The Buckler of the Faith, Part 2 · Article 38 · Subpart 2
A proofe of the doctrine of our Churches by the words of the institution of this Sacrament.
Sect. 25 Our Lord Iesus Christ after the last Paschall lambe celebrated with his disciples, instituted an other Sacrament, which Saint Paul calleth the Supper of the Lord, at the which he will hauehave bread to be broken and eaten by the faithfull, and a cup with wine distributed in remembrance of him, and to declare his death till he comes againe. This institution is found in Saint Matth. 26. in Marke 14, in Saint Luke 22. and 1. Cor. 11. From these places, not by peacemeale, (as our aduersaries do,) but wholly, and compared together, the truth ought to be drawne.
Saint Matthew saith, That Iesus Christ tooke the bread, and when he had blessed it, he brake it, and gaue it to his disciples, and said, Take, eate, this is my body. Saint Luke saith, that he added, Which is giuen you; do this in remembrance of me. And Saint Paul in steed of saying, Which is giuen for you, saith, Which is broken for you. The holy Ghost which guided the hands and the spirits of the Apostles and of the Euangelists, vsed that diuersitie, that it might serue for a declaration and opening of the truth, and to the end that one Euangelist should serue to make the other to be vnderstood.
All the words of the Euangelists are true, not onelyonly taken altogether, but seuerally. Then let vsus first examine them seuerally and apart, and after that altogether.
1 I say that the Gospell witnesseth, that Iesus Christ tooke bread, that he blessed it, and that he brake it. Then seeing that Iesus Christ tooke, and brake bread, how comes it that in the Church of Rome they say, that the Priest doth not breake bread? and that it is no more bread, when the breaking of the Sacrament is made?
2 The Gospell saith, that Iesus Christ tooke bread, that he brake it, and that he gaue it. Then it is true that he gaue bread, contrary to the Romish Church which saith, that in the Masse the Priest giueth no bread. And note these words, That Iesus Christ gaue bread. Which is not giuen but after consecration; it is bread therefore still after consecration.
3 And S. Matth. witnesseth, That Iesus Christ tooke bread, that he blessed it, and that he brake it, and that he gaue it to his disciples, and said, Take, eate, this is my body. Therefore we must beleeue, that the bread which Iesus Christ brake, & gaue, was his body, & not as the Church of Rome, which beleeueth that it is no more bread, but onelyonly the body of Iesus Christ, made by the conuersion of bread. He that will not be culpable of changing the words of the Gospell, ought constantly to hold these two truths set downe in the Gospell: the one, that Iesus Christ gaue bread; the other, that that bread which he gaue was his body: and must not do as the Church of Rome doth, which vnderunder a pretence to lay hold on the second truth, ouerthroweth the first, and imagineth a transsubstantiation whereby the bread is abolished.
4 These words alone, This is my body, whereon they build their doctrine, cannot beare vp this frame of Transsubstantiation. For they are declaratiue words of that which is, and not effectiue of that which is not: and which presuppose that the same bread was alreadie the body of the Lord, before he pronounced those words.
5 And indeed both we and our aduersaries agree, that the bread is made the body of Christ by consecration, but consecration is not made by these words This is my body, but by prayer and blessing which went before, as the Canon of the Church of Rome acknowledgeth, which beginneth Corpus, *Corpus & sanguinem Christi dicimus illud quod de fructibus terrae acceptū & prece mystica sanctificatū rectè sumimus ad salutem spiritualem in memoriam Dominicae passionis.in the 2. Distinction of Consecration, and saith, We call that the body and bloud of Christ, which being taken from the fruits of the earth, and consecrated by mysticall prayer, is directly taken by vsus for spirituall saluation, in memorie of the passion of our Lord. And Pope Innocent 3. in the 4. booke of the Mysteries of the Masse, cap. 6. saith, That Iesus Christ did not consecrate by these words, This is my bodie: but that he consecrated by his diuine vertue before he vttered those words. And*Reade the booke of Capitefontium, which in the Preface saith, that Innocent and Catharius and Gabriel Biel and the ancient Fathers are of opinion that consecration is made by prayer. certainly reason confirmeth it: for we must be voyde of sence, if we know not, that to consecrate bread to God, we ought rather to speake to God then to the bread. But our aduersaries had rather go against reason, their owne Popes, and their Decrees, then obey the Gospell, placing consecration in these words, This is my body, by which the Priest speakes not to God, but to the bread.
