A General View of Papistry, Book 2 · Controversy 13 · Part 1

A General View of Papistry · Book 2 · Controversy 13 · Part 1

p. 444THE FIRST PART, OF THE SAcrament of the Eucharist.

THis part of the controuersie standeth vponupon diuers questions: First, whether the body of Christ be really and substantially in the sacrament. Secondly, whether the elements of bread and wine be changed, conuerted, and transubstantiate into the very body and flesh of Christ. Thirdly, whether the Eucharist remayne a sacrament after the vse and celebration. Fourthly, of the outward elements in this sacrament. Fiftly, of the words of consecration. Sixtly, of the proper effect of the Lords supper. Seuenthly, of the maner of celebrating it. Eightly, whether it ought to be ministred in one kinde. Ninthly, whether it is to be adored.

p. 445THE FIRST QVESTION, CONCERNING the reall presence of Christ in the sacrament.

The Papists.

IN the sacrament of the Eucharist, vnderunder the formes of bread and wine, by error 113 the efficacie of the word of Christ spoken by the Priest, is really, verily, and substantially present, the naturall body and blood of Christ,Fox. 113…. articul. 1. sex articul. which was conceiued of the virgin Marie; the same bodie, that is now in heauen, Rhemist. Mat. 26. sect. 4. yet after another maner: For he is in heauen according to the naturall existence of his body: in the sacrament, he is really present in his flesh, yet sacramentally by his omnipotent power, Concil. Trid. sess. 13. can. 1.

Argum. 1. The figures must be inferior to the things that are figured and represented: the sacraments of the law were figures of the sacraments in the Gospel: therfore they ought to be inferior. But vnles the bread & wine should be the very blood & flesh of Christ in the sacrament: their sacraments in the law should not only not be inferior, but far superior to ours. As for example, the Paschal Lambe is in nature to be preferred before bread, and the slaying of the Lamb did more liuely represent the death of Christ, then the breaking of bread, the eating of flesh doth also better set forth the spirituall nourishing, then the eating of bread. Wherefore, vnlesse we beleeue a reall presence in the sacrament; their sacrifices, in dignitie and excellencie should farre exceed and excel ours, Bellarm. lib. 1. de. sacram. Eucharist. ca. 3.

Ans. 1. It is not true, that their sacraments were figures of ours: But S. Paul sheweth, that both their sacraments and ours doe figure out and represent the same thing, as the spiritual eating and drinking of Christ, 1. Corint. 10.2.3 Our sacraments are indeed figures correspondent and answerable to theirs, and theirs also had a certaine reference and relation to ours: but they were not types of ours: for then our sacraments should bee the body of theirs, whereas Christ is the bodie both of their sacraments and ours. Saint Peter sayth, that Baptisme is an antitypon, a figure answerable to the sauing of the eight persons in the flood: 1. Pet. 3.21. They are correspondent one to the other, and had mutuall relation and respect one to the other. But that was not properly a type of Baptisme, but both Baptisme and that are figures and signes and liuely representations of our saluation in Christ.

2. If the reall presence of Christ onelyonly commendeth the sacrament, and aduanceth it before the rytes of the law, which in all other respects are better: by this argument Baptisme still remayneth inferior to the sacramēts of the law: for you affirme no reall presence in Baptisme, as you do in the Eucharist: and in all other respects it must needes giuegive place to Circumcision: for the cutting of the flesh is a more liuely representatiō of regeneratiō, thē is the washing by water: and the flesh of man is in nature more precious then water. So by this reason, p. 447though you hauehave wonne credite for the Eucharist, yet you hauehave lost it for Baptisme.

3 We answere therefore, that although the reall presence bee set aparte, yet our sacraments are more excellent then theirs. First, the price and woorth of thinges in their nature are not to be weighed in a sacrament, but they must bee considered in respect of the vse, to the which they are ordayned by the institution. Flesh, you say, is better then bread: so is wine and milke better then water in their nature: but in Baptisme water is better then they, because Christ hath now set it apart for a more holy vse. Secondly, the slaying of the Lambe doth more liuely represent, say you, the death of Christ, then the breaking of bread.

Answ. We graunt, that if breaking of bread had beene vsed in the law, it had not been then so significant as the slaying of beasts: but the breaking of bread now in the light of the Gospell, in this abundance of knowledge and instruction, being a signe of a thing already done and finished, must needes be more pregnant and liuely in representation, then the killing of sacrifices in the law, which were types of things to come, the mystery of the Gospel being not yet opened to the world. Wherefore our sacraments are more excellent then theirs, in respect of the more cleare light and fuller signification, which they hauehave by the word of God, & the preaching of the Gospel ioyned vntounto thē: We neede not deuise any other way of excellencie for our sacraments, then this, which we hauehave sayd, agreeable to the scriptures, 2. Cor. 4.3. Galat. 3.1.

The Papists.

ARgum. 2. Iohn. 6.55. Christ sayth, My flesh is meate indeed, and my blood is drinke in deede: he that eateth my flesh and drinketh my blood, dwelleth in me, and I in him.

First, this place must be vnderstoode not of any spirituall eating or drinking of Christ without the sacrament, but is properly meant of the manducation and eating of him in the sacrament. First, Vers. 51. The bread, sayth Christ, that I will giuegive: he speaketh of a thing to come, for the sacrament was afterward instituted: but if this bread were to be taken for his word, and the eating thereof for beleeuing in him; in this sense the bread was giuen already.

Answ. Christ also speaketh in the present tense, vers. 32. My father giueth you the true bread from heauen: & I am the liuing bread that came down from heauen: if any man eate of this bread he shall liue for euer, vers. 51. Hee sayth not, he that shall eate, but, he that euen now eateth. And afterward he speaketh of the time to come; The bread that I shall giuegive, because his death and passion was not yet finished: therefore he sayth, The bread that I shal giuegive, is my flesh, which I will giuegive for the life of the worlde: But he speaketh eueryevery where of the eating of his flesh in the present tense, vers. 35.50.51.53. which cannot bee vnderstoode of the sacramentall eating, the sacrament being not yet instituted, but of a spirituall manducation.

The Papists.

SEcondly, those words being applyed to the sacrament, must needes also bee vnderstood properly and literally, for the very eating of the flesh of Christ, & drinking his blood, not tropically, or figuratiuely.

1. The flesh of Christ, which Christ promiseth to giuegive them to be eaten, he preferreth before the Manna, which their fathers did eate in the wildernes: the true bread which he giueth them, is more excellent then the bread of Manna. But if the bread in the sacrament doe but signifie the flesh of Christ, and be not it in very deede, it should be no better then Manna, which also did signifie and shew foorth Christ, Bellarm. cap. 6.

Ans. Christ compareth not the spirituall substance of Manna, with his flesh and blood, but the corporall foode, which being receiued into the belly, and not receiued into the heart by fayth, hath no power to giuegive eternall life. For, vers. 32. Christ sayth, that Moses gaue them not Manna from heauen: Ergo, he meaneth the corporall foode, not the spirituall substance of Manna, for as it was a sacrament of Christ, it was heauenly bread. Againe, vers. 49. Your fathers did eate Manna in the wildernes and dyed. He speaketh of the materiall foode, for they that did Manna spiritually by fayth, died not in soule.

Ans. Now on the contrary side we will prooue, that this place contayned in the sixt chapter of Iohn, cannot be so vnderstoode as they expound it.

First, Christ speaketh not onelyonly of the sacramentall eating of his flesh, and drinking of his blood, but generally of the spirituall participation by fayth, whether in the sacrament or without, which is wrought in vsus by the holy Ghost.

1. If it be vnderstoode of the sacrament, then it will follow that no man can be saued, vnlesse he doe receiue the sacrament: for Christ saith, vers. 53. Except you eate my flesh and drink my blood, you cannot hauehave life in you. This, I am sure, they will hardly grant, that the Eucharist also should bee necessarie, as they make Baptisme, to saluation.

2. If Christ hath relation to the sacrament, then must it of necessitie bee ministred in both kindes, for in eueryevery place he ioyneth both these together, the eating of his flesh and drinking of his blood.

Augustine also thus writeth vponupon these wordes,Tract in Iohan 26. Hoc est manducare illam escam, & illum bibere potum, in Christo manere, & illum manentemin se habere. This it is to eate that flesh, and to drinke that drinke, to abide in Christ, and to hauehave him abiding in vsus, but this may be done without the sacrament, Ergo, it is not necessary to vnderstand it of the sacrament.

Secondly, though we should graunt that this whole treatise Iohn. 6. may fitlie be referred to the sacrament, yet the wordes must be taken figuratiuelie, for the spirituall eating and drinking of Christ in the sacrament, and not otherwise.

1 Vers. 35. Christ so expoundeth his owne words: I am the bread of life, he that commeth to me shall not hunger, and he that beleeueth in me shall not thirst. To eate then, and to drinke Christ, is to beleeue in him.

p. 4482 Christ vnderstandeth another manner of eating of his flesh, then the Capernaites did. But they imagined that Christ would giuegive his very flesh and blood to bee eaten: And therefore they went away offended, and sayd, This is an hard saying, vers. 60. Therefore Christ to correct their erronious conceit, sayth vntounto them, that his words were spirite and life, that is, spiritually to be vnderstoode, verse. 63.

So Augustine interpreteth those wordes of Christ, as if he had sayd, Spiritualiter intelligite, quod locutus sum, You must vnderstand spiritually, that which I hauehave sayd. You shall not eate this body which you see, nor drinke that blood,In Psal. 98.Ps 98 which shall be shed for you. Sacramentum vobis aliquod commendaui, spiritualiter intellectum viuisicabit vos: I hauehave commended a certaine mystery and sacrament vntounto you, which being spiritually vnderstood shall quicken you.

The Papists.

