Rhemes against Rome: or, The remoouing of the gagg of the new Gospell, and rightly placing it in the mouthes of the Romists, by the Rhemists in their English translation of the Scriptures. Which counter-gagg is heere fitted by the industrious hand of Richard Bernard ...

The Scriptures obiected answered.

Luk. 22. 15. With desire I haue desired to eate the Passeouer with you, before I suffer.

Answ. 1. This Text is vnderstood of the Iewish Passeouer, and not of the Lords Supper; for the Supper was not called the Pasche or Passeouer. Also the whole Text sheweth it to bee ••••, verse 7, 8, 11, 13, 15.

Secondly, euen in this Text is a Sacramentall phrase; for here the eating of the Lambe is called the Passeouer, which was an act done long before, of which this Feast was onely a remem∣brance, and not the thing it selfe.

Thirdly, this Passeouer did Christ certainly eate of with his Disciples: but the Bread & Wine in the Supper which he insti∣tuted for this new sacrament of the new Testament, the Apostles ate and dranke of, but not a word of Christs eating thereof, but onely of the other Iewish Sacrament, of which in the Verses next following hee also speakes, saying that he would no more drinke of the Vine, verse 18. as before he said that he would not eate of the Passeouer, verse 16.

Ioh. 6. 51. I am the liuing Bread, &c.

Answ. This speaketh not of the Sacrament, as before is pro∣ued in the former question.

Mat. 26. 26. Take, eate, this is my body, Luk. 22. 19. This is my body which is giuen for you.

Answ. 1. I haue before proued, that these words are spoken in an vsuall Sacramentall phrase; figuratiuely, and not properly.

Secondly, they cannot be spoken but figuratiuely, because Christ himselfe spake these words. He willed them not to eate his naturall body, which body was visible before them. Had he his owne body in his hand, and euery one of his Twelue Apo∣stles the same in their mouthes? then were there thirteene bo∣dies of Christ at one time, at the table: twelue in their hands and mouthes; and one, sitting apparantly before their eyes.

One body cannot be in so many places at once, as before I haue proued. And what a little body must this be which Christ held in his owne hand, which he did breake, and which euery of the Apostles did put in their mouthes?

Thirdly, The words must needs bee figuratiuely vnder∣stood now, if we consider the time when Christ spake them, to wit, before his Passion, when as yet his body was not giuen, nor his bloud shed.

Fourthly, Christ spake figuratiuely when hee deliuered the shop, Mat. 26. 28. Then why more properly in the one, then in the other?

Fiftly, The end of Christs instituting this Sacrament, shewes it to bee figuratiuely spoken. For it was for a remembrance of him, Luk. 22. 19. But if this (vpon the words of consecration) had beene his very owne bodie, it could not be called pro∣perly a remembrance of him: for wee remember by signes things absent, and not things themselues present; for so the signes were needlesse.

1. Cor. 10. 16. The cup of blessing which we blesse, is it not the communion of the bloud of Christ? The bread which wee breake, is it not the communion of the body of Christ?

1. Cor. 11. He that eateth and drinketh vnworthily, eateth and drinketh iudgement to himselfe, not discerning the Lords body.

Answ. 1. Here is no proofe for transubstantiation: but that the Bread is Christs body, and the Wine his bloud, by the re∣ceiuing whereof wee receiue Christs very body and bloud. But how? Sacramentally, spiritually, by faith: and such as come not prepared to this holy Sacrament, as they ought, eate and drinke vnworthily, not making a difference of this bread and wine, representing Christ, from common bread and wine, or a common banquet, which is a grieuous sinne. All this wee doe acknowledge, neither doe we deny the bread to be the bodie of Christ, or the wine his bloud; but yet euer in a Sacramen∣tall speech, figuratiuely, and not properly. For if the signe be the very thing signified indeed: then were there no Sacra∣ment: for it is an outward signe of an inuisible grace.

Now there being (as is proued) no transubstantiation, then

it followes, that there is no adoration of the Sacrament in that respect; nor therein offered any vnbloudy sacrifice for the quicke and the dead.