6 Moreouer, no man can denie, that when Iesus Christ said, This is my body, but by that word This, he vnderstood that which he held in his hands. Now both we and our aduersaries acknowledge, that when Iesus Christ pronounced the word this, he held nothing but bread in his hands. It followeth then that by the word this, he vnderstood that bread: and by consequence that these words, this is my body, signifie this bread it my body, and not vnderunder these species is my body. Nor this shall be transsubstantiated into my body, as our aduersaries vnderstand it.2. De consecr. Can. Qui manducant. Quod videtur panis est & calix, quod etiam oculi renunciant, quod autem fides postulat instruenda, panis est corpus Christi. The Decretall of the Romish Church saith as we say, that, Panis est corpus Christi, The bread is the body of Christ. That which is seene (saith the Canon) is bread and a cup, as our eyes witnesse. But touching the instruction which faith requireth, the bread is the body of Christ.
7 Sith therefore the sence of these words, This is my body, is, This bread is my body, we must know how this bread can be the body of Iesus Christ. Which he himselfe declareth in all the words that follow, which we will particularly sift and examine.
8 Iesus Christ (as the Apostle Saint Paul saith) hauing said, This is my body, addeth, Which is broken for you.
The bread of the holy Supper must needs be the body of Christ, in the same manner that the body of Christ is broken in the holy Supper. But he is not therein really broken; for it is impossible: onelyonly there he is sacramentally broken: therefore in like sort, the bread is not really the body of Christ, but sacramentally, and as the signes ordinarily take the names of the things by them signified, in the same manner as in the line following, the cup is called a Testament; as circumcision is called the couenant of God, Gen. 17.9.10. As the paschall Lambe is called the passeouer, Exod. 12.11. and 21.2. and 2. Chro. 30.15. &c. As the Arke is called the Eternall, 2. Sam. 6.2, & Psalme 24. because it was a signe of the fauourable presence of God amongst his people. As the Apostle, 1. Cor. 10.4. saith, that the rocke was Christ, because it was a figure of Iesus Christ. The Scripture is full of such examples: it is the ordinary style thereof, to giuegive vntounto the signes the names of those things which they represent. And reason also alloweth it; for what is more naturall and proper then in sacraments to vse sacramentall words, and in an action which is figuratiue, to vse a figure conformable to the action? To the end that by calling the signes by the names of those things which they signifie, we may apprehend the vnion which the signe hath with the thing signified. Because God all at one time representeth the signes vntounto our eyes, and the thing signified vntounto our faith.
To say, that hereby we open a gap vntounto heresies, and thereby fauour the Marcionites, who in like manner might figuratiuely interpret these words of Saint Iohn, The word was made flesh, is nothing to the purpose; for Saint Iohn in that place, speaketh not of a Sacrament: and therefore the sacramentall manner of speaking agrees not to that place. This imputation may iustly be layd vponupon our aduersaries themselues, who to establish their Transsubstantiation, wrest and wring all the words of the institution of the Eucharist, and therein induce a dozen vnaccustomed and prodigious figures, as hereafter we shall see.
Then to returne to these words, Which is broken for you, we must vnderstand that the Romish Churches translation, and the text of the Masse, hauehave corrupted this place, and hauehave translated that in the future tense which Iesus Christ spake in the present tense, and hauehave put shall be broken, for is broken, frangetur, for frangitur: which translation although it be good touching faith, yet it hindreth men from knowing that the purpose of Iesus Christ is sacramentall, and that the name of the thing signified is attributed to the signe.