ARgum. 3. Christ in the institution of this sacrament, sayd vntounto his Apostles, after hee had giuen thanks and blessed: Hoc est corpus meum: This is my bodie: that is, that which is contayned in this bread, or vnderunder the formes of this bread, is my very body, Bellarm. cap. 9. So that these wordes must needes be taken properly, not to bee a trope or figure.

1 It is not the manner of the scriptures to set down flatte precepts and commaundements, and directorie rules in obscure termes, or figuratiue speeches, but plainely and euidently: therefore it is not like, that Christ, being now to prescribe vntounto his Apostles the perpetuall lawe and forme of this sacrament, would speake obscurely.

2 Though he spake by parables and signes to the Pharisies, yet there was no cause why he should so doe, none being present but his Apostles, Bellarmin. ibid.

Ans. 1. It is very well, that you will now (though I thinke vnawares) grant vntounto vsus, that the precepts and rules in scripture are set downe simply and playnely: wherefore the scriptures cannot bee so hard and obscure, as you would beare vsus in hand they are: for if the precepts and rules of fayth be euidently in scripture expressed, as you seeme to confesse, what reason hauehave you to keepe back the people from the reading of scripture?

2 It is false that the scriptures vse no figures nor tropes, in the declaration of the lawes and sacraments of the Church: for sayth not Saint Paul, speaking of the sacraments of the Iewes, Petra erat Christus, the rock was Christ, 1. Cor. 10.4. that is, signified Christ? Likewise in the 17. vers. We that are many are one bread: that is, our spirituall vnitie and coniunction is represented, in that we are partakers of one bread.

3 Sometimes our Sauiour would speake darkely, being alone with his Apostles, thereby to stirre them vp more diligently to attend vntounto his wordes, p. 449as when he biddeth them beware of the leauen of the Pharisies, Mark. 8.15. Yet this speech of our Sauiour Christ vttered in the hearing of his Apostles, This is my bodie; was neither so darke nor obscure, that the Apostles neede much bee troubled about the vnderstanding. Nay, many things being spoken in borrowed and metaphoricall wordes, are vttered with greater grace, and carrie a fuller sense: When Christ sayd, I am the doore, Iohn 10.9. I am the vine, Iohn 15.1. he spake by figure as he doth here, for neither was he a vine, or a doore, as the bread was not his bodie: Yet which of the Apostles was there, that vnderstoode him not, when he called himselfe a vine, and a doore? Neither could they doubt of our Sauiour Christs meaning here.

Contra. Now on the other side, we will make it playne, that these words of Christ, are spoken tropically:

1 Where Christ sayth according to Saint Luke, This cuppe is the new Testament in my blood, Luk. 22.23. we must needes admitte a double trope or figure: for first, the cuppe is taken for that which was contayned in the cuppe. Secondly, the wine in the cuppe was not the newe Testament, but a signe of the new Testament. If then in one parte of the sacrament hee spake by a figure, why not also in the other, when he sayth, This is my bodie, that is, a liuely signe and seale thereof?

2 It is no vnusuall phrase in the scripture, to say (this is) that is, signifieth as Genes. 17.10. Circumcision is called the couenant it selfe, where it was a signe onelyonly of it. And Exod. 12.11. the Lambe is called the Lords passeouer, which it betokened onelyonly: In the same sense Christ sayth, This is my bodie: that is, exhibiteth and representeth vntounto you my bodie.

Augustine so expoundeth these wordes, Non dubitauit Dominus dicere, Aug. cont. Adimant. cap. 12.Hoc est corpus meum, cum daret signum corpus sui: Christ doubted not to say, This is my bodie, when hee gaue a signe and sacrament of his bodie.

The Protestants.

THat Christ is present with all his benefites in the sacrament, wee doe willingly graunt, neither doe we thinke that the elements of bread and wine are bare and naked signes of the bodie and blood of Christ, but Christ is verily by them exhibited vntounto vsus, and spiritually by fayth, we are truely made partakers of his precious bodie & blood: not that Christ descendeth from heauen to vsus, but we ascend by faith and in spirit vntounto him: yea, we confesse as much as Bernard sayth, whose speech they themselues allow, In sacramēto exhiberi veram carnis Christi substantiā, sed spiritualiter non carnaliter: that the very substance of Christs flesh is exhibited vntounto vsus in the sacrament, but spiritually, not carnally. This Bellarmine acknowledgeth to bee true,cap. 2. lib. 1. though hee would not hauehave the worde (spiritually) to bee vsed, lest it might bee, as hee sayth, by vsus misconstrued. This then is our fayth and iudgement, that wee are p. 450verilie in this sacrament engrafted into the bodie of Christ, and doe truely eate his flesh, and drink his blood: but all this is done spirituallie onelyonly and by faith: As for their carnall eating and deuouring of Christ, we vtterlie reiect, and condemne it.

Argum. 1. In the receiuing of the sacrament there is a double coniunction, we are ioyned to Christ, & make one body also amongst our selues: so saith S. Paul, 1. Cor. 10.16.17. We are made partakers of the body of Christ, and wee that are many are one bread, and one body: but our participation with the mysticall bodie of Christ is spirituall. Ergo, also our communication with his naturall body, Fulk. in hunc locum.

Arg. 2. If the body of Christ be in the sacrament, thē is it eaten, & torne with the teeth: And what is eaten goeth into the belly, & is cast out into the draught, Mark. 7.19. I pray you what is now become of the body of Christ? doth it passe the same way that other meates doe?

Bellarm. answereth, lib. 1. cap. 11. ad argum. 5. that they are the accidents of the bread and wine which are eaten, and chawen, or rent by the teeth, & not the body of Christ: and yet the body of Christ goeth down into the stomack, but no further: but when the formes of bread & wine begin to be corrupted there, the body of Christ goeth away, Bellarm. cap. 14.

Ans. 1. This is new learning, that the accidents of meate are chawen in the mouth, & not the meate it selfe: & that the formes only, not the substance is altred, & corrupted in the stomack. Say also that men are nourished with accidents & not with the substance: If the priest chance to drink too deepe of the chalice, and so become drunk, I pray you what is it, that maketh him so light headed? Is it, think you, the accidents onelyonly of wine? Surely a drunken man would not say it. If a Mouse chance to creepe into your pixe, and fil her hungry belly with your God-amight: what is it that the Mouse feedeth vponupon? trow you they bee accidents onelyonly? for you say that the consecrated host goeth no further then the stomack: and yet it is too much that the housel of Christians should be housed in a mouses belly. These are but ridiculous and light questions, yet such, as hauehave troubled your grauest and sagest heads, and remayne vnanswered.

2. Bellarmin. denieth, that the body of Christ being eaten, goeth any further then the stomack: But our Rhemists goe further; they say, that we are made a peece of his body and blood: They should rather hauehave sayd, that his body and blood is made a peece of vsus,Rhemist. 1. Cor. 10. sect. 5.1 Cor 10 being conuerted into our substance. But silly men, we pitie them: If we should presse them still with these questions, they would sooner run mad, then find out any reasonable and sober answere for vsus.

Argum. 3. Christ in his flesh is ascended vp to heauen, and there must remayne till his comming againe, Act. 3.21. Agayne he saith, The poore you shal hauehave alwayes, but me alwayes you cannot hauehave, Mark. 14. Ergo, Christ being now in his humanity in heauen, cannot bee present in the sacrament vponupon earth.

p. 451Bellarmine answereth, that the carnall presence of Christ doth not draw him out of heauen: his naturall bodie remaineth there still: yet by his omnipotent power, he can make his bodie to be in many places at once, cap. 14.

Ans. If Christs bodie be in heauen and in earth, and in many places at once; it must either be his owne naturall bodie which was borne of the Virgine Mary, or he must eueryevery day create himselfe a new bodie: but this were to too absurd to be granted, that eueryevery day there should be a new Christ. Neither can the first be admitted: for a natural bodie hath a natural presence: but so hath not Christs bodie in the Sacrament: for it is not there naturally, being without shape or forme, neither visible nor sensible. And how can it stand with the propertie of a true naturall bodie, to be in a thousand places at once? for so must Christs needs be, and in more too, seeing he is kept and hanged vp in eueryevery popish Church. And further, if totus Christus, whole Christ, be in the Sacrament, both with his bodie and soule: you must either graunt, that there are many whole Christs, seeing he is in many places at once: or els if there be but one whole Christ, his humanitie must be dispersed eueryevery where as his Godhead is: and so are you against your wils become Vbiquitaries.

Hearken what Augustine sayth:Ad Dardan. epistol. 57. Cauendum est ne ita diuinitatem adstruamus hominis, vt veritatem corporis auferamus: We must take heede we doe not so maintaine the diuine nature of the man Christ, that we take away the nature of his bodie.

Argum. 4. The fathers in the law did eate the same spiritual meate, and drinke the same spirituall drinke in their Sacraments that we doe, 1. Corinth. 10.2.3. but they did not eate the flesh of Christ, nor drinke his blood, but onelyonly spiritually by faith: Ergo, no more doe we.

Argum. 5. There remained wine still after the consecration and distribution amongst the Apostles: for Christ saith, He will drinke no more of the fruite of the vine, Math. 26.29. So S. Paul calleth the other element bread after the consecration, 1. Corinth. 10.17. We that are many are one bread, because we are partakers of one bread. Likewise, cap. 11.26. Ergo, there remaineth still bread and wine in the Sacrament. And therefore no bodie of Christ: for they cannot be there both together, as they teach.

Lastly, we must vnderstand, that this their deuised and forged opinion of the reall presence of Christ, is of no antiquitie in the Church: neither was there any question about it for a 1000. yeeres after Christ, til the time of Berengarius, who liued about Anno. 1060. who was sore troubled, for maintaining the truth against the carnall presence, and vnderunder Pope Leo the 9. and Nicholas the 2. was constrained twise to recant:Fox. p. 1152 yet there was no publique lawe or decree made in the Church concerning transubstantiation, till the Councel of Laterane, which was held vnderunder Pope Innocent the 3. Anno. 1215.

