The Novelty of Popery Opposed to the Antiquity of True Christianity, Book 7 · Controversy 11 · Chapter 2
CHAP. 2. That the Doctrine of the Real preſence, and of Tranſubſtantiation, is repugnant to Chriſts Inſtitution. The Cardinals reaſons are examined.
THe inſtitution of this Sacrament affords us two ſorts of proofs, both clear and ſtrong: Some of them drawn from Chriſts words, ſome from the circumſtances of the action.
In the words of the Inſtitution we find, 1. That Chriſt took and broke bread. 2. That he gave bread to his Diſciples. 3. That this bread which he gave to his Diſciples, was his body. 4. That this bread is broken in the Euchariſt. 5. That his blood was ſhed in the ſame. 6. That Chriſt gave and broke bread, to be a remembrance or commemoration of himſelf. 7. That the thing which is in the cup, is the Teſtament or Covenant of Chriſt. 8. That the ſaid Covenant is in the blood of Chriſt. 9. That in the cup of the Sacrament, there was the fruit of the Vine. 10. That Saint Paul addeth, that it is bread which we eate in the Lords Supper, and that bread diſtinct from the cup. As many words, ſo many thunderbolts to overthrow Tranſubſtantiation.
Firſt proof.Firſt then, the Evangeliſts witneſs that Chriſt brake bread; But the Roman Church ſaith, That the Prieſt breaks no bread. For he breaks the Hoſt, after the words which they call conſecrating words, after which they hold that the Hoſt is no more bread. And to perſwade the people that it is the body of Chriſt which the Prieſt breaks, and not bread; the Roman Church hath put the fraction of the Hoſt after the pronouncing of the words, Hoc eſt corpus meum, &c. Whereas Chriſt broke the bread before he ſaid, This is my body. It was then bread when Chriſt broke; According to that which Saint Luke ſaith, Acts 20.7. The Diſciples came together to break bread. And Saint Paul, 1 Cor. 10.16. The bread which we break, is it not the Communion of the body of Chriſt? Wherefore when we ask our Adverſaries what it is that the Prieſt breaks, when he breaks the conſecrated Hoſt? they find themſelves ſhrewdly puzzled, and driven into brakes whence they cannot get out; neither do they underſtand themſelves. For what is it that the Prieſt breaks? Is it bread? But they ſay that it is no more bread, when the Prieſt breaks the Hoſt. Or doth he break the body of Chriſt? But themſelves ſay that it cannot be broken, and that it remains whole in every piece of the Hoſt. Are then the accidents broken? But it is going againſt common ſenſe, to go about to break colours and ſavours, and a length of bread without bread. And it is giving the lye to Scripture, which ſaith expreſly, that it is bread which we break and eate in the Lords Supper. Beſides the Roman Church pretends to offer and ſacrifice unto God, that which is broken in the Maſs, now one cannot ſacrifice unto God, ſavours, and colours, and lines. And theſe words, breaking the Hoſt, cannot ſignifie the breaking of thoſe accidents: For thoſe accidents are not the Hoſt or Victim for our ſins. Wherefore finding no way to get out, they never anſwer to the purpoſe, and being asked what it is that is broken in the Maſs? they anſwer that the body of Chriſt is broken under the ſpecies or accidents. But we did not ask under what the body of Chriſt is broken in the Maſs, but only whether it be broken? And truly theſe words, the body of Chriſt is broken under the accidents, ſignifie nothing elſe, but that the body of Chriſt is not broken in effect, but that the accidents are broken.
Second proof.The ſecond proof drawn from the words of the Inſtitution, is in theſe words, that Chriſt took bread and gave it. So it was bread which he gave. Now he gave it not but after the conſecration, then it was bread after the conſecration. This ſeems to me a ſtrong and a clear proof, which to elude, our Adverſaries either never alleadge theſe words, or being conſtrained to alleadge them, they alleadge together the following words, This is my body, which only they will ſtand upon. But the words of this Inſtitution are true, whether they be read with one breath, or that every clauſe be read apart. It is true then that Chriſt gave bread; it is true alſo that this bread is his body; and we muſt not make uſe of that coherence to overthrow the truth of either of theſe clauſes. That which is moſt to be noted, is, that theſe words which ſay that Chriſt gave bread, are not the words of Chriſt, as the following words, but they are the words of the Apoſtles, who long after that Inſtitution, declare to us that Chriſt, when he ſaid, This is my body, gave bread.