9 Then to make the truth manifest, we aske our aduersaries, whether the body of Iesus Christ be really broken into peeces in the Eucharist? or whether therein it be onelyonly broken sacramentally, and significantly in a mysterie? If they say it is broken sacramentally, then they are bound to interpret these words in the same manner, This is my body, and to say, that that which Iesus Christ gaue to his Disciples was his sacramentall body, and a remembrance of him. But if they will hauehave the body of our Lord to be really broken in the Masse, thereby they fall into three inconueniences: The first is, that they wrong Iesus Christ, who being impassible, can no more be broken. The second is, that they contradict their Masse and their Bible, which hath translated, shall be broken, in the future tense, because there is no other reall breaking of the body of our Lord, but that which was to be done the next day vponupon the crosse. The third is, that they contradict themselues: for the Church of Rome beleeueth, that the body of Iesus Christ cannot be broken, and that when the Priest breaketh the host, there is nothing but the accidents that are broken, and that the body of our Lord remaineth whole in eueryevery peece thereof. So that it is a mockerie for them to say, that the body of our Lord is broken vnderunder the species, seeing they say that he remaineth whole vnderunder the species. That which remaineth whole vnderunder the species, is not broken vnderunder the species. Whereby they speake as wisely, as if I should say, that a sword is broken in the scabbard, when the scabbard onelyonly is broken, and the sword is whole and not broken.
Herein they ought to giuegive glory vntounto God, and yeeld to the force of truth, and acknowledge, that seeing …he body of Christ cannot be really broken in the Sacrament, that therein it is broken sacramentally, in the same manner that the bread is the body of Christ. This breaking hath relation to that vponupon the crosse, and taketh the name of that which it representeth.
10 I say the same of the words which Saint Luke vseth, This is my body which is giuen for you. For Iesus Christ did not say, This is my body which I giuegive you to eate: but said, This is my body which is giuen for you. Which words, for you, are as much as, for your redemption; which was really done vponupon the crosse, but is sacramentally done in the Supper, and for a remembrance, as Iesus Christ addeth, saying, Do this in remembrance of me.
These words decide the question. For if that which Iesus Christ giueth be the remembrance of Iesus Christ, it is not Iesus Christ: nothing is the remembrance of it selfe. And there is nothing so absurd, as that which our aduersaries say,*Bell. lib. 2. de Euchar. ca. 24. Idem igitur Christus fuit figura sui-ipsius. that in the Eucharist Iesus Christ is the figure and the remembrance of himselfe; as if one should say, that the king is his picture, and that he is the image of himselfe. It is to no purpose to alledge diuerse respects, and to say, that Iesus Christ in the Masse is the figure of Iesus Christ on the crosse. For whatsoeuer diuersitie of respects may be alledged, yet the king sitting at the table shall neuer be the figure of himselfe on horsebacke. And if the king himselfe should represent one of his battels, yet he should not be the figure of himselfe, but his present action should be a figure of his action past. Adde hereunto, that visible things may be figures of inuisible things. But here they will hauehave Iesus Christ (inuisible in the Masse) to be the figure of Iesus Christ on the crosse, where he was visible.
11 Beside, remembrance is of things past or absent, as Aristotle saith in his first*foreign, chapter of the booke of Memorie and remembrance. So when the ancient Fathers called the tombes of Martyrs, remembrances, they shewed thereby, that those Martyrs were in heauen. And the Manna that was kept in the Arke, was not a remembrance of that portion of manna that was in the Arke, but of the miraculous feeding of the people in the desert. And whosoeuer extolleth the valour of a king in his owne presence, doth not renew the remembrance of the kings person that is present, but of his actions past, So to hauehave a remembrance of God, is to remember his maruellous workes, his promises, or his commandements. The same is to be found in all other examples.