And that this grosse opinion fauoureth not a whit of antiquitie,Epistol. it may appea…e by the resolute iudgement of Augustine: Sacramenta ex similitudine ipsarum rerum nomina habent, secundum quendam modū sacramentū corporis Christi, p. 452corpus Christi est, &c. The Sacraments, because of some likenes, doe beare the names of the things themselues: as the Sacrament of the bodie of Christ is after a certaine manner called his bodie.

Commentar. in Psal. 3Ps 3Christus corporis sui figuram discipulis commendauit: Christ did commend to his disciples a figure of his bodie. Quid paras dentem & ventrem? Crede, & manducasti? Why doest thou make readie thy teeth & thy bellie? Beleeue in Christ, and thou hast eaten him.

Secundum praesentiam maiestatis semper habemus Christum, secundum praesentiam carnis recte dictum est discipulis, Me semper non habebitis: According to the presence of his Maiestie we hauehave Christ alwaies: according to his carnall presence, it was truely sayd to his disciples, You cannot hauehave me alwaies. By these and many such places in this ancient father, it is manifest, that in those daies there was no such opinion held of the carnall presence.

AN APPENDIX TO THIS QVESTION, WHETHER it stand with the power and will of God, that Christs bodie should be carnally present in the Sacrament.

The Papists.

114. Error.THere are two difficulties or impossibilities, which doe hinder the reall presence of Christs bodie in the Sacrament: First, it would follow, that a natural bodie, such as Christs is, might be in two places at once: for they say, that it is in heauen, and in the Eucharistall at once. Secondly, that a naturall bodie may be in a place, and yet not occupie or fill a place: for if Christs bodie be in the Sacrament, it occupieth no place: the compasse of a thinne and round cake is not answerable to the proportion of Christs bodie.

Notwithstanding both these difficulties, it is agreeable both to the power and good pleasure of God, that the bodie of Christ should be included in the Sacrament, Bellarm.

Argum 1. It is possible for the bodie of Christ to be in many places at once, and it also standeth with his will: as Act. 9.4. Christ appeared to Saul, either vponupon the earth, or in the ayre next to the earth: for how could he either heare the voyce of Christ sitting in heauen, or see the light so farre off? Ergo, Christ was in two places: he appeared to Paul vponupon earth, and he was at the same time in heauen, from whence he shall not moue till the day of iudgement, Bellarm. de sacram. Eucharist. lib. 3. cap. 3. Rhemist. Act. 9. sect. 1.

Ans. First, the text is plaine, that Christ spake from heauen, from whence the light shined, vers. 3. he was neither in the ayre nor vponupon the earth. Secondly, doe you make question, whether Paul could see a light, or heare a voyce from so farre;23. seeing that the Sunne, whose bodie is so farre distant from vsus, doth disperse his beames ouer the face of the earth; and the voyce of the thunder is hear… …ery farre? Will ye denie Christ to hauehave that power, which we see to be in his creatures? p. 453Thirdly, and why was it not as possible, that Christ from heauen should be heard of Paul, as he was seene of Stephen sitting on the right hand of God? Act. 7.56.

Argum. 2. The bodie of Christ may be where it pleaseth him, and yet shall not need any naturall place, or occupie any roome: he is able to bring a Camel through the eye of a needle, Math. 20.26. He also came through the doores in to his Apostles, rose out of the sepulchre thorow the stone, was borne, his mothers wombe being shut: therefore he may as well, and is no doubt, present vnderunder the shapes of bread and wine in the Sacrament, Rhemist. Math. 26. sect. 11. Bellarm. lib. 3. de. Sacram. cap. 6.

Ans. 1. Christ sheweth in that place, that it is as impossible for a rich man, that is high minded, and trusteth in his riches, to enter into heauen, as for a Camell to passe through the eye of a needle: but it is possible with God to giuegive rich men humble and lowly minds, and so make them fit for his kingdome, as to make the Camell lesse, and so draw him thorow a needle. It is not proued out of this place, that God can or will draw the huge bodie of a Camell through a needle, remaining still of that bignes: no more then that it is possible for God, to bring a proud, rich, arrogant man to heauen, his affections not altered: both these are impossible to God, because they are contrarie to his wil and ordinance: the one is against the law of iustice, to bring a wicked man to heauen: the other against the law of nature.

2. For the other three examples: it is not proued out of scripture, that the bodie of Christ pearced the doores, the graue, stone, or his mothers wombe: although the doores were found shut after Christs entrance, the graue couered, and his mother remained a Virgine still: for all these passages might giuegive place for a while to the bodie of Christ, and returne againe to their place: as the red sea was diuided till the Israelites passed, and afterward the waters came together againe. And concerning the last instance of the birth of Christ, it is certaine out of the scriptures, that Christ opened the wombe of his mother in his birth, Luk. 2.23. Hetherto therefore they hauehave proued nothing.

The Protestants.

OVr aduersaries doe falsely charge vsus to say, that God can doe no more then he hath done, or will do, Rhemist. Math. 26. sect. 11. This we say: that Christ is almightie, and yet can doe nothing against his owne will, his word, or glorie: as to dishonor his glorious bodie, and to bring it within the compasse of a piece of bread, that it may be deuoured of cats, dogges, rats, mice, or which is worse, to be eaten of wicked men the members of the diuell: although the question be not so much betweene vsus, what Christ is able to doe of his absolute power, but what he will doe according to his word, Fulk. Math. 17. sect. 1.

Argum. 1. It standeth neither with the power or will of God, to doe contrarie to his word: For it is impossible that God should lye, Hebr. 6.18. And this p. 454thing, not to lye, is not a wāt of power, but a signe of greater power in God. But it is plainly declared in scripture, that Christ hath a true naturall bodie, and is in all things like vntounto vsus, Hebr. 2.17. Therefore neither can his bodie, being a true humane bodie, as ou…s are, be in many places at once: neither can it choose but occupie that roome and place where it is. The Angel sayd, He is risen, he is not here, Math. 28.6: but it had been no good argument, to say, he is risen and gone to another place, and therefore he is not here, if so be the bodie of Christ might be in many places at once. The scripture then hath defined it, that Christs bodie is in one certaine place: wherefore to say, that Christ hath a true naturall bodie, and yet retaineth not the naturall properties of a bodie, is to speake contradictories, that he hath, and hath not a true naturall bodie: and this were to make God a lier.

Cōt. Faust. lib. 20. cap. 11.Augustine sayth of Christ: Secundum corporalem praesentiam, simul in sole, luna, cruce, esse non potest: Christ according to his corporall presence, cannot be in the Sunne, the Moone, and vponupon the Crosse all at one time.

And concerning the other poynt, he writeth thus: Spatia locorum tolle corporibus, Epistol. 57.& nusquam erunt, & quia nusquam erunt, nec erunt: Take away space of place from bodies, and they shall be no where, and if they be in no place, then are they not at all.

Argum. 2. The reall and carnall presence of Christ in the Sacrament, is a thing superfluous, needles, and vnprofitable. First, the fauour of God in the remission of sinnes through Christ, is as well sealed vntounto vsus in Baptisme, as in the Lords Supper▪ what neede then the carnal presence in the one more then in the other? Secondly, that Christ is in bodie present in the Sacrament, is not perceiued by any sense: for they neither tast him, see him, nor feele him: it must be then a worke of faith: but by faith Christ is as well apprehended being absent, as being supposed in this manner to be present: Ergo, this kind of presence is needles.

Argum. 3. It is an inglorious, vnworthie and vnseemely thing, that the glorious and impassible bodie of Christ, should be inclosed in the formes of bread and wine, deuoured and chawed, eaten and gnawed of mice, subiect to mould and rottennes, to be spilt vponupon the ground, burnt in the fire: for all these inconueniences must needes follow vponupon the carnall presence.

Bellarm. It is no more inglorious or impossible for these things now to happen to the bodie of Christ, thē it was for him to be carried in his mothers womb, to be swathed in swadling bands, and to be subiect to iniuries which were done to his bodie vponupon earth.

Ans. First, as though there be the like reason of the passible bodie of Christ, while he liued in the world, which was buffeted, whipped, pearced with nayles, crucified; and of his glorious and impassible bodie now, that it may in like manner be rent and diuided. Secondly, neither was it possible that Christs passible bodie should be subiect to the like infirmities, as to rottennes, corruption, consumption in the fire, as his bodie is now in the Sacrament. If it were then verified in Christ, Thou shalt not suffer thy holy one to see corruption: p. 455for his bodie did not putrifie or corrupt in the graue: much more is it true in the glorious bodie of Christ, that it cannot suffer any such things: How then are you not ashamed to affirme, that the bread and wine are made in the Sacrament, the very bodie and blood of Christ: seeing those elements, if they be kept long, will waxe sower, and mouldie, and fall to corruption? which things once to thinke of the glorious bodie of Christ, were great impietie. Leaue off for shame then these your grosse opinions, so much derogatorie to the glorie and honour of Christ.

THE SECOND QVESTION CONCERNING Transubstantiation.

The Papists.

IF any man shall say, that there remaineth the substance of bread and wine in the Sacrament, after the words of consecration; or shall denye that the whole error 115 substance of bread is changed and conuerted into the bodie of Christ, and the whole substance of wine into the blood of Christ, the formes and shewes onelyonly of bread and wine remaining, which singular and miraculous conuersion the Church calleth Transubstantiation; let him be accursed, Concil. Tridentin. sess. 13. can. 2. Bellarm. lib. 3. de sacra. euchar. cap. 19. Rhemist. Matth. 17. sect. 1.

