Discussion of the Popish Doctrine of Transubstantiation, Part 2 · Division 7
Diuision 7.
PAg. 9. My Aduersarie becommeth a more formall N. P.Disputant then before: and against our Doctrines of Transubstantiation and reall presence of our Sauiour in the Sacrament ignorantly by him in many places confounded he frameth this wise Argument;
Looke what our Sauiour tooke, that he blessed: what he blessed that he brake; what he brake that he deliuered to his Disciples; what he deliuered, of that he said, This is my Body:
But it was bread that he tooke:
And bread therefore that he blessed; bread that hee brake; and bread that he deliuered; and bread consequently of which he said, This is my Body.
Which is a formel…sse and fallacious kinde of arguing, wholly forcelesse, if we suppose the former doctrine of the holy Fathers to be true, that Christs words hauehave force now as then they had, when himselfe vttred them, to change the substance of Bread and Wine into his Body and Blood: As if after the like manner of the water conuerted by Christ into wine, I should make this deduction: The Ministers drew water out of the well; carried what they drew: therefore that which they drew and carried was water. If the Minister shall tell me, that they drew water; but carried it made wine by our Sauiours omnipotent operation: so I will tell him, that Christ tooke bread and wine, and conuerted them by his miraculous and omnipotent benediction into his owne bodie and blood before he distributed them, as he by his plaine words pronounced of them, saying, This is my Body, &c.
HItherto, if you will beleeue this worthy Doctor, his Aduersarie hath disputed without forme or figure, T. G.that you may not maruaile why his Answer is so diffused, deformed and mis-figured; for the fault (it seemeth) was in his Aduersaries mishapen Syllogismes; which made him also so loath to meddle with any of them. Here (he confesseth) he becommeth a more formall Dissutant; and I hope therefore we shall finde him a more formall Defendant.
Yet ere he come to my first Argument he must needs hauehave a fling at me for confounding their doctrine of Transsubstantiation and the reall presence (corporall, hee should hauehave said for more perspicuitie; for so I speake) ignorantly the one with the other. I perceiue well what his drift herein is; to make some beleeue that howsoeuer Transubstantiation was not generally held till of late times; yet a reall, that is a corporall presence was euer acknowledged. But if we will beleeue Bellarmine, Aquinas, and the Councel of Trent, the one of them is eueryevery iot as ancient as the other, yea the one cannot possibly bee without the other. hConcil. Trident. sess. 13. cap. 4. Et idem Bellarm, de Euchar. l. 3. c. 11.This, (the Councel of Trent telleth vsus,) was alwaies the faith of the Church, that by the consecration of Bread and Wine, the whole Substance of the Bread was turned into the Substance of Christs body, and the whole Substance of wine into his Blood. And, iThom. Aq. sum part 3. q. 75. art. 3.A body, (saith Aquinas) cannot be, where it was not before, but either by locall motion, or by the conuersion of some other thing into it. But it is manifest that Christs bodie beginneth not to bee in the Sacrament by any locall motion: And therefore it must needs come there by the conuersion of the bread into it. Yea, kIdem ibid. art. 4.by locall motion it cannot be there, nor by any meanes but by this. And Bellarm. cleane contrary to himselfe else-where, lBellar. in Apolog. contr. Praefat. monitor. Reg. Iacob. c 1.It cannot be, that the words of Christ should be true, but by such a conversion and transmutation as the Catholike Church calleth Transubstantiation. It is no matter of ignorance therefore in this Controversie to confound those things, which those we deale with conioyne, yea which they tell vsus cannot be dis-ioyned.
To ouerthrow this their opinion then of Transubstantiation and Christs corporall presence in the Eucharist; I first reason from the Context, mMat 26 26. Mark. 14. 22.Christ tooke bread, and blessed it, and gaue it, and said; This is my body. Whence I thus argued:
What Christ tooke, hee blessed; what he blessed, he brake; what he brake, he deliuered; what he deliuered, of that he said, This is my body.
But it was bread that hee tooke, blessed, brake and deliuered; (nSteph Durant. de ritib. Eccles. l. 2. c. 38. It is bread, saith Durant a Popish writer, that all those verbes are referred to.)
It was bread therefore of which he said, This is my body.
Now this (saith mine Adversarie forgetting, it seemeth, what he had said but euen now, that heere I began to dispute formally) is a formlesse, fallacious and wholly forcelesse kinde of arguing, if we suppose with the holy Fathers (who belike held Transubstantiation then as well as a reall and corporall presence, if this worthy man vponupon his bare word may bee beleeued) that the substances of bread and wine were by the force of Christs wordes turned into Christs body and blood. That is, as if hee should say, this Argument is of no force at all, if the point in Question be granted, or if that be yeelded, that is not at all in the Text. Yea but this is as if a man should make the like deduction of oIoh. 2…the water that Christ turned into wine;
The Ministers drew water out of the well; carried what they drew:
Therefore that which they drew and carried was water.