It cannot be denied, that the holy Supper is a commemoration not onelyonly of the person of Iesus Christ; but also of his death, seeing that the Apostle commandeth vsus to eate that bread, to shew forth his death. 1. Cor. 11.26. and Iesus Christ saith, Do this in remembrance of me.
Then we hauehave the exposition of these words, This is my body, giuen vsus by Iesus Christ himselfe, that is, that the bread which he gaue was the remembrance of his body.
12 Whereupon it is necessarie to set downe something, whereby to stop the mouthes of those that hauehave their spirits hardened, and are most resolute to contradict the truth. Then it is to be vnderstood, that the language of the Iewes in the old Testament was the Hebrew tongue, which was still called the Hebrew tongue although it fell from the purity thereof, by mixing it with the Syrian tongue. In this Hebrew tongue, the word signifie or represent is not found: but the ancient Hebrew Testament in stead of signifie alwaies vseth the word is. So Ioseph in Genesis 40.12. interpreting the dreames of Pharoes cup-bearer and of his baker, saith, The three branches of the vine are three dayes; and in the 18. verse, The three baskets are three dayes, that is signifie three dayes: and in the 41. chapter verse 16. The seuen fat kine are seuen yeares, and the seuen full eares of corne are seuen yeares. And the seuen leane euill-fauored kine which came vp after the other, are seuen yeares: and the seuen emptie eares of corne blasted with the east winde, are seuen yeares of famine. And in foure places of that chapter the word are is put for signifie or represent. So in Ezechiel 37.11. These bones are the whole house of Israel: to shew, that it was represented and figured by those bones. And Daniel 2.38. It is thou ô King that art this head of gold, in stead of saying, It is thou that art signified and prefigured by the head of gold. And 4.20.22, The tree which thou sawest is thou ô King. And 7.17. These foure great beasts, are foure kings. And 24. verse, The ten hornes are ten kings. And in the 8. chap. 20, and 21 verses, The ram which thou sawest hauing two hornes, are the Kings of Media and Persia: and the rough goate is the king of Graecia. In all these places and many others, the word are is as much as to signifie or represent. From thence it comes, that although the Greeke tongue wanteth no words to say, signifie, figure or represent; yet the new Testament in Greeke, which oftentimes imitateth the Hebrew phrase, ordinarily saith, is for signifieth. So the Apostle 1. Cor. 10.4. speaking of the rocke from whence water issued forth in the desert, saith, that the rocke was Christ. And Galat. 4.22.24. it is said that the bond seruant and the free, that is, Agar and Sara, are the two couenants: and Apocal. 17.9.18. The seuen heads are seuen mountaines whereupon the woman sitteth, and the woman which thou sawest is that great citie.
Then because Iesus Christ could not in his language, say, This signifieth or representeth my body, because those words are not in the Hebrew tongue, he spake as the same language led him, and followed the manner of speaking vsed among the Iewes, and continued in the holy Scripture. But foreseeing that Sathan by those words would plant idolatrie in the Church, he added, that that which he did was a remembrance, which is as much as if he had said, This is the remembrance of my body.
13 Let vsus follow the words of the institution of this Sacrament, and let vsus come to the second part, which is the distribution of the wine. Matthew 26.27. describeth it in these words: Also he tooke the cup, and when he had giuen thankes, he gaue it them saying, Drinke ye also of it, for this is my bloud of the new Testament, that is shed for many, for the remission of sinnes.
Saint Luke that wrote since, setteth downe these words 22.20. in this manner, saying, This cup is that new Testament in my bloud, which is shed for you. Saint Paul saith the same 1. Cor. 11.25.
These two pen-men of the Spirit of God, Saint Paul and Saint Luke, which wrote after the rest, serue for expositors, and make a paraphrase of the words of our Lord rehearsed by Saint Matthew. For it is to be presupposed, that he which writeth after another, writeth not to obscure him, but to expound and make him euident. It were a great abuse to make Iesus Christ to be the expounder of Saint Pauls words, seeing that Saint Paul wrote expresly to expound the words of Iesus Christ, to cause the same to be vnderstood.