Argum. 1. Christ transfigured his bodie marueilously in the Mount, as wee reade, Math. 17. sect. 1. Ergo, he is able to exhibite his bodie vnderunder the formes of bread and wine, Rhemist.

Ans. First, your argument followeth not, Christ could giuegive a glorious forme to his passible bodie: Ergo, he can take away the essentiall properties of his naturall bodie, and yet keepe a true bodie stil. Or thus, Christ could glorifie his bodie not yet glorified: Ergo, he can or will dishonour his glorious impassible bodie: by enclosing it vnderunder the formes of base creatures to be deuoured of dogs and mice: which is honoured and worshipped of the Angels and Saints in heauen. Secondly, the question is not so much of Christs power, as of his will: therefore you conclude not aright, Christ is able to doe it: Ergo, he will.

Argum. 2. He that seeth water turned into wine by the power of Christ, need not to doubt how he changeth bread into his bodie, Rhemist. Ioh. 2. sect. 2.

Ans. First, when you can bring any warrant out of scripture for your imagined conuersion, as we hauehave for this miracle, we will giuegive eare vntounto you. Secondly, and when it shall appeare to the senses, that the bread is changed into flesh, as the water was knowne to be turned into the wine, by the colour and tast: we shall then no more doubt of this conuersion of the bread, then they did of the other of water. Thirdly, if Christ could alter and change the substances of creatures: what reason hauehave you to giuegive such an omnipotent power to eueryevery priest, with a fewe words to doe as much, as Christ himselfe could when he was present? p. 456Fourthly, all this proueth but an abilitie and power in Christ, not a will or purpose, to worke any such change or conuersion.

Argum. 3. Though the substance of bread and wine be chaunged, yet the formes remaine still for these causes. First, because if the formes also should be changed, there should be no sensible signe left, and so no Sacrament. Secondly, the faith of the receiuer is the better tried this way: who beleeueth the flesh of Christ to be present, though he see it not. Thirdly, Christ would not hauehave the formes altered, because man abhorreth to eate humane flesh in the proper shape, Bellarm. cap. 22.

Ans. First, your first reason is insufficient: for neither doe the bare and naked signes or accidents of the elements make a Sacrament, but the substance of thē: for betweene the Sacrament and the thing thereby represented, there ought to be some conueniencie and agreement: namely, as the bodie is nourished by bread and wine, so doth the soule feed vponupon the bodie and bloud of Christ. But they are not the accidents of bread and wine that nourish vsus, but the substance: Ergo, not the accidents but the substance is the visible signe. Likewise in Baptisme, it is not the forme or outward accident of water, that is the signe, but the substance of water that washeth.

2. It is a more liuely operation of faith, to beleeue in Christ absent in heauen, then present in earth, although he appeare not to the senses. And Christ is indeed properly the obiect of faith, as he is now in heauen: Hope (saith the Apostle) entreth into that which is within the vaile, whither our forerunner Iesus is entred for vsus, Heb. 6.19. Faith and hope therefore doe leade vsus to things within the vaile, that is, things in heauen, and not vponupon the earth.

3. What a strange saying is this, that Christ giueth his flesh to be eatē in the Sacrament, yet hideth it vnderunder the formes of bread and wine, lest men should abhorre to eate it? for is it to be thought, that Christ would command any vnseemely thing, or contrary to humanitie? How could the Apostles command the Gentiles to abstaine frō strangled & blood, Act. 15. whē as, by your doctrine, they did eate dayly in their assemblies, the raw flesh and blood of Christ? And how is it that Christ now forgetteth his owne rule, He that doth the truth (sayth he) commeth to the light, that his deedes may be made manifest? Iohn. 3.21. But Christ now flieth the light, & shrowdeth himselfe vnderunder the shape of bread and wine, and wil not shew his flesh. These therefore are but sillie causes which you hauehave rendered, why Christ would hauehave the substance of bread onelyonly changed, and not the accidents.

The Protestants.

AS the name of transubstantiation is straunge, and newly deuised: so is the meaning thereof most vnreasonable: that in the Sacrament, the substance of bread should be conuerted into the bodie of Christ, the formes onelyonly remaining: An opinion contrary to scripture, reason and common sense.

p. 457Argum. 1. As Christ said, Math. 26. (pointing to the bread) This is my body: so he sayth, Iohn. 6.35. I am the bread: but in this place he was not changed into bread: why then in the other place should the bread be turned into his body? for the speech is all one.

Argum. 2. The bread in the Eucharist after the consecration, is subiect to diuers changes and alterations, and so likewise the wine: for they may be boyled and made hot, they may be infected with poyson: for it is certaine that Victor the 3. Pope, and Henry the 7. Emperour, were poysoned with the Sacrament: the wine may waxe sower and turne to vineger: the bread may putrifie and breed wormes: Ergo, the substance of bread and wine remaine still: for the accidents cannot be subiect to such alterations: and to say that Christs bodie may be thus handled, it were great impietie, Argum. Pet. Martyris.

Bellarmine answereth: Materia substituitur à Deo in ipso instanti, in quo desinunt esse illae species: God supplieth some other matter in the very instant, when the formes begin to be changed, Cap. 24. argum. 6.

Ans. Is not here good geare, thinke you, that if a man should come to poyson the Sacrament, that is, the bread and wine, which are alreadie consecrate, and made the bodie of Christ, God should supplie by a miracle some other matter for him to worke vponupon, and so God himselfe should be accessarie vntounto that wicked act? Or if a sillie mouse should be so bold as gnaw vponupon a consecrate Host, that then likewise some other matter and substance should for that instant be appoynted: and so God shall make miracles for mice? And why, I pray you, may not the substance of bread still remaine, as well as another substance to be put in the stead thereof?

Arg. 3. When Christ spake these words, Hoc est corpus meum, the bread was transubstantiate, before, or after, or while the words were spoken. Before, they will not say, for the elements were not then consecrate: nor after, for thē Christs words, This is my bodie, had not been true in that instant when they were spoken. Neither was the transubstantiation wrought in the while of speaking: for then should it not hauehave been done all at once, but successiuely, and one part after another, as the words were spoken one after another. But this is also contrarie to the opinion of the Papists, that would hauehave it done all together.

Argum. 4. It is against the nature and propertie of accidents and externall formes to be without a subiect, or substance, wherein they should rest: such are the whitenes and roundnes of the bread, the rednes and sweetnes of wine: if bread be gone, what is become of the roundnes and whitenes, and so of the wine. If a man aske what round or white thing is this, or what red and sweete thing is this, shewing the cup: what shall be answered? we cannot say, it is bread, or wine: for there is none left. And I am sure, they will not say, that the bodie of Christ is either round or white, or such like: and yet somewhat there must needes be, that must take denomination of these accidents.

Argum. 5. You say, the very flesh of Christ that did hang vponupon the Crosse, p. 458is in the Sacrament: but that cannot be: for that flesh Christ tooke of the Virgine Mary: this sacramentall flesh is made of bread: Ergo, it is not the same flesh which was crucified vponupon the Crosse.

Bellarm. The bodie of Christ is made of bread, but not as any matter or materiall cause thereof, but as the wine was made of water by our Sauiour Christ.

Ans. And I pray you how was the wine made of the water? was not the water the very matter which was turned into wine? for one of these three changes and mutations it must needes hauehave: first, either the water was annihilate and turned to nothing, and so the wine was created of nothing, which I am sure you will not graunt: secondly, or els there was a mixture of wine and water, the one being mingled with the other: which is likewise false, for it was very good and perfect wine: neither, I thinke, will you easily admit, that the bodie of Christ and the bread are mingled together in the Sacrament. Thirdly, there remaineth but the third kind of change, that is, the conuersion of one substance into another, as the water was changed into wine: and so is the substance of bread conuerted into the substance of Christs bodie, if you will hauehave any chaunge at all: and thus Christ hath gotten by your helpe a breaden bodie: another from that, which he tooke of the flesh of the Virgine.

Lastly, the diuersitie of opinions, which this grosse conceit of the carnall presence of Christ hath hatched, doe easily shew and demonstrate vntounto vsus, what we are to thinke of this popish doctrine.

Some doe hold, that the elements doe still remaine in their owne nature in the Sacrament, and that together with them the bodie of Christ is carnally present. Others doe teach, that there remaineth no more bread and wine, but onelyonly the verie naturall bodie of Christ: of each opinion there are three sorts.

First, of them that hold the elements not to be chaunged. 1. Some are of opinion, that the bodie of Christ and the elements are locally ioyned together, either for that instant onelyonly, or els because of the vbiquitie and omnipresence of Christs humanitie: of which opinion are the Lutherans.

2. Some there were, that thought onelyonly so much of the bread to be changed into the bodie of Christ, as was receiued of the faithfull: and that part which the wicked receiued, to be bread still.

3. Others taught, that the bread was assumed in the Sacrament to the person of Christ, euen as his humanitie: so that Christ was bread by consecration, as he was man by his incarnation: an horrible and monstrous opinion, which is fathered vponupon Rupertus the Abbot. Iohannes Parisiensis also came neere this opinion, who likewise affirmed, that the bread was assumed to the person of Christ, and vnited vntounto him, yet not immediatly, as the other taught, but by the mediation and meanes of the humanitie of Christ.

Secondly, of those that maintaine the conuersion of the elements. First, some would hauehave the forme onelyonly of bread chaunged not the matter, as Durandus. p. 459Secondly, some contrariwise, would hauehave the matter altered, and the forme to remaine. Thirdly, the Iesuits affirme the bread wholly in substance, both in matter and forme to be changed, the outward formes and accidents onelyonly remaining. ex Bellarm. lib. 3. de sacram, Eucharist. cap. 11.

