The Buckler of the Faith, Part 2 · Article 38 · Subpart 4 – Subpart 5
Other places of the Scripture touching this matter.
Sect. 27 The onelyonly institution of this holy Sacrament may suffice to ouerthrow their errors, and to confirme and establish the truth: yet you shall see a number of places more out of the Scripture touching this matter; which we will set downe.
1 The Apostle Saint Paul, 1. Cor. 11.26. hauing declared the institution of the holy Supper, addeth: For as often as ye eate this bread and drinke this cup, ye do shew the Lords death till he comes. Wherefore whosoeuer shall eate this bread, and drinke this cup of the Lord vnworthily, shall be guiltie of the body and bloud of the Lord. But let a man examine himselfe, and so let him eate of that bread, and drinke of that cup. This excellent Apostle three times in this one place saith, that we eate bread, and it is not eaten but after consecration. This sheweth then that that which Iesus Christ said to be his body, was still bread in that sence, and for the reasons aforesaid.
Then I aske our aduersaries, if when the Apostle three times in one place saith, that we eate bread, whether the word bread ought to be taken properly and without a figure, or whether it ought to be taken figuratiuely for the body of Iesus Christ. If it be taken properly, we are satisfied, and so it is bread still after consecration. But if they will affirme that S. Paul three times together spake figuratiuely, and that we must expound the figuratiue words of Saint Paul by Iesus Christs words this is my body; therein they manifestly discouer their vnfaithfull dealing. For they know that Iesus Christ is not an expounder of the Apostles words, but that the Apostles are expositors of Iesus Christs words. And who ought to speake more clearely, either he that is expounded or he that expoundeth? He that spake first and briefly, or he that speaketh after him and more at large? Specially considering we see that Iesus Christ saying, This is my body, did sufficiently expound himselfe; but Saint Paul saying three times one after another, that we eate bread, addeth no exposition. And if by this word bread so many times rehearsed by the Apostle we must vnderstand flesh, should not the same Apostle be culpable of holding the people in an error, and of digging a ditch to make them to fall into it? seeing he knew that sense and reason witnesse that it is bread, whose reports men naturally beleeue?
But seeing that our aduersaries turne all things into figures, let vsus see how they expound those figures: they will hauehave the body of our Lord to be called bread, because it was bread before consecration. Which is false, for Christs body neuer was bread. Besides, it is more conuenient to call things by those names which they are, then by those things which they are not any more. And if there be a place or two in the Scripture where that is vsed, there are thousands that call things that which they are, and not that which they hauehave bene. 2. Also they say, that Saint Paul saith, that we eate bread in stead of saying, that we eate the body of Christ, because it seemeth to be bread. That also is false, for the body of our Lord neuer seemed to be bread. It is true, that our aduersaries say that the body of our Lord is couered ouer with the species of bread, but men neuer giuegive things that are couered, the names of those things which couer them; we call not a scabbard a sword, we neuer say that a man is a chest although he should be hidden in a Chest.
Notwithstanding the extenuating of this sacred bread, redoundeth to the dishonour of Iesus Christ; as when men treade the kings great seale vnderunder their feete, the king, & not the waxe is dishonoured thereby: so to prophane this bread, is to prophane the Sonne of God; therefore he which receiueth it vnworthily, receiueth his owne condemnation, because he discerneth not the body of our Lord. They would make the Apostle to say, that such an one doth not discerne that it is the body of our Lord which he hath eaten: whereas the sence of the Apostles words are, that such an one doth not discerne the body of our Lord, which he hath wronged and dishonored.
2 In Acts. 2.46. it is said, that the disciples did breake bread from house to house; and Acts 20.7. When the disciples came together to breake bread. Which place our aduersaries confesse, is meant of the Sacrament of the Eucharist. They therefore who denie that they did there breake bread, will be wiser then the Apostles, and condemne the words of the Spirit of God, which at this day would be ridiculous. For which of our aduersaries would endure a Priest, that in stead of saying, I go to sing Masse, should say, I go to brake bread? Here also our aduersaries find another figure, and by the word bread, will hauehave vsus to vnderstand flesh.
3 In 1. Corinthians 10.16. the Apostle saith, The bread which we breake is it not the cōmunion of the body of Christ? Adde hereunto, that he saith that we breake bread: and it appeareth that by bread he vnderstandeth true bread, and not the body of Christ, because he saith the bread is broken. The body of Christ cannot be broken, it is not broken vnderunder the species, if it remaineth whole vnderunder the species. Besides he saith, that this bread is the communion of the body of Christ; but the body of Christ is not the communion of the body of Christ. It must then be bread: and when we breake that bread we participate in the body of Christ, vnlesse we will giuegive the Apostle the lye thrice in one line, by saying, that it is no bread, but flesh; that the flesh is not broken, and that it is not the communion of the body of Christ, but the body of Christ it selfe. The communion of the body is not without the body, but yet it doth not hence follow, that the communion of the body is the body. In a flame of fire, the brightnesse is not without the heate, yet the brightnesse is not the heate.
4 In Acts 3.21, Saint Peter saith, Whom the heauen must containe vntill the time of restitution of all things. The Greeke word sometimes signifieth containe, foreign as also capere in Latine.and sometimes receiue, but here it cannot be taken for receiue. For it is false that the heauen receiueth Iesus Christ vntill the day of iudgement. He hath bene once receiued therein, and there is contained for euer; and if he be contained there, he is no more on earth.