Our Sauiour Iesus Christ hauing said, that the cup is his bloud, the Apostle Saint Paul teacheth vsus in what sence that ought to be taken, that is, This cup is the new Testament, or the new couenant in his bloud.
These words of Saint Luke and of Saint Paul, This cup is the new Testament, or this cup is a new couenant, (for the Greeke signifieth both the one and the other) leade vsus directly to the knowledge of the truth.
14 For I demand of our aduersaries, whether that which is in the cup be a couenant sacramentally and in a significant mysterie, or whether they will hauehave it to be the Testament & couenant of God in effect. If that which is in the cup be not really the couenant of God, but in a mysticall signification & sacramentally, we must say, that that which Iesus Christ brake and put into his disciples hands, was not really the body of Iesus Christ, but sacramentally, & in a mysticall signification.
But if they will hauehave that which is in the cup really to be a Testament, and the bloud of Iesus Christ (which they pretend to be in the cup) to be a Testament, thereby they say and affirme that which they themselues beleeue not. 1. For will they hauehave the wine to be transsubstantiated into a couenant, or to become a Testament? 2. Can they speake more absurdly, then to say, that the bloud of Iesus Christ is a couenant or a testament? For a couenant and a Testament is a relation, or an action, but the bloud of our Lord is a substance 3. A Testament consisteth in clauses and promises, which agreeth not with the bloud of Christ. 4. What an absurditie is it, to call Iesus Christ a Testament, seeing he is the testator, or to call him a couenant, seeing the couenant is betweene him & vsus? 5. If one of the parties contracting may be called the couenant, the faithful also may be called the couenant, because the couenant is contracted with them. 6. If the bloud of our Lord be the couenant and testament, the Priest (as they say) making the bloud of Iesus Christ eueryevery day, maketh the couenant of God, and the Testament of Iesus Christ. But the couenant of God is no more made, it is eternall, and the Testament of the Sonne of God is not reiterable; and to apply the same, we must not make it. 7. Besides, if the bloud of our Lord in the cup be really the new Testament, then it followes, that the new Testament began at that time, which notwithstanding was before. For before the institution of this Sacrament, the Gospell was already preached, which beareth this inscription, The new Testament. And Baptisme also was then already instituted, which is a Sacrament of the new Testament. 8. And Saint Matthew saith, that That which is in the cup is the bloud of the new Testament; then it followeth, that that bloud is not the new Testament. For as Philips cloake is not Philip himselfe, so the bloud of the new Testament is not the new Testament it selfe. And yet our aduersaries fully hardened in errour, obstinately maintaine that the bloud of the Lord which they say is in the cup, is truly and really a couenant, and that the wine is transsubstantiated into a couenant.
Howbeit truth is so strong, that it makes them say the truth when they thinke not thereon. For they say, that the cup is called the couenant, because that by the cup the couenant is confirmed, and that it is the seale thereof; which is the same that we say, and by which we proue, that the cup is not the couenant really, but the Sacrament thereof: for the confirmation of a thing is not the thing it selfe, and a seale set vponupon a letter is not the letter it selfe. So that against their wils they yeeld vntounto vsus. For seeing that the cup is called the couenant, because it is the seale thereof, by the same reason the bread also must be called the body of Christ, because it is the seale and the confirmation thereof, which is our beleefe. For the Sacraments are seales, as Saint Paul, Rom. 4, calleth circumcision, The seale of the righteousnesse of faith, although in it there was no transsubstantiation.
16 And in saying that the cup is the seale of the couenant, they confesse (against their wils,) that the cup is not really the bloud of Iesus Christ. For the seales and confirmations of a couenant, and the signatures of a Testament, ought to be visible, and exposed vntounto our senses: but the bloud in the cup is inuisible. For it is not onelyonly hidden vnderunder the accidents and apparence of wine, but it is also hidden in the body: for our aduersaries say, that the body is in the cup, and that the bloud which is in the cup, is in the veines of the body, in its naturall places.