Thus men, when they begin once to leaue the truth, the Lord leaueth them to themselues, and they runne mad in their owne inuentions, not finding any end: and so it is iustly come vponupon them, as S. Paul saith of the heathen: Because when they knew God, they did not glorifie him as God, neither were thankfull: they became vaine in their own imaginations, and their foolish hart was full of darkenes: when they professed themselues to be wise, they became fooles, Rom. 1.21.22. We therefore leauing these shalow pittes of humane inuentions, which will holde no water, will betake vsus to the fountaine of truth. This then, to conclude, is our definitiue sentence, and full determination, according to the Scriptures, that Christ indeed is verily present in the Sacrament, neither by conuersion of the bread into his body, either wholly, or in parte, nor by assumption of the bread to the vnity of his person; nor yet by the coniunction of his body and bread together▪ but he doth verily exhibite himselfe, with all his benefits, spiritually by faith, to be eaten and drunke of the worthy receiuer, as we hauehave sufficiently proued before out of the Scriptures.

THE THIRD QVESTION, WHETHER THE Eucharist being once consecrated, be a Sacrament, though it be neither eaten nor drunk.

The Papists.

THe elements in the Sacrament, that is, the bread and wine, being once consecrate, error 116 which say they, is done by the prolation of those words, hoc est corpus meum, This is my body, whether they be receiued or not at that instant, but be reserued and kept in boxes, and pixes, and other vessels of the Church, for daies, weekes, moneths, to be caried solemnely to those that are sick, and to be applyed to other vses: are still the very body and blood of Christ. Trident. Concil. sess. 13. can. 4.7. Bellarm. lib. 4. cap. 2.

Argum. 1. Christs words which were spoken ouer the bread, This is my body, were true as soone as he brought them forth, before he said, Take, eat, and so likewise of the cup: therefore it was a Sacrament, before they did receiue and eate it, and had beene a Sacrament still, if it had not bene receiued at all at that time. Bellarm. ibid.

Ans. 1. Those wordes of Christ, This is my body, were not spoken before he brake the bread and distributed it: but first as S. Math. setteth it downe, he brake the bread and gaue it to his Disciples, saying: Take, eate, and then follow those words, This is my body. Math. 26.26. which seeme to hauehave bene vttered p. 460euen in that instant, when they tooke the bread, and began to eate it.

Secondly, the institution of the Sacrament consisteth partly of a promise, partly of a precept: the promise is this, Hoc est corpus meum, This is my body: the precept, Accipite, manducate, Take, eate. Christ doth no otherwise make good his promise, then we performe the condition: vnlesse therefore accordingly we doe take and eat it, it is not the body of Christ.

The Protestants.

THe Eucharist is no sacrament beside or without the vse thereof: so that, though some form of words be pronounced ouer it, if it be not receiued and eaten and drunk, it is no sacrament: neither is that which remaineth after the distribution, the Eucharist being ended, either of the bread or wine, any part of the sacrament, but so much onelyonly as is taken and vsed.

Argum. 1. It is no Sacrament, vnlesse it be vsed according to the institution as Christ hath commanded it: but to the institution it belongeth on the behalfe of the Minister, to blesse, break, and distribute it: on the behalfe of the communicants to take,1 Cor. 11.24.26.1 Cor 11:241 Cor 11:26 eate, and drinke it: in them all, thereby to shew the Lords death, and to doe it in remembrance of Christ. But this cannot be performed by vsing the words of benediction onelyonly, but by the whole action: for how can they shew the Lords death, or doe it in remembrance of Christ, vnlesse they take, and eate? Ergo, if it be not so vsed, it is no Sacrament.

Argum. 2. The Sacraments of the new testament are alike, and of one and the selfesame kinde, there is one way of instituting and consecrating both: but the water in baptisme is no part of the Sacrament, but during the solemne action of baptizing▪ afterward it returneth to the common vse, so much as is not vsed. Ergo, it is so also in the Eucharist: for as Christ saith to his Apostles: Ite, baptizate: Goe and baptize, so that it was no Sacrament, vnlesse some body were baptized: euen so he saith, Accipite, …anducate, Take, eate. No Sacramēt then, vnlesse it be receiued and eaten.

And here I pray you, let it be noted, how well the Iesuits agree amongst themselues: our Rhemists doe commend the reseruing also of the water in baptisme, and carrying of it home to giuegive it the diseased to drink, annot. Iam. 5. sect. 5. Bellar. saith, that Res permanens in baptismo, That the thing permanent in Baptisme, that is, water, which remaineth, is not the sacrament, but ipsa actio, the action of baptizing it selfe, and alloweth onelyonly the Eucharist to be reserued, and remaine a Sacrament, Etiam extra vsum, Without the vse thereof, Bellar. li. 4. de Eucharist. cap. 3. But we hauehave shewed already, that both the Sacraments are halowed and sanctified alike, and that both in the one and the other, the vse onelyonly and present action according to Christs institution, maketh the Sacrament.

In Augustines time some vsed to receiue the Communion dayly: but vponupon p. 461the Sabboth or Lords day, it was commonly receiued of all: Quotidie Eucharistiae communionem percipere, nec laudo, nec reprehendo, De ecclesi. dogmatib. cap. 54.omnib. tamen dominicis diebus communicandum suadeo et hortor. EueryEvery day to receiue the Eucharist, I neither commend, nor dispraise it but eueryevery Lords day I doe perswade men and exhort all to communicate. It should seeme then, that in those daies there was no such superstitious reseruation of the Sacrament, seeing eueryevery day, or at the least eueryevery Sabboth it was administred.

THE FOVRTH QVESTION, CONCERNING the elements or materiall part of the Sacrament, namely bread and wine.

The Papists.

1. The bread which is vsed in the Sacrament, ought to be vnleauened: because it is most agreeable to Christs institution, who made the sacrament of vnleauened error 117 bread, for he instituted his last Supper, after he had eaten the Passeouer: which was to be eaten with sweet and vnleauened bread, according to the Lawa, neither was there any leauen to be found in Israel for seuen daies together: and not onelyonly Christ, but all the Iewes at that time did keepe the Passeouer: and the next day after, in the which Christ suffered, was the first solemne festiuall day of the seuen, being the fifteenth day of the monethmonth, as it was commanded, Leuiticus 23.5. Rhemist. 1. Corinth. 11. sect. 10. Bellarm. lib. 4. de Eucharist. cap. 7.

The Protestants.

1. WE deny not, but that Christ vsed vnleauened bread, at the institution of his last Supper, hauing immediately before eaten the Paschall Lambe, which we doubt not but he kept, according to the Lawe, with sweete bread: yet in the time they are greatly deceiued, affirming, that all the Iewes eate the Passeouer like wise ouer eeuen, and crucified Christ on the morrow, which should hauehave beene, and was vntounto them (as they say) a chiefe festiuall day.

The truth is, that Christ eate the Passeouer the 14, day at eeuen, as it is appointed in the Law: but the Iewes had a contrary tradition: they would in no wise keepe two festiuall daies together: and therefore because the sixteenth daie was their Sabboth, they would not hauehave the feast of vnleauened bread vponupon the fifteenth day (though it were so appointed by the law) to auoide the concurrence of two holy daies together, but deferred it till the next p. 462day, which was their Sabboth, and eate the Passeouer the eeue before, which was the 15. day at night; whereas Christ reforming that abuse, kept the Passeouer the eeue before according to the Law, that is, the 14. at night: It appeareth then, that the next day following, which we call Friday, wherein Christ was put to death, was not kept of the Iewes as a holy day.

First, the text saith, they would not put Christ to death vponupon the feast day, fearing the tumult of the people, Mark. 14.2. Secondly, if they had kept it holy as the Law commaunded, they should hauehave done no seruile labour therein, that is, no work of the body, Leuitic. 23.7. But what could be a more seruile worke, then to crucifie Christ, to carry the Crosse, and pitch it in the ground, and such like; which the Iewes would not hauehave done vponupon that day, which they were as straightly to keep as the Sabboth? It is also called the preparation of the Sabboth, Mark. 15.43. Wherein they were wont to prepare against the Sabboth what was needfull: but such workes of preparation could not hauehave bene done in that great festiual day. Augustine also saith, that the day of Christs suffering was not Pascha, sed praeparatio Paschae, It was not the Pasch, but the preparation to it:De consen. Euangel. li. 3. cap. 13. it is not therefore true that it was kept holy of the Iewes, the day of Christs passion, neither that they did eate the paschall Lambe the same eeue that Christ did, but the night following.

If they shall obiect that place, Mark. 14.12. where the Euangelist saith, It was the first day of vnleauened bread, when Christ eat his passeouer: and therefore all the Iewes began then to eate sweet bread. We answere, that the Euangelist hath relation vntounto the right time of keeping the Passeouer, as it was prescribed by the Law, and obserued by Christ: not to the corrupt custome of the Iewes. Wherfore we graunt that Christ might eate vnleauened bread, but not in such manner and order, as they say.

Secondly, it was not of the substance of the institution to eate vnleauened bread, no more then to eat it at night, and to receiue it sitting, we are not more bound to the one, then to the other. Againe, Christ vsed vnleauened bread, because it was the vsuall bread at that time: so we do vse that which is the vsuall bread in our time. And S. Paul speaketh of such bread, as was vsuall among the Gentiles, when he saith, The bread which we break, 1. Cor. 10.17. Ergo, ordinary bread and leauened to be vsed, not vnleauened.

The Papists.

2. COncerning the other element of wine, which is vsed in the sacrament, error 118 they say it is to be mixed with water, and they impudently condemne all those Churches, that doe not mixe water with wine, in the Sacrament.

Argum. Water gushed out together with blood, out of the side of Christ. Ergo, wine and water is to be vsed together in the Eucharist, Rhemist. 1. Cor. 11. sect. 10. Bellarm. lib. 4. de Eucharist. cap. 10.

p. 463The Protestants.