5 Iesus Christ, in Saint Iohn 17.11. being ready to leaue the world to go vntounto his Father, speaketh as being already departed out of the world, saying, And now I am no more in the world. And 16.18. I leaue the world and go to my Father. And 12.8. For the poore alwayes ye hauehave with you, but me ye hauehave not alwayes. And 13.1. Iohn saith, When Iesus knew that his houre was come that he should depart out of this world vntounto the Father. Here Iesus Christ declareth that he is no more in the world, that he left the world, and that we should not alwayes hauehave him with vsus. These speeches dislike the Church of Rome, for she will hauehave vsus to hauehave Iesus Christ alwayes with vsus, and that he should now be oftener & more on earth, then he was when he liued here on earth in his infirmitie: for then he was but in one place at one time, but now they will hauehave him to be in a thousand places all at one time; and not onelyonly that his body should be here among men, but also in the power of men, who keepe it vnderunder locke and key, for feare of mice, or lest it should be stolen away.
They make answer and say, that in these places Iesus Christ saith that he is not visibly in the world, that he leaueth the world, and that we shall not hauehave him alwayes, as touching his visible presence. This is a kinde of mockerie. For to hauehave Iesus Christ inuisibly, is alwayes to hauehave Iesus Christ, and to be alwayes present inuisiblie, is not to leaue the world. He lieth that saith he hath no money, because his money is hidden in his pocket; or he that should say that he hath no soule, because his soule is inuisible. He that is in Paris, and hideth himselfe in a place where no man can see him, cannot therefore be said that he is not in Paris.
But there is nothing that more euidently confuteth this euasion, then the promise of Iesus Christ made to his Apostles, Iohn 14.15. whereby he promiseth them, that going from them, he would for a recompence, and for their comfort, send them the holy Ghost, whom he calleth the comforter. Certainely if Iesus Christ is really present vnderunder the species in the holy Supper, our Lord could and would hauehave comforted them otherwise touching his absence, by saying, You shall no more hauehave me present touching my visible presence, but I will be really present vnderunder the bread, in your mouthes and in your stomackes, in such manner that I will be much more present & nearer vntounto you, then I was during my visible conuersation here on earth.
6 These considerations put vsus in minde of the propheticall aduertisement of our Lord Iesus Christ, giuen Mat. 24.24. saying, There shall arise false Prophets and false Christs, who shall shew great signes and wonders, and shall say, behold Christ is here, or he is there, or that he is in the secret chambers; whom he forbiddeth vsus to beleeue. Then when our aduersaries say, there is Christ in the host, or that God goeth by, or that he is in the pixe, or in a chamber vnderunder locke and key, and that thereupon men tell vsus of miracles, we admire the Propheticall words of the Sonne of God, and adore his iudgements, touching the hardning of mens hearts.
A briefe and certaine exposition of these words: This is my body.
Sect. 28 Out of all that which is said before, it is an easie matter to set downe a briefe and certaine exposition of these words, This is my body, drawne out of the most expresse words of the Scripture.
The vnderstanding of these words depends vponupon the right and true exposition of the word This, and of the exposition of the words my body.
By the word This, it is out of question that Iesus Christ vnderstood that which he brake and gaue to his disciples, and that which he commanded them to eate. The Gospell witnesseth that Iesus Christ brake bread, He tooke bread, and blessed it, and brake it. And Saint Paul, 1. Cor. 10.16. saith: The bread which he breake. And Acts 20.7. Being come together to breake bread. And the Gospell witnesseth that Iesus Christ gaue bread, He tooke bread and blessed it, and brake it, and gaue it. The Apostle Saint Paul also, 1. Cor. 11. witnesseth that it is bread that we eate, saying, When you shall eate of this bread. And againe, But let a man examine himselfe, and so let him eate of that bread. Then the sence of the word This, is thus; The bread which I breake, and giuegive you to eate.
And by consequence, these words, This is my body, are as much to say as, this bread which I breake, and giuegive you to eate, is my body. Which proposition being not true, if it be taken in the literall sence, (seeing that bread is not really and actually the body of Christ) it is certaine that in these words there is a figure.
Now to know this figure, we must learne it by the words following, which Iesus Christ addeth, saying, Do this in remembrance of me. And by the nature of the present action, which is a Sacrament and a sacred signe, to the which by consequence sacramentall phrases are conuenient. They are called sacramentall phrases when the signe is called by the name of the thing signified, in the same manner that in the line following the cup is called the couenant: because it is a signe and a Sacrament of the couenant. Which is the vsuall manner of speaking in the Scripture, as we hauehave shewed before.
This then is the exposition of these words, This is my body, gathered out of the Scripture: The bread which I breake, and which I giuegive you to eate, is the remembrance of my body.
Which exposition whosoeuer reiecteth, gainsayeth all the expresse places of the Scripture as hauehave bene alledged, and against the nature of a Sacrament; and to shun a simple, naturall and an vsuall figure in the Scripture, fit and conuenient for the present action, induceth a multitude of other vnaccustomed figures, without any example, and contrary to the nature of a Sacrament, as we will shew. And so affirme that Iesus Christ did eate himselfe, that the body of our Lord and the diuell both at one time entred into Iudas. And that the Lord had a mortall body which sate at the table with his disciples, and that at the very same time he had a body without infirmitie, and impassible in the mouthes and stomackes of the Apostles. Which obstinacie of men resolute in error, God hath punished with so great blindnesse, that they hauehave proceeded so farre, as that they beleeue that rats or mice can eate the body of our Lord, now when he is in heauen fitting on the right hand of God.