

Further, had the bread then barely signifyed the body of Christ as presently after to suffer, it would haue been a bare type and figure of his passion, as was the Paschall Lamb, and so a shaddow of things to come, proper to the old law, and consequently would not haue been a Sacrament of the law of grace, as cer∣tainly, according to all, it was.

Objection.

When the Iews thought that our Sauiour would giue them his true flesh to eate, he cor∣rected theyr errour and tould them, it is the spirit that quickeneth, the flesh profiteth nothing, the words which I speake vnto you, are spirit and life, therefore our Sauiour giues vs not his reall flesh to eate.

Answer.

Sayes our Sauiour here my flesh profiteth nothing? where find you that? noe, replies the protestant, but he sayes, that the flesh profiteth nothing, and seeing he had spoken much be∣fore of his own flesh, what can he be though•• to meane by the flesh, but his own? and can any Christian thinke that he meant his own, vnlesse he denie that he is redeemed by the

torments, and death of Christ, or esteeme his redemption noe profit: or dare a Christian entertaine so base an opinion of Christs most sacred and diuine flesh, as to thinke that it is in opposition to the Spirit of God, as the flesh here mentioned, is affirmed to be by our Sa∣uiour, it is the spirit that quickneth, the flesh profi∣teth nothing: or where through the whole Bible shall they finde, flesh contradistinct from spirit, as here they are, wherby is not meant, our cor∣rupt nature, our fleshly immaginations, our low and naturall discourses, ignorance, mali∣ce, &c. and must it only here signify the flesh of Christ? is not this Scripture mistaken! it is the∣refore of the Iews carnall and grosse vnder∣standing whereof he speakes, which was wholy opposite to the true spirit, light, and life of God, which made them immagine that our Sauiour would cut out peeces of flesh from his body and giue it them to eate, or per∣mit himselfe to be visibly cut and quartered, as meat is at the shambles, and so rosted, and eaten by them, as S. Augustine obserues in this place, which naturall, and carnall discours our Sauiour affirmes to profit nothing, and not his own most pure and heauenly flesh vnder∣stood aright only by true faith, which he calls here the Spirit, or spirituall light. it will be said, that we affirming that our Sauiours flesh is truly eaten by vs though not in so grosse

a maner, are no lesse condemned by our Sa∣uiour, for our carnall vnderstanding of this mistery, then were the Capernaites. I answer, that there is as much difference betwixt vs in this particular, as there was betwixt S. Iofeph and Herod, about our Sauiours natiuity, for though both of them vnderstood that he had true flesh, and was borne of a woeman, yet Herod imagined that he 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 A∣postle 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 re∣ceiuing 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 spiri∣tuall, 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 resur∣rection, 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 proprie∣ties 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 Sa∣uiour 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 be∣cause 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 in∣stances 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 suh∣stance, 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 pene∣trate 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 perso∣nality?

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 Sacra∣ment, 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 soul∣diers 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 and formes of bread, in the Sacrament, how shall wormes be generated from the hoast corrupted, or putrifyed, seeing they must consist of matter and forme, and so be produced of some materiall substance.

Answer.

If there were nothing but humaine nature in Christ as man, without humaine persona∣lity, how could it performe the actions of a person, seeing all other actions of men proceed from theyr persons, and not from theyr na∣tures, as the compleate principle of them. You will say, the diuine personality supplyed the place of humaine personality in Christ, and I

say that diuine power. supplies the place of na∣ture in this Sacrament, in producing a matter, after the species of bread be corrupted, and the body of our Sauiout ceases to be vnder them.

Obiection.

But how can an accident performe the office of a substance?

Answer.

But how can the personality of one perso∣ne performe the office of the personality of an other?

Obiection.

God vnited the diuine personality to hu∣mane nature, and so it subsists by it, as sup∣plying the want of its own.

Answer.

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.

Notes

• Luke 22. v. 19.
• Luke 22. v. 20.
• 1. Cor. 11. v. 25.
• Iob 21. & alibi▪
• Mark. 14. v. 24.
• Matth. 26. v. 28.
• Iohn. 15. v. 12.
• Iohn 15. v, 12.
• Matth. 26 v. 28.
• Rom. 1••. v. 2.
• Liu. l. 1.
• Exod. 24. v. 8. Hebr, 9. v. 20.
• Gen. 9.53. Ps. 54.21. Ps 29.34. Ps. 105.45
• E••od. 24. v. 8.
• Hebr. 9. v. 20.
• Io. 2. v. 7.8.9.
• 1. Cor. 11.20.28.
• Ioan. 6.
• Isay 53.5.
• Luke 22. v. 22▪
• 1. Cor, 1••. v. 8.
• Mattk. 26 v. 29. Marke 14 v. 25.
• Coloss. 1. v. 24.
• Gen. 17. v. 10.11.
• Hebr. 4. v. 11.
• 1. King 4. v. 7.
• 1. King 4, v. 8.
• 1. Cor. 10. v. 4.
• Gen. 41. v. 6.
• Gen. 41. v. 25.
• Gen. 3. v. 23.24.
• Ioan. 6.
• Ioan. 1.
• Ioan. 1.