1. WE deny not, but that of ancient time, in hot Countries, especially where their wine was strong, they vsed to mixe water with wine, in their common drink, and thereupon they so vsed it in the sacrament: but it was neuer generally the practise of the East Countries so to do: for the Armenians and Iberians vsed not of ancient time to put water in the Cup in the ministration, Fulk. nnot. 1. Corinth. 1…. sect. 10.

Secondly, Be it that this mixture of wine were conuenient to be vsed: you cannot make such a matter of necessitie of it, as to charge them with heresie, and denounce damnation against them that keepe not that custome,De cōnsecrat. distin. 2. in glossa. especially seeing your Canonists and schoolemen do graunt that it is de honestate tant…m, of decency onelyonly, not of necessitie. And yet we are faine to drinke mingled wine many times against our willes: for the Minister need put in no water, it is mixed to his hands many times. The Vintners craft standeth very well with popish profession.

Thirdly, we holde it rather to be a superstitious custome and contrarie to Christs institution: for he in his last supper gaue wine, not water to be drunk, for he calleth it the fruit of the Vine, which is wine and not water.

Fourthly, the water and bloud which issued out of Christs side, signifie no such thing, but rather as S. Iohn expoundeth them: by water, is betokened our washing from our sinnes, whereof Baptisme is a pledge: by blood, the full satisfaction that Christ hath made for our sinnes, whereof the other sacrament is a …eale, 1. Iohn. 5.6. This is that Iesus Christ, that came by water and blood, not by water onelyonly, but by water and blood. By the which words the Apostles meaning is not, that by the water and blood, which were shed vponupon the crosse, we should vnderstand the Sacraments of the Church: but those spirituall graces, whereof the Sacraments are liuely signes, namely the satisfaction and ransome of our sinnes by Christs blood, and our ablution and washing from the same.

Augustine picketh out no such fancie out of this mysterie as you doe, for the mixture of wine and water: but he doth more fitly apply it to the sacraments of the church. E Christi latere dormientis in cruce promanarunt sacramenta ecclesiae, in Psal. 138. Out of Christs side dying vponupon the Crosse, issued the sacraments of the Church: namely, Baptisme, and the Eucharist. He draweth not both water and wine to signifie one sacrament, but applyeth them to both.

THE FIFTH QVESTION, OF THE wordes of consecration.

The Papists.

THese words (say they) This is my body, to be spoken ouer the bread, and the error 119 like ouer the wine, This is the new testament in my blood, are the very forms p. 464of the Sacraments and words of consecration: which being vttered, immediatly the elements are changed into the body and blood of Christ: wherefore these words are not to be read historically for the instruction of the people, but they are onelyonly consecratory wordes, to be pronounced ouer the elements: Rhemist. 1. Cor. 11. sect. 11. Bellarm. lib. 4. de sacram. cap. 13.

Argu. If these were not the onelyonly words of consecration This is my body, and if presently vponupon the vttering of these words the body of Christ was not present: then should not the words of Christ be true, Bellarm. ibid.

The Protestants.

1. WE acknowledge no such consecration at all, by vertue whereof the elements are conuerted and transubstantiate into the body of Christ, as we hauehave before shewed. A consecration we graunt, which is a setting apart of the elements, which before were common, to holy vses, and by the vetue of Christs institution, to be made vntounto vsus signes of holy things.

Secondly, those are not the onelyonly words of consecration, This is my body, and, This is the cup of my blood, and yet Christs wordes shall be true: for we must not dismember the sentence: Christ saith, Take, eate ye, this is my body: it is then made his body to be taken and eaten: by taking then and eating, the elements also are consecrated, not onelyonly by saying of the words: ye must not then diuide the words of the institution, for then they shall no more consecrate, then if you should pronounce but two of your consecratory words, as, This is, or, My body, and leaue out the rest.

Thirdly, that these are not the onelyonly words of consecration, it appeareth, because both the bread was broken and distributed, and the Cuppe also, before Christ spake those words, as Math. 26.26. for first Christ saith, Take, eate, and, Take and drink, before he said▪ either, This is my body, or, This is my blood: neither can ye well tell yourselues, which are your consecratory wordes for the Cup, whether those that Mathew setteth downe, This is my blood of the newe testament: or as Luke hath, This Cup is the new testament in my blood. Nay, Bellarmine vseth an other forme beside these: Hic est calix…s… guinis▪ This is the Cup of my blood, Bellarm. cap. 13.

Fourthly, we conclude then, that not onelyonly these words, but al the rest belonging to the institution, are to be rehearsed in the Sacrament, both to instruct the people, that they may know the right vse of the Sacrament: and they help also with the rest of the whole action, of taking, eating, drinking, praying, thankesgiuing, to consecrate and make the Sacramēt, as we hauehave shewed more at large before: controu. 11. quest. 1. part 2. to that place we referre the Reader.

p. 465THE SIXT QVESTION, OF THE PROPER effect and vse of the Lords Supper.

The Papists.

THey doe generally holde, that this Sacrament was not properly ordeined error 120 for remission of sinnes, neither that the Sacrament hath any such vse: but it serueth onelyonly as a preseruatiue against sinne, Trident. Concil. sess. 13. can. 5. Bellarm. lib. 4. de sacram. cap. 17.

Secondly, they teach, that faith is not sufficient to prepare vsus for the Communion: and although a man be neuer so contrite, quantumcun que se contritos existiment, yet they must be throughly purged and absolued from their mortall sinnes, before they come to communicate, Concil. Trident. sess. 13. canon. 11. Bellarm. ibid.

Argum. 1. They that receiue the Communion, are one body as they are partakers of one bread, 1. Cor. 10.17. but they which are in any greeuous and deadly sinne, are not liuely members of Christ, and of his mysticall body: therefore the sacrament doth not profit them at all, Bellarm. ibid.

Ans. 1. Neither doe we affirme, that men ought rashly & presumptuously to come to the Lords table, but to repent them throughly of their sinnes, and to hauehave a stedfast and liuely faith in Christ, who cannot be said, thus preparing themselues, to remaine in their sinnes: neither yet are they so fully acquited of them, that they need not to receiue the Sacrament to their comfort, and to strengthen their faith in the hope and assurance of the remission of sinnes. Secondly, wherefore all this hindreth not, but that they should be true members of Christs body, euen hauing a troubled conscience, and labouring vnderunder the burthen of their sinnes: for the weake and sicke parts of the bodie, are they therfore no partes at all, because of their infirmities? Augustine saith very wel,Cont. 2. epi. Pelag. 3.3. Non filios diaboli faciunt quaecun que peccata, peccāt enim et filij Dei: In quibus non est fides, filij sunt Diaboli: EueryEvery sin maketh not a man the childe of the deuil, for the Children of God also sinne: but they which hauehave no faith, are the sonnes of the Deuill. Ergo, all sinnes cut not men off from the body of Christ, but onelyonly the want of faith: they then that hauehave sinned, and doe repent them and come with faith, are still the sonnes of God, and members of Christs body.

Argum. 2. There is not one and the same proper vse and end of diuerse Sacraments: but Baptisme is receiued for remission of sinnes. Ergo, the Eucharist is not for that end, Bellarm. ibid.

Ans. 1. The death of Christ, and so remission of sinnes purchased by the same, is properly represented vntounto vsus in both Sacraments: yet in a diuerse respect: for as to be borne is one thing, to be fed and nou…shed is another: yet both worke the same thing in the body, though diuersly: for the birth p. 466giueth life, meate and drink preserueth it: the same difference is betweene Baptisme and the Lords Supper, they both are seales vntounto vsus of our iustification, in the remission of sinnes by Christ: but by Baptisme we are initiated, regenerate and borne anew, and engrafted into the body of Christ. The other sacrament doth confirme, encrease, and nourish our faith, already begun and planted in vsus, for the remission of sinnes, and all other benefits of Christs passion.

The Protestants.

FIrst, we doe truly affirme and teach, that an especiall and principall vse of the Eucharist or Communion, is to strengthen and assure our faith of the remission of sinnes: and yet we deny not, but that it hath other vses beside: for as in Baptisme not onelyonly the washing away of our sinnes is shewed forth, but it also betokeneth our dying to sinne, and rising to newnes of life, Ro. 6.3.4. So in the Lords supper whole Christ with all his benefites is exhibited vntounto vsus, as it is a pledge vntounto vsus, not onelyonly of remission of sinnes, but that Christ is become our righteousnes and sanctification, 1. Cor. 1.30. that he will assist vsus with his spirite, and replenish our harts with grace, Ioh. 4.14. yea, the spirituall eating and drinking of the flesh and blood of Christ, is a pledge vntounto vsus of the resurrection, and of life eternall, Ioh. 6.54. But that amongst the rest, it also assureth vsus of remission of sinnes, thus it is proued.

Argum. Christ after S. Mathew saith, This is the blood of the new testament, that is shed for many for remission of sinnes, Math. 26.28. But the new testament includeth a promise of remission of sinnes, Iere. 31.34. Yea our Sauiour setteth it downe in plaine termes: for why els should our Sauiour make expresse mention of forgiuenes of sinnes, if this sacrament did not serue for that vse?

Secondly, we doe holde, that to hauehave a liuely faith in the promises of God, with repentance for our sinnes, and a full purpose to amend our liues, is a sufficient preparation for the Communion: and that this sacrament is a soueraigne remedy for a troubled conscience. Neither ought men to refraine from the Communion, till they hauehave fully satisfied for their sinnes, as the Papists teach, and are cleered in their conscience of all their sinnes: for so, few or none at all, should be admitted to the Lords table: but in whom faith hath alredy wrought repentance in some measure, he may safely receiue the sacrament for his further comfort, and assurance of remission of sinnes.