How formall a Disputant soeuer this mans Adversary is; sure I am hee disputeth neither in forme nor figure. But let vsus helpe him a little to bring his Argument into forme; and then hee shall hauehave an Answer. Thus, it seemeth, he would argue, if he could hit on it:
What the Ministers drew out of the well, they caried:
But they drew water: Therefore they carried water.
And now I deny his Proposition: The Ministers carried not that that they drew: They drew water; they carried not water but wine.
And for his addition hereunto, that Christ after hee tooke the bread and wine, and before hee distributed them, by his miraculous and omnipotent benediction converted them into his owne body and blood, as hee sheweth by his wordes plainely pronounced of them, This is my body. Though it be nothing to the Argument, and a meere begging of the point in Question, yet let vsus consider a little of it, where in the Text hee findeth that Christ thus converted them: for the wordes, This is my body (as was formerly shewed) doe not euince it. But he findeth it (it seemeth) in the benediction or the blessing of the bread; which is yet against the common conceite of his Associates, that say there was no conversion at all till Christ vttered those words, This is my body. Heare we Bellarmine a little pBellar. de Euchar. lib. 3. cap. 19.arguing this point against Luther. Hauing acknowledged (as was said formerly) that Christs words, This is my body, may beare either the sence that wee giuegive them, or the sense that they giuegive them, but not that sense, that the Lutherans giuegive: For (saith hee) the Lord tooke bread, and blessed it, and gaue it his Disciples, saying, This is my body. Bread therefore he tooke; bread hee blessed, and of bread of he said, This is my body. Either therefore Christ by blessing changed the bread into his body truely and properly, or he changed it improperly and figuratiuely, by adding signification (or as Theodoret rather, *foreign.by adding to nature that grace) which before it had not. If hee changed it truely and properly, then gaue he bread changed, and of that bread so changed he truely said, This is my body, that is, that which is contained vnderunder the shape of bread is no more bread, but my body: and this we say, If it be said that he changed the bread figuratiuely, then shall there be that bread given the Apostles, that is siguratiuely Christs body, and those words, This is my body hauehave this sense, This is the figure of my body: and so the Protestants hold. Yea so indeede (as you hauehave heard before) did Augustine in precise tearmes after Tertullian expound them, who belike then by Bellarmines ground was in this point a Protestant. Now let either Bellarmine, or this Answerer prooue that our Sauiour by his blessing wrought any other conuersion, and wee will yeeld vntounto them. But they will as soone proue that Christ turned the children that rMar. 10. 16.hee blessed into bread, as that he turned the bread by blessing it into his naturall bodie. Yea runne ouer all the whole Chapter in Bellarmine sDe Euchar. lib. 3. cap. 19.wherein hee propoundeth to himselfe to proue Transubstantiation out of Gods word, in the entrance whereunto hee confesseth that the words of Christ may be taken as well our way as their way, but not Luthers way; and you shall finde that there is neuer a word in it, much lesse any sound proofe, either to prooue that Christs wordes are so to be vnderstood as they say, or that they are not to bee vnderstood as we say; but it is wholly spent in confuting of Luthers opinion, to wit, that bread remaineth together with Christs body in the Sacrament. Which opinion also bI indan. in di…og. quam Ruew rd siue pacificum ins…psit.themselues confesse that Luther admonished by Melancthon renounced before he died. Hee beginneth with cPrimum autem argumentum ducitur ex illis Domini verbis, &c.a first Argument, without any second, the summe and substance whereof was before related: Either his second (he saw) was vnsound, and it seemed best therefore to suppresse and conceale it, or else he wanted a second, and thought to let the first though without a fellow, stand still as first by the rule of the Ciuilians, who say, dPrimus est, quem nemo praecedit, e…iāsi nullus sequatur. Reg. Iur.That is first, that hath none before it, though no other come after it: or, that is first that hath none before it, that is last that hath none after it. And so is this Bellarmines both first and last Argument there. And e Primus est, quem nemo praecedit: vltimus, quem nemo sequitur. Ibid.in Conclusion he is faine to flie to the Councels and pretended Fachers. sBellar. vbi sup. in fine cap.Though there were some ambiguity (saith hee) in our Sauiour Christs words, yet it is taken away by Councels; (what Councels think we? Surely none but such as themselues held within these 300. yeeres as himself afterward sheweth) and the consent of Fathers: which remaineth yet to be shewed. As for the benediction, the best, nay the sole Argument, whereby hee can prooue such … conuersion wrought there is this; gBellar. de Euchar. lib. 1. cap. 10.Christ is not wont to giuegive thankes but when hee is about to worke some great and maruelous thing: For he is read onelyonly to hauehave given thankes, hIoh. 6. 