17 And if these things were not as cleare as the Sunne, yet the words that follow are strong enough to force those that are most obstinate to yeeld, and to make such as are wilfully blind to see the truth. For the Gospell saith, This cup is the new Testament in my bloud.
These words, in my bloud, cleare the point, and manifestly shew, that that which is in the cup is not really the bloud of Iesus Christ. For say, that by this cup we must vnderstand this bloud, and let vsus see what will ensue thereof. Is not this to make the words of our Lord ridiculous, to make him say, This bloud is the new Testament in my bloud? What? is that bloud of Iesus Christ in the bloud of Iesus Christ? Must we by this meanes make two sorts of bloud of Iesus Christ, as*Bell. lib. 1. de Euchar. cap. 11. §. Ad quartum. Sanguis accipitur duobus modis in his duobus locis. Bellarmine doth, for feare of putting the bloud of Iesus Christ into the bloud of Iesus Christ? For it is certaine, that that which is in a thing, whether it be contained therein, whether it be infused therein, or whether it be adherent therein, is not one selfe same thing with that thing. For seeing that the Gospell witnesseth that Calix est in sanguine Christi, it saith euidently, that Calix non est sanguis Christ: a cup which is in the bloud of Christ, is not really the bloud of Christ, but sacramentally, and by commemoration, as it is added.
18 Our aduersaries charged with so many absurdities, defend themselues by impietie, which casteth them headlong into other absurdities. They say that there is mention made of two sorts of bloud of Iesus Christ, where of the one is a cup, the other was shed vponupon the crosse; wherof the one was powred vponupon the other, and whereof the one is the Testament, and the other not. But still it is the same bloud. If these seuerall respects, should make seuerall blouds of Christ, there would be a thousand sorts of bloud, one at the table, another in the ship, and another after the resurrection, &c. And if the bloud in the cup hath the honour to be the couenant, why should we depriue the bloud of the crosse of that honour? Then to effect this, they must forge two sorts of couenants, and by that meanes creep among thornes as snakes do, and couer rhemselues with a thousand wrested deuices against the force of truth.
19 Saint Matthew addeth, This bloud, or as Saint Luke and Saint Paul say, This cup is shed for many for the remission of sinnes.
The vnderstanding of these words depends vponupon those that went before; for seeing we hauehave proued that the Lord giueth to the signes the names of the things signified, it is agreeable to reason, that as the cup is the bloud of Iesus Christ sacramentally, so it should be shed sacramentally. For you must note, that the Euangelists say, is shed, and speake in the present tense, saying effunditur, and not effundetur, as the Masse and the Romish translation say. For although that this sacramentall shedding of the bloud of Christ for the remission of sinnes, hath relation to the effusion vponupon the crosse, yet we ought to translate the words faithfully. Also the translation in the present tense doth hinder vsus from knowing that our Sauiours intent was sacramentall, and that the name of the thing signified is attributed to the signe.
20 Herein our Aduersaries are much troubled. For if this shedding be sacramentall and a commemoration, we hauehave wonne our cause: and the Doctors of the Romish Church are on our side, who hauing glossed vponupon the Decretall in the 2. Distinction of Consecration, say, Sanguis effunditur, id est, effundi significatur, Cant. 5. Quotiescunque.The bloud is shed, that is, it is signified or represented that the bloud is shed. The Masse it selfe also, translating in the future tense effundetur, shall be shed, leadeth vsus the right way, to giuegive vsus to vnderstand, that the effusion in the Sacrament was a signification and representation of the effusion the next day vponupon the Crosse.