Argum. Iohn. 6.35. He that beleeueth in me, saith Christ, shall neuer thirst: S. Paul also exhorteth men to examine themselues, 1. Corin. 11.28. which is nothing els, as himselfe expondethu it, then to proue whether they be in the faith, 2. Cor. 13.5. Ergo, the examination or triall of faith, is a sufficient preparation for the Lords table.

Augustine saith, Ad Deum acceditur, fide sectando, corde inhiando, charitate currando. We come or hauehave accesse vntounto God in folowing him by faith, seeking p. 467him in our heart, and running to him with louelove, In Psalm. 33. concion. 2. Ergo, by fayth we hauehave accesse vntounto God, Rom. 5.2. but a liuely fayth, which worketh by louelove, Galath. 5.6.

THE SEVENTH QVESTION, OF THE manner to be obserued in receiuing the communion.

The Papists.

1 THey holde it in no wise lawfull for Christians, otherwise then fasting to error 121 receiue the communion: and that they ought to eate nothing before they doe communicate, vnlesse it be in a case of great necessitie, Concil. Constantiens. sess. 13. Bellarm. lib. 3. de Eucharist. cap. 22. ratione. 4.

The Protestants.

1 WHat they here vnderstand by necessitie, it may be doubted, seeing they themselues will not graunt the like necessitie to be in the Eucharist, as they say there is of Baptisme: All sacraments, we graunt, are necessary, that is, profitable, expedient, requisite, so often as they may bee had: But none so necessary, that the want thereof vntounto a faythfull man, that in heart doth wish and desire them, can be any hindrance to his saluation.

2 That it is lawfull for any man to eate before he come to the communion, if his stomack be weake, and not able to fast so long (for otherwise, if a man can abstaine, we wish him so to do rather) Saint Paul sheweth, writing to the Corinthians, 1. cap. 11.34. If any man be hungry, let him eate at home. Some of them, he sayth, came hungry, some drunken, vers. 21. the Apostle commendeth neither, but telleth them, if they bee hungry, they hauehave houses to eate in. Againe, in that our Sauiour Christ after supper instituted the sacrament, it doth euidently declare vntounto vsus, that it is no sinne to eate or drink before we receiue the sacrament.

Augustine sayth, Neminem cogimus dominica illa coena prandere, sed nulli etiam contradicere audemus: Epist. 118. cap. 7.We compell none to take the Lords Supper in dinner while, or after dinner, neither dare wee forbid any so to doe: so hee maketh it a thing indifferent, to communicate fasting or otherwise.

The Papists.

2 THey binde the people onelyonly once in the yeare to receiue the communion error 122 at Easter time, and take it to be fully sufficient for them so to doe, Concil. Trident. sess. 13. can. 9.

p. 468The Protestants.

2 THis decree of theirs is contrary to the practise of the Apostles, whom the Rhemists confesse to hauehave ministred the sacrament to the Christians daylie, Annotat. Act. 2. sect. 6. So expounding the wordes of the text, They continued dayly in breaking of bread.

2. It seemeth also to be contrary to Saint Pauls rule, who speaketh of often communicating: Doe this, sayth he, as oft as you drink it, 1. Corinth. 11.25. For seeing the eating of that bread, and drinking of that cuppe, is nothing els, but a shewing foorth of the Lords death till he come: who seeth not, that it ought oftener then once or twice in the yere to be receiued, seeing the death of Christ ought continually to be remembred, and shewed foorth?

3 Therefore Augustine doth boldely reprehend their custome that content themselues with once receiuing in the yeare: Si panis quotidianus est, cur post annum illum sumas? accipe quotidie, quod quotidie tibi prosit: If it be thy daylie bread, why doest thou take it but yearely? take that daylie and continually, which may profit thee daylie, In Luk. serm. 28.

THE EIGHT QVESTION, OF RECEIuing the Sacrament in one kinde.

The Papists.

error 123 CHristians (say they) are not bound by any commaundement of GOD to receiue the sacrament in both kinds, Concil. Trident. sess. 21. can. 1. And whosoeuer saith, that the Church hath erred or done amisse, in decreeing that lay men and the Clergie not saying Masse, should receiue in the one kinde, that is bread onelyonly: Or that it is lawfull for them to communicate in both, contrary to the determination of the Church: let him bee accursed, Concil. Trident. sess. 21. can. 2. Rhemist. Iohn. 6. sect. 11. Bellarmin. lib. 4. de Eucharist. cap. 20.

Argum. 1. Christ is all and whole in eueryevery parte of the sacrament, his blood by a certaine concomitance is in the bread, & his flesh by the like concomitance is in the cup, for otherwise Christ should be deuided: But eueryevery spirit, sayth the Apostle, that dissolueth Iesus, is of God, 1. Iohn. 4.3. Wherefore hee that receiueth in one kinde, is as well partaker of whole Christ, and of the full grace and effect of the sacrament, as if hee receiued in both, Bellarmin. cap. 21.

Ans. 1. We denie any such concomitance of the blood and flesh of Christ in the sacrament: for he is not in his carnall presence with his very flesh and blood there included, as we hauehave shewed before: the bread and wine are signes p. 469onelyonly of his body and blood, and therefore Christ is not diuided, they being the signes onelyonly and not the thing signified.

2 The place alleadged out of Saint Iohn is greatly abused and corrupted by them, while they choose rather to follow their olde blinde latine translation, then the authenticall Greeke text: the words in the originall are, EueryEvery spirite that confesseth not Iesus Christ: not, eueryevery spirite that dissolueth: And this may appeare to bee the true reading, by the opposition in the former verse, EueryEvery spirite that confesseth Iesus, is of GOD: therefore this is the best reading, EueryEvery spirite that confesseth not Iesus: as being set opposite and contrarie to the other verse. Againe, the Rhemists vnderstand this place after their owne reading, of the dissoluing of the humanitie and diuinitie of Christ: not of any such separation of the flesh and blood of Christ, as Bellarm. supposeth.

3 This their deuice of concomitance ouerthwarteth the institution of Christ: For he sayth, the bread is his body, the wine his blood: but by their rule, the bread is his blood, and the wine his bodie. And be it graunted, that the blood of Christ is in the bread, yet how can any man be sayd to drink it in bread? We vse to eate bread, not to drink bread: his blood therefore cannot be there, because it cannot be drunke there.

Argum. 2. Luk. 24.30. Christ brake bread to his disciples, Act. 2.42. the Apostles brake bread: Ergo, to communicate in one kinde is grounded vponupon the example of Christ and his Apostles, Bellarmin. lib. 4. de Eucharist. 24. Rhemist. Iohn. 6.11. And Christ sayth, Whosoeuer shall eate this bread, shall liue for euer, Iohn 6.58. Ergo, it is sufficient to receiue in one kinde.

Answer: 1. To the two first places, we say, that it is not necessary to vnderstand the breaking of bread in the sacrament: but the vsuall bread rather, which was accustomed in their daylie repasts and feasts after thankesgiuing to be broken. Or, if we take it for the sacrament, the breaking of bread is by a Synecdoche taken for the whole mysterie, as it is an vsuall phrase of speech in scripture: for otherwise wee will conclude as well, that Christ and the Apostles did but consecrate in one kinde, which they holde for a great absurditie, as that the other receiued but in one kinde: But their opinion is, that although the people must communicate in one kinde onelyonly, yet the Priest must consecrate both, Rhemist. annotat. Iohn. 6. sect. 11.

2 To the second place wee answere: First it is not vnderstoode of the sacramentall eating of Christ, but of the spirituall manducation of him, which may be done without a sacrament: For whosoeuer eateth this bread, shall liue for euer: but whosoeuer eateth the sacrament, shall not liue for euer. Secondly, seeing the eating and drinking of Christ are so often ioyned in this chapter, as vers. 53.55.56. they might well know, that drinking is here to be vnderstoode, though it be not expressed.

Argum. 3. In many countries there is no wine to bee had, as in the cold Northerly countreies: and therefore they cannot communicate according p. 470to the institution: whereupon that there might be an vniformitie in all Churches, it is most meete that where wine may bee had, they should notwithstanding be content to receiue it in one kinde, Bellarmin. cap. 28. Also there may arise much inconuenience in graunting the cuppe to the people, as in spilling and sheading the wine, which after consecration is the blood of Christ, Rhemist. annot. Iohn 6. sect. 11.

Answ. 1. As in some countries there is no wine to bee had, so wee finde that in certaine places and regions of the world there is no bread, such as Christ vsed,Lib. 1. cap. 27. made of wheate or the like grayne: as in some places amongst the West Indians, they hauehave a certaine kinde of bread made of rootes called Cazabi, as Benzo witnesseth. Wherefore by this reason of vniformitie, wee should not communicate at all, either in bread or wine, seeing that as some countreyes are destitute of wine, so other are of bread: but all this not withstanding, the sacrament may be duely administred in all places in both kindes: and where they hauehave neither bread nor wine, neither can possibly prouide them, they may safely vse such other elements, as doe stand them in the like stead: as in the place of bread, that which commeth nearest to the vse thereof: and for wine, some other precious liquor, that is to be had, as in Russia in stead of wine they vse a certaine drink like vntounto that which we call Metheglen.

2 As for the other reasons of the inconueniences in spilling the wine, shaking the cuppe, the hanging of it on mens beards, & other such friuolous allegations: as they were no let or hinderance, why Christ notwithstanding did not institute the sacrament in both kindes, and the Church accordingly obserued it, as we reade, the Corinthians did communicate in both kindes: so ought they to bee no reason, why Christians should not receiue in both kindes nowe.

The Protestants.

WE holde it to be an Antichristian practise of the Church of Rome, to take away from the people the cuppe in the sacrament: for although they sometime minister the cuppe to the people, yet they vse no consecration ouer it, neither giuegive it as any parte of the sacrament, Fulk. annotat. 1. Corinth. 4.10. sect. 4. They doe therefore offer great wrong to the people of God, in depriuing them of the one halfe of the communion.

