Reims Against Rome, Propositions · Proposition 24
XXIIII. Propoſition. That theſe words, This is my body, are to be taken literally,Touching this Controuerſie, reade D. White his laſt Booke, Anſ. to Fiſher pag. 395. 413. & 419. without any Figure, the Bread being tranſubſtantiate, and Chriſt there corporally, the ſubſtance of bread being taken away, and Chriſts true bodie in the roome thereof, though the accidents of Bread remaine.
Confuted by their owne Bible.
1. IN their Bible it is called a commemoration of Chriſt, 1. Cor. 11. 24. Luk. 22. 19. Now, a remembrance is of that which is abſent, and not of a thing preſent.
Secondly, their Bible teacheth vsus, that it is vſual in Scripture, ſpeaking of a Sacrament, and of ſignes repreſenting, to giuegive to the ſignes the very names of the things ſignified thereby. As Gen. 17. 10. Circumciſion is called the Couenant, being onelyonly the ſigne thereof. So the killing and eating of the Lambe, as God appointed, is called, the Phaſe, or paſſage, or Paſche, is they tranſlate it; or Paſſeouer, as we tranſlate, Exod. 12. 11, 27. Luke 22. 15. as the feſtiuall day was ſo called alſo, Iohn 6. 4. 1. Cor. 10. 4. The Rocke is ſaid to bee Chriſt; which was but a type of him, Tit. 3. 5. Baptiſme is called the Lauer of Regeneration, Reu. 1. 20. the 7. Candleſticks, are the ſeuen Churches, which did repreſent the Churches: and the myſterie hereof they call there, in their tranſlation, a Sacrament. So the ſeuen eares of Corne, are ſeuen yeeres, Gen. 40. 27. It is vſual to ſpeake in a Sacrament, figuratiuely, and not properly. All which places ſhew the meaning of this ſacramentall ſpeech, This is my bodie; that is, the ſign of it: the ſigne being called by the thing ſignified, as we ſee in other Sacraments, which muſt teach vsus to expound this: as alſo the reſt of the words; this Chalice is the new Teſtament, 1. Cor. 11. 25. this is my bloud of the New Teſtament, Math. 26. 28. this is the Chalice the New Teſtament, Luk. 22. 20. and, Drinke the Chalice (ſaith S. Paul) which they yeeld to be figuratiuely ſpoken; and therefore ſo muſt the other.
Thirdly, the name of bread, both before the mentioning of the words of Conſecration by Saint Paul, in 1. Cor. 11. 23. and after, is ſtill kept, verſe 26, 27, 28. 1. Cor. 10. 16, 17. not becauſe only ſhew of Bread was ſo to the eye, but for that it remained bread indeed, and is yet ſo to feeling and taſte, as well as to ſight.
Fourthly, their Bible telleth vsus, that heauen truely hath receiued Chriſt, vntill the times of the reſtitution of all things, Acts 3. 21. Till then, hee commeth not bodily out of heauen: except the bread be heauen it ſelfe, into which at his Aſcenſion he was receiued.
Fiftly, their Bible telleth vsus, that when Chriſt commeth, hee ſhall come from heauen viſibly; ſo come againe, as the Apoſtles ſaw him goe vp, Act. 1. 11. But they ſaw him in his body viſibly aſcend; ſo ſhall he in body come againe, and not in a conceited inuiſibilitie into the Sacrament bodily.
Sixtly, their owne Bible teacheth, that a body cannot be in two places at one inſtant of time, Mat. 28. 26. He is not here, ſaid the Angell: and giueth the reaſon, For he is riſen. Becauſe hee was in another place being riſen and gone out of the Sepulchre,See Auguſtine in Ioh. tract. 31. ſhewing that Chriſt is not in two places at one time. the Angell plainely and truely denied him therefore to be there. Now, wee beleeue him to bee euer bodily in heauen. Therefore by an heauenly Angels reaſon wee may truely ſay, that bodily he is not here in the Sacrament, no more then he was in the Sepulchre, becauſe he was riſen.
Seuenthly, their Bible teacheth, that whereſoeuer Chriſts bodie was at any time, hee was diſcernable by ſenſe, and therefore he willeth his Diſciples to vſe their ſenſe to diſcerne him, Luk. 24. 39. So did Thomas, Ioh. 20. 28. But in the Sacrament, is no ſenſibleneſſe at all of his bodily preſence.