21 Yet our Aduersaries contend with vsus herein, and affirme, that the bloud of Iesus Christ is really and effectually shed in the Eucharist. But if you aske them, whether in the Eucharist the bloud issueth out of the body, or out of the veines; they say, no, and so contradict themselues, and confesse that the bloud is not really shed. They themselues call the Eucharist a Sacrifice without bloud; which should be false if therein bloud were really shed. They also contradict themselues when they say, that the bloud of our Lord stirreth not in the Eucharist, nor moueth, and yet it is shed therein, for all shedding is a mouing.
22 In this perplexitie their onelyonly refuge is, neuer to answer any thing to the purpose. For being asked, whether the bloud of our Lord is shed in the Masse, they say it is shed vnderunder the species. But we aske them not, vnderunder what thing the bloud is shed, but whether it be shed therein, or no. Adde hereunto, that the bloud which cometh not out of the bodie vnderunder the species, and which stirreth not from vnderunder the species, is not shed vnderunder the species.
23 They say, that the accidents which they call species, are shed, which is a capricious kinde of Philosophie, to imagine that the Priest powreth our lines, taste, and colour of wine without wine, and that the bloud is shed without issuing out of the body. So that the Priest filleth out, and drinketh, bones, flesh, and a liquid and potable humane bodie, which is whole in eueryevery drop of the wine.
24 The Lord concludeth his intent by a clause which definitiuely decideth the controuersie, saying, Matth. 26.29. I say vntounto you, I will not drinke henceforth of this fruit of the Vine. Saint Marke saith the like. Our Lord could not more plainly say that it was the fruit of the Vine which he dranke, and not bloud. For the fruit of the vine and wine are all one thing. It is true that Saint Luke speaketh of two cuppes, one of the paschall Lambe, the other of the holy Supper, and witnesseth also, that Iesus Christ called the cuppe of the paschall Lambe the fruit of the Vine. But Saint Matthew and Saint Marke speake onelyonly of the cup of the Eucharist, which they call the fruit of the Vine. It cannot be said, that they call that wine in the Cup the fruit of the Vine, of which they speake not at all. Then to make the Euangelists to agree, we must necessarily say, that Iesus Christ spake twise of the fruit of the Vine, and that administring the cup of the Eucharist, he vsed the same termes.Quod autem vinum in sanguine consecrauit patet ex eo quod ipse subiunxit, non bibam à modo de genimine, &c. For it were an intollerable boldnes to correct Saint Matthew and Saint Marke by Saint Luke, and to charge them to hauehave troubled the order and method of our Sauiours words in so important an action, whereat Saint Mathew himselfe was present. Pope Innocent the third, in the fourth booke of the mysteries of the Masse, 27. chapter, acknowledgeth, that Iesus Christ called that the fruit of the Vine which he consecrated in the Cup.
Being put from that, they hauehave another refuge, and say, that the wine is called the fruit of the Vine, in regard that it was so before. As if we should call a man of fiftie yeares of age, a childe, because once he was a childe: and ripe grapes veriuice, because they hauehave bene so. This is to say that a thing is that which it is not. The examples by them alledged of Moses Rod, that was called a Rod after it was changed into a Serpent; and of the water, called water after it was changed into wine, Iohn 2.9. are to no purpose. For that Serpent had bene a Rod, and that wine had bene water; but the bloud of Christ neuer was wine. And that Rod was turned into a Serpent, which it was not before. But here they will hauehave this wine to be turned into bloud, which was so already before the conuersion. Adde hereunto, that such a figure is repugnant to the nature of a Sacrament, which requireth that the name of the thing signified should be giuen vntounto the signe, and not that the name of the signe should be giuen to the thing signified. When we call the wine, bloud, we speake according to the custome and nature of Sacraments; but when we call the bloud of our Lord wine, or the fruit of the Vine, we ouerthrow the nature of the Sacrament, and embase the thing signified; and to shun a naturall and vsuall figure in these words, This is my body, induce a figure against nature, which is not vsuall, in these words, I will drinke no more of this fruit of the wine.