Argum. 1. Iohn 6.53. Christ sayth, Except you eate the flesh of the Sonne of man and drink his blood, you hauehave no life in you. Here wee see both eating and drinking are ioyned together: Ergo, Christians ought to doe both. This place maketh strongly against our aduersaries, who doe expound it of the sacramental eating and drinking of Christ.

Argum. 2. Christ instituted the sacrament in both kinds, giuing charge and commaundement to all Christians in the same manner to celebrate it: p. 471for he sayth, Drinke ye all of this. If our aduersaries answere, as they doe, that this was spoken to the Apostles: by the like reason they may say also, that when Christ sayd, Take, eate; he spake vntounto his Apostles, and so the people shoulde neither receiue bread and wine, but the Ministers onelyonly.

Agayne, Saynt Paul, the best expounder of our Sauiour Christ, declareth the right vse of the Lords Supper in both kindes for all Christians: for hee writeth to the whole congregation, and Church of the Corinthians, not to the Pastors and teachers onelyonly: and to eueryevery Christian he sayth, Let a man examine himselfe, and so let him eate of this bread, and drinke of this cuppe, vers. 28.

Argum. 3. The Priest that saith Masse, you allow to consecrate and receiue in both kindes, because hee must expresse liuely the passion of Christ and the separation of his blood from his bodie in the same: Rhemist. annotat. Iohn. 6.58. By the same reason all the communicants ought to receiue in both kindes, because they doe all shewe foorth the death of Christ, and sheading of his blood in the sacrament: 1. Corinthian. 11.26. And seeing the cuppe is a signe of the blood of Christ shedde for remission of sinnes, Math. 26.28. for as much as the thing signified, that is, the remission of sinnes, in the blood of Christ, is common to all faythfull Christians, why should they not as well be partakers of the signe?

Argum. 4. This prohibition for lay men, not to receiue in both kindes, is but a late deuise of the Church of Rome, not past two hundred yeare olde, decreed no longer agoe then in the Councell of Constance, Fox. pag. 1150. yet after that, he Councel of Basile graunted the vse and libertie of the cup to the Bohemians, Fox. pag. 694.

Thus they take vponupon them to ouer-rule mens consciences, now restrayning, now againe graunting libertie, binding and loosing at their pleasure.

In Augustines time there was no such separation of the cuppe from the bread: but both were indifferently vsed in the communion: Cum cibo & potu, saith he, id appetant homines vt neque esuriant, neque sitiant, Tract. in Iohan. 27.hoc veraciter non praestat, nisi iste cibus & potus, &c. As men by their meate and drink doe prouide, that they neither hunger nor thirst: so this spirituall meate and drink worketh the same effect in vsus. Whereupon it followeth, that seeing in the sasacrament is contained and signified the full and sufficient nourishment of our soules by the flesh and blood of Christ, it must needes be resembled by the outward full sufficient nourishment of our bodies, which is not by eating alone, but by eating and drinking.

p. 472THE NINTH QVESTION OF THE adoration of the Eucharist.

The Papists.

error 124 IT was decreed in the Councel of Trent, that the Eucharist should be adored euen with the highest degree of worship, (Cultu latreiae) which is proper to God: that it should also be carried about in solemne processions, to be shewed to the people, to bee worshipped and adored of them. And whosoeuer holdeth the contrary, they pronounce accursed, Trident. Concil. sess. 13. can. 6.

Argum. 1. Hebr. 1.6. Worship him all ye Angels. Ergo, Christ in the sacrament▪ and wheresoeuer else his person is, ought to bee adored of men and Angels, Rhemist. ibid. This Saint Paul meaneth, they say, by discerning the Lords bodie, 1. Corinth. 11.29. that is, adoring, worshipping it, and making prayers vntounto it, Rhemist. ibid.

Answ. 1. We denie Christ to be present in the sacrament really, corporally, substantially: therefore it is not to be adored: 2. Although the body of Christ were present in that manner vnderunder the accidents of bread and wine, yet vnlesse Christ bee so present, that the elements or the accidents of the elements be ioyned and vnited vntounto him in one person, as the Godhead and humanitie make but one person, hee is no more to bee adored, then God the father is to bee worshipped in the Sunne or Moone, in the which he is verily present. But to say that the visible formes and elements are ioyned in an hypostaticall vnion to Christ, as his humanity is to his Godhead, it is great blasphemie. 3. A reuerent estimation and discerning of the Lordes bodie we graunt in the sacrament; in preferring the elements before all other meates and drinkes, because of their mysticall signification, as wee preferre the mysticall washing in Baptisme before all other: but to kneele, holde vp the handes, and to worship a peece of bread, wee count it grosse and abominable Idolatrie.

The Protestants.

THat the sacrament is not to be adored with any godly worship, but onelyonly to be duely reuerenced as an holy mysterie: thus wee prooue it by the worde of God.

Argum. 1. In the first instituting of the sacrament, the Apostles receiued it sitting, not kneeling, by taking of it, not lifting vp their handes to it. Ergo, they did not adore it, neither is it by vsus to be adored.

Agayne Christ commaundeth vsus, onelyonly to Take, and eate and drinke, p. 473and to doe all in remembrance of him: the sacrament therefore was appoynted to be eaten and drunken, not to be carried about, or to bee gazed vponupon, or to be kneeled vntounto.

Argum. 2. Christ, as we hauehave shewed, is no otherwise present in the Eucharist, then in Baptisme. But the water in Baptisme is not to be adored: Ergo, neither the bread in the sacrament.

Augustine did not so much as dreame of any adoration of the sacrament: A Cerere & Libero Paganorum dijs, longè absumus, quamus panis & calicis sacramentum nostro ritu amplectimur: Wee doe not worship the heathenish Gods of corne and wine, Ceres and Bacchus, although after our manner wee embrace the sacrament of the bread and of the cuppe. His meaning is, that Christians do not worship bread and wine in the sacrament, as the heathen did, Cont. Faust.

In sacramenti sanctificatione & distributione existimo Apostolum propriè iussisse fieri foreign orationes, 1. Tim. 2.1. Quod verò quidam codices, non habent orationes, sed adorationes, non arbitror scienter interpretatum: In the consecrating and distributing of the sacrament, I think the Apostle bade orations or prayers to be made, not as some doe vnlearnedly interpret, adorations or worshippings, Epistol. 59. Ergo, hee approueth not the adoration of the sacrament.

AN APENDIX, OR TENTH PART, whether the wicked doe receiue the bodie of Christ.

The Papists.

THe wicked, they say, doe in the sacrament eate the true flesh of Christ and error 125 drinke his blood, though they be Infidels, and ill liuers.

Argum. They are guiltie of the bodie and blood of Christ, 1. Corinth. 11.27. How can they be guiltie of that, which they hauehave not receiued? And agayne, by the vnworthy receiuing of no other sacrament, is a man made guiltie of the body and blood of Christ, but onelyonly here: Ergo, the wicked are partakers of his body? Rhemist. annot. 1. Corint. 11. sect. 16.

Answere: 1. The wicked may be guiltie of the bodie and blood of Christ in vnworthy receiuing the sacrament, though Christ be not corporally present: Euen as he that contumeliously receiueth the seale of the prince or abuseth his image, is guiltie of the Maiestie of the prince, though he hauehave not hurt his person. 2. He also may bee guiltie of the blood of Christ, that despiseth Baptisme, which he receiued as a signe of his washing in the blood of Christ. And so the Apostle sayth of wicked men, that fall away from Christian religion, that they crucifie agayne to themselues the Sonne of God, Heb. 6.6.

Augustine also bringeth in Christ thus speaking to the wicked in the day of p. 474iudgement, Grauior apud me est, peccatorum tuorum crux, in qua inuitus pendeo, quàm illa, in quam tuimisertus ascendi: the crosse of thy sinnes, whereby thou didst crucifie me, was more grieuous vntounto me, then the Crosse, to the which for thy cause I was lifted vp: Serm. 181. cap. 7. de tempor. Thus we see, that wicked men by their sinfull life may crucifie Christ, though they can offer no violence to his body.

The Protestants.

THat wicked men and Infidels, cannot in any sense be partakers of the true bodie and blood of Christ, thus it is prooued.

Argum. 1. By faith only are we made partakers of the bodie and blood of Christ: but this fayth the wicked cannot hauehave. The first part is proued out of the Gospell: He only that drinketh of the blood of Christ shall neuer thirst agayne, Iohn 4.14. He that shall neuer thirst, must beleeue in Christ, Iohn 6.35. Ergo, he onelyonly that beleeueth doth drinke the blood of Christ. So Augustine saith, Nolite parare fances, sed cor, non quod videtur, sed quod creditur, pascit: doe not prepare your iawes, but your heart, it is not that which is seene, but what is beleeued, that nourisheth: Ergo, Christ must bee receiued by faith: therefore Infidels or vnbeleeuers cannot receiue him.

Argum. 2. Whosoeuer eateth the flesh of Christ and drinketh his blood, shall hauehave eternall life, Iohn 6.54. But the wicked hauehave not eternall life: Ergo, they neither eate nor drinke Christ.

Augustine sayth, De mensa dominica sumitur quibusdam ad mortem, quibusdam ad vitam: Tract. in Iohan. 26.res verò, cuius sacramentum est, omni homini ad vitam; nulli ad exitium, quicunque eius particeps fuerit: From the Lords table some doe receiue vntounto life, some vntounto death: but the thing, whereof it is a sacrament, worketh in all to life, in none to death, whosoeuer are partakers of it. But the bodie and blood of Christ are the things signified in the sacrament: Ergo, whosoeuer receiueth them, hath life thereby; the wicked then receiue them not.