Then the Goſpel declareth, that Chriſt giving bread to his Diſciples told them,Third proof. This is my body. Which words ſay plainly, that the bread which he gave was his body, not that this bread was changed into his body by theſe words. Theſe words, This is my body, are declarative of that which is, not effective of that which is not; and they preſuppoſe that the bread was the body of Chriſt, before Chriſt ſaid, This is my body. As alſo all the Antients with one conſent hold, that the conſecration was done, not by theſe words, This is my body, but by the prayer. And reaſon it ſelf requireth, that the bread be rather conſecrated by asking Gods bleſſing upon it, then by ſpeaking to the bread. Beſides, the word this, can ſignifie nothing but what Chriſt held in his hand. Now our Adverſaries ſay, that when Chriſt pronounced the word this, he had yet the bread in his hand. Then the ſenſe of theſe words, This is my body, is, This bread is my body. Bellarmine here joyns with us, ſaying,(a)Bellar. lib. 3. de Euchariſt. cap. 19. ſect. Primum. Panem accepit, panem benedixit, panem dedit, & de pane dixit, Hoc eſt corpus meum The Lord took bread, he bleſſed bread, he gave bread, he ſaid of bread, This is my body. Since then Chriſt ſaid, that this bread was his body, and that bread cannot be the body of Chriſt indeed, but only in figure and ſignification, it followeth that the ſenſe of theſe words, This bread is my body, is, This bread is my body in figure or Sacrament. As the ſame Bellarmine acknowledgeth,(b)Idem lib. 1. cap. 1. ſect. Nonus. Haec ſententia, Hic panis eſt corpus meum, accipi debet tropice, ut panis ſit corpus Chriſti ſignificative, aut eſt plane abſurda & impoſſibilit. Theſe words, (ſaith he) This bread is my body, muſt be taken figuratively, ſo that the bread be the body of Chriſt in ſignification, elſe the propoſition is altogether abſurd and impoſſible.
I add that when Chriſt ſaid, This is my body, by the word this, he underſtood that which he gave. Now the Goſpel teſtifieth that he gave bread. Truly if we will believe the Goſpel, we muſt believe theſe two things: The one that Chriſt gave bread, the other that this bread was his body. And next we muſt conſider, how and in what ſenſe the bread can be called the body of Chriſt. Which himſelf teacheth us ſoon after, ſaying that it is his commemoration.
Fourthly Saint Paul teacheth us, that Chriſt giving the bread to his Diſciples,Fourth proof. ſaid, This is my body which is broken for you: Since he ſpeaks in the preſent Tenſe, he ſpeaks of a fraction which he did while he gave the bread. And whereas that fraction could not be real (for Chriſts body cannot be really broken by the Prieſt) he muſt of neceſſity ſpeak of a Sacramental and figurative fraction, repreſenting the fraction of Chriſts body on the Croſs. Whence it followeth, that as Chriſts body is broken but Sacramentally, not really in the Lords Supper, likewiſe Chriſts body is but Sacramentally, not really in the Sacrament. For the body of Chriſt is in the ſame manner preſent in the Euchariſt, as it is broken in the Euchariſt. Now it is not really broken in the Euchariſt, but in Sacrament▪ then it is really preſent there but in Sacrament, and (as it is ſaid a little after) in commemoration. The corrupt Verſion of the Roman Church, which tranſlates ſhall be broken, inſtead of is broken, would robb us of this proof, and keep us from knowing the ſenſe of Chriſts words. Not that this is a late depravation. Neither will I tax our Adverſaries to be the Authors of this falſification. Only we give them warning that they ought to correct their Verſion, ſince that depravation troubleth the ſenſe, and obſcureth the truth. And if after good warning, they continue to uſe a forged text to diſguiſe the truth, they are guilty of forgery.
Fifthly, Chriſt ſaith that this blood is ſhed. He ſaith not that it ſhall be ſhed, Fifth proof.but that it is ſhed: in the preſent, not in the future, as the Verſion of our Adverſaries falſly tranſlates it, fundetur inſtead of funditur. He ſpeaks then of a blood-ſhedding which was done, while Chriſt was ſpeaking. I confeſs indeed, that Chriſt ſpeaks of the ſhedding of his blood, which was to be done on the Croſs the next day; But he ſpeaks in the preſent, to give to underſtand to his Diſciples, that the effuſion which he was doing in the Sacrament, was a figure of that which was to be done on the Croſs. The true blood of Chriſt was Sacramentally ſhed in the Euchariſt.
Here our Adverſaries are ſore put to it, and never anſwer directly, or to the purpoſe. We ask them, Whether the blood of Chriſt be ſhed really and truly in the holy Communion? Their belief is, that it is not ſhed, and that it comes not out of the Lords body, nor out of his veins, and that Chriſts body is impaſſible, and that no local motion is made of the Lords blood. Yet not daring to contradict openly theſe words, which ſay in the preſent Tenſe, that Chriſts blood is ſhed when the cup is preſented; they ſay that it is ſhed under the ſpecies, that is, Under the accidents, under the colour and the taſte of Wine. But we did not ask, under what Chriſts blood is ſhed? but, Whether it be ſhed at all in the Euchariſt? And theſe words to be ſhed under the accidents or ſpecies, if they ſignifie any thing, they ſignifie this, to be ſhed in ſhew, not in effect. Yet they continue to ſay, that the blood of Chriſt is really ſhed under the ſpecies, that is, that the ſaid blood is ſhed really in ſhew, but not in effect, which is a manifeſt contradiction, and forging an effuſion without motion, a real effuſion of blood that ſtirreth not, and comes not out of the veins, a blood flowing without flowing, and without ſtirring. It is not then a natural effuſion. But it is the natural effuſion of the blood of Chriſt, which is the price of our redemption. And when the Apoſtle Heb. 9. ſaith, that without ſhedding of blood there is no remiſſion, he ſpeaks of the real and natural ſhedding, not of that which is done in ſhew, not in effect. And themſelves call the Euchariſt an unbloody ſacrifice, acknowledging that no blood is ſhed in it. Then the ſhedding of Chriſts blood in the Euchariſt, is a Sacramental ſhedding, ſignifying the ſhedding of the Lords blood on the Croſs, and a commemoration, as Chriſt addeth. There is nothing more convenient, then to uſe Sacramental expreſſions in the Inſtitution of a Sacrament, and in an action which is a figure, to uſe figures conformable to the nature of the action.