11. 23.when hee would multiply the fiue loaues; and againe iMat. 18. 26.when the seuen: kIoh. 11 41.and when hee was to raise Lazarus from the dead; and lastly, lMat. 26. 27. Mar. 24 23. Luk. 22. 19. 1 Cor. 11. 24.in the institution of this Sacrament. And in like manner hee is not wont to blesse insensible things, but when he was to worke some admirable thing with them: For he is neuer read so to hauehave done, but mLuh. 9. 16. Mark. 6 7.when hee blessed the bread to be multiplied; and nMat. 26. 26. Mat. 14. 22.in the Encharist. As on the contrary oMat. 21. 19.when hee cursed the figtree: for it withered away instantly. For Gods blessing is a well-doing; not a praying, as ours; but an effecting, as appeareth, when pGen. 1. 22.hee blessed the beasts: for by that blessing hee bestowed fruitfulnesse vponupon them. Nor do we reade that Christ euer blessed the water in Baptisme. And what of all this? Therefore (forsooth) it must needs follow that Christ by that blessing turned the bread into his owne naturall body.
Where to omit that it is not true, that Christ is neuer read to hauehave giuen thankes oftner then is here said: for at qMat. 11 25. Luk. 10. 21.other times also hee is reported to hauehave rforeign. Chrysost. in Mat. hom 38. Confiteor hic gratiarum actionem significat. Ex Beda Thom. in Luc. 10.giuen thankes, and that when hee was not about to worke any miracle neither: Nor is it truely said, that Christs blessing was not a prayer, (which that it was, not sDei beneficentiam & potentiam super panem invocauit, &c. Iansen. concord. c. 131. Galat. 4. 3.Iansenius onelyonly, but *Sanctumque precatus. Iunenc. l. 4. i. prece Sanctificans. Maldon. in Mat. 26.Maldonat the Iesuite from some of the Ancients also confesseth) being conceiued by him as man, but effected by him as God: and beside, that it is absurd to reason à non scripto ad non factum, hee is not read oft…er to hauehave blessed or given thankes, therefore hee neuer oftner did either: yea it is impious to imagine that Christ, who for our sakes made himselfe subiect to the Law, did not ordinarily t1 Tim. 4. 4.blesse and sanctifie the food, that he tooke commonly, by thankes-giuing and prayer: who denyeth but that Christ went about a marueilous worke, when hee was to institute this Sacrament? or who doubteth but that Christs benediction was a most effectuall benediction, and as effectuall as that of Gods was in the Creation, whereby uGen. 1. 22, 28.he blessed the creatures? by vertue whereof yet the creatures so blessed were not transformed into new shapes, but had a naturall facultie only conferred vponupon them which before they had not, nor of thēselues could hauehave; and so hauehave the elements a spirituall and supernaturall (by our acknowledgement) in the Sacrament. But who seeth not what a silly and senselesse consequence this is? Bellarmine could not be so silly and sottish as not to see it himselfe. Christ gaue thankes and blessed the bread ere hee gaue it: therefore hee wrought such a miracle on it as wee would hauehave; or, therefore (if you will) he turned it into the very substance of his body. It may as well bee said that Samuel wrought some miracle by x1 Sam. 9. 13▪blessing the sacrifice, as our Sauiour here by blessing the bread.
For the water in Baptisme it is easie to answer, though it be little to the purpose: It is not to bee maruelled if hee be not read to hauehave blessed it: for we are told expresly that yIoh. 4. 2.he neuer baptised, saue as he doth. zIoh. 1. 33.spiritually baptise to this day. But dare any say that his Disciples were so prophane as to baptise without blessing? or must a bald, yea a Baals Priests blessing of bread at this day be needes more effectuall then their blessing of water then was? Or doe not eTertul. de bapt. H…eron. ad Ocean. de bapt. Episc. Ambrosium quem volunt esse de initiat. c. 3.the ancient Fathers compare the blessing of the water and the effect thereof in Baptisme with the blessing of the waters and “Gen. 1. … ▪the moouing of the Spirit vponupon them in the Creation? And why must the blessing then of necessity import such a change more in the one Sacrament then in the other?