Eighthly, their Bible doth teach, that whenſoeuer God turned one ſubſtance into another, or tooke one away, and put another in ſtead thereof, that the ſame was diſcernable by ſenſe. Moſes Staffe was viſibly a Serpent; Duſt in Egypt, was Lice ſeene and felt; and ſo the Water was Bloud ſenſibly, and the Water good Wine (in Ioh. 2. 9. 10.) to the taſte. But in this change at the Sacrament is no ſuch ſenſible perception, and therefore is there no ſuch thing; for God in his miracles deludeth no mans ſenſe.
Contraried by Antiquity.
Tertul. aduerſ. Marcionem. This is my bodie, that is, This is a figure of my body.
Ambroſ. deſacra. lib. 4. ſaith, that it is a figure of the body and bloud of Chriſt. And ſpeaking of the ſignes, he ſaith, that they remaine the ſame that they were.
Auguſt. in Pſal. 3. ſaith, that in this Feaſt the Lord commanded and deliuered the figure of his bodie and bloud to his Diſciples. And the ſame Father, contra Adamantium, cap. 12. ſaith, that whē the Lord ſaid, This is my body, he gaue the ſigne of his body. See more in his Booke de Doct. Chri. lib. 3. cap. 16. calling it a figure, and contr. Maximinum, lib. 3. cap. 22. he calleth the things viſible, Signes.
Chryſoſt. ad Caeſarium Monachum, ſaith, that though the bread hath the name of the Lords body, yet the nature of bread remaineth ſtill.
Theodoret. in Dialo. immuta. Hee changed the names, and gaue his bodie that name which belonged to the ſigne; and to the ſigne, that name which belonged to his body: not by changing their nature, but by adding grace to nature. And in Dial, inconfuſus, hee ſaith, that the myſticall ſignes after conſecration, doe not depart from their nature, but they abide ſtill in their former ſubſtance, figure, and forme, and may be ſeene and touched as before.
Cyril. in Ioſ. lib. 4. cap. 14. ſaith, that Chriſt gaue to his faithfull Diſciples pieces of bread. See farther in Biſhop Vſher his laſt Booke, of the controuerſe of the Reall preſence, citing Iuſtine Martyr, Ireneus, Tertullian, Origen, Cyprian, Theophilus of Antioch, the Author of the harmony of the Goſpels, Euſebius, Acacius, Macarius, Auſtin, Chryſoſtome, Theodores, Ephraemius, the Councell of Conſtantinople, Biſhops of France, in a Synode at Cariſiacum, Rabanus: Alſo D. White his laſt Booke, pag. 401. citing many, and pag. 435. anſwering the Aduerſaries places out of the Fathers.
Gainſaid by themſelues.
Golaſins a Pope, de duabus nat. Chri. ſaith, that the nature of the Bread and Wine ceaſeth not; but remaine ſtil in the propertie of their nature: and contra Eutycheten. The elements are the image and ſimilitude of the body and bloud of Chriſt.
Their Gloſſe de conſ. Diſt. 2. The heauenly Sacrament is called the body of Chriſt, but vnproperly. It is impoſſible that the bread ſhould be the body of Chriſt.
Pet. Lombard ſent. 4. diſt. 11. ſi autem, &c. ſaith, that ſome iudged, and ſome wrote, that the very ſubſtance of bread and Wine remained ſtill: and of the manner of conuerſion (he ſaith) he is not able to define.
Petrus de Aliaco the Cardinall, 4. q. 6. Art. 2. ſaith, that the opinion which holdeth the ſubſtance of bread not to remaine, doth not euidently follow of the Scriptures, nor, in his ſeeming, of the Churches determination.
Caietan 3. par. q. 75. Art. 1. pag. 153. ſaith, that in the Goſpel there is nothing that compelleth vsus to vnderſtand them properly. See more in Biſhop Vſher his laſt booke of this point. Ratrannus, Scotus, Alfrick. Abbot of Malmesbury.
The Scriptures obiected anſwered.
Luk. 22. 15. With deſire I hauehave 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 onelyonly a remembrance, 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 inſtituted for this new ſacrament of the new Teſtament, the Apoſtles ate and dranke of, but not a word of Chriſts eating thereof, but onelyonly 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 proued 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 hauehave 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 eueryevery one of his Twelue Apoſtles the ſame in their mouthes? then were there thirteene bodies 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 hauehave proued. And what a little body muſt this be which Chriſt held in his owne hand, which he did breake, and which eueryevery of the Apoſtles did put in their mouthes?
Thirdly, The words muſt needs bee figuratiuely vnderſtood 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 (vponupon the words of conſecration) had beene his very owne bodie, it could not be called properly 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 receiuing 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 Sacramentall ſpeech, figuratiuely, and not properly. For if the ſigne be the very thing ſignified indeed: then were there no Sacrament: 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.