Sixth proof.Sixthly, Chriſt having given bread, ſaying, This is my body, addeth, Do this in remembrance of me. If this bread be given in remembrance of Chriſt, it is not Chriſt in effect, but in remembrance, as ſigns take the name of the things ſignified. Memorials are never the very things of which they renew the memory. Neican any thing be more abſurdly ſpoken, then that which our Adverſaries ſay, That Chriſt in the Euchariſt is both the ſign and the ſignified thing; and that(c)Bellar. lib. 2. de Euchariſt. cap. 24. Idem Chriſtus fuit figura ſui ipſius. Et ſect. Tertia. Eſt verè corpus Domini & ſignum ejuſdem corporis. he is the figure and commemoration of himſelf; as if one ſaid, that Alexander is the image of himſelf, and that the King and the Kings picture are the ſame thing. And (to make abſurdity ſuperlative) that the body of Chriſt which is inviſible in the Maſs, is the figure or image of the viſible body of Chriſt. Some viſible images of inviſible things may be found. But as for images, or ſigns, or inviſible and imperceptible figures of viſible things, there is none to be found; for ſigns and images that are inviſible and inſenſible, ſignifie nothing, and by conſequent are neither ſigns nor images.
To this add, that(d)Ariſtot. lib. de memoria & reminiſc. c. 1. foreign. memory is of things paſt or abſent. One may commemorate the actions paſt of a perſon in his preſence, but that is not a commemoration of the perſon preſent, but of his actions paſt. The tombes of Martyrs were called memories, not to remember their bones lying there, but their paſt ſufferings, and their abſent ſouls. Since then this Sacrament is given in remembrance of Chriſts body, it cannot be Chriſts body.
Indeed the fraction and manducation of the Sacramental bread, and the effuſion of the cup, are a commemoration of the death of Chriſt ſuffering for us, and of the ſhedding of his blood on the Croſs. But as for the Sacrament it ſelf, Chriſt ſaith that it is the remembrance of himſelf, ſaying, Do this in remembrance of me.
Seventh proof.Seventhly, Chriſt (according to Saint Pauls and Saint Lukes relation) giving the cup, called that which was in that cup the new Covenant, or the New Teſtament, (for the(e)foreign. Greek word ſignifieth both) ſaying, This cup is the New Teſtament. Theſe words give a great light to the intelligence of theſe words, This is my body. For, 1. The bread which the Lord gave, muſt be the Lords body in the ſame manner, as that which is within the cup is the New Teſtament. Now that which is within the cup, is not really a Teſtament, but in Sacrament and commemoration, as ſigns will take the names of the things ſignified. 2. Then reaſon it ſelf requireth that Chriſt ſhould uſe the ſame language for one kind, as for another. 3. And that to inſtitute a Sacrament, he ſhould ſpeak in a Sacramental way, that his words might be conformable to the nature of the action. Then the ſenſe of theſe words is, This cup is the ſign or the commemoration of the New Teſtament. 4. Or elſe we muſt ſay that wine or blood is a Covenant, that a ſubſtance is an accident, that wine is a contract. 5. That Chriſt whom they put in the cup is a Teſtament, and ſo that the Teſtator and the Teſtament are the ſame thing. 6. That the wine is tranſubſtantiated into a Teſtament. 7. That the blood of Chriſt is compoſed with Clauſes and Articles, for this is proper to every Teſtament. 8. And that by this tranſubſtantiation Gods Covenant was made, as if it had not been before.
They that (to avoid ſo many inconveniencies) will ſay that the blood which is in the cup is called a New Covenant, becauſe it is a ſeal and a confirmation of the New Covenant, plead our cauſe. For by the ſame reaſon I will ſay, that the Sacrament of bread is called the body of Chriſt, becauſe it is a ſeal and a confirmation to us, that the body of Chriſt is ours.
But the eighth obſervation ſeems to me the moſt evident of all,Eighth proof. That the Lord Jeſus did not only ſay, This cup is the New Teſtament, but added, In my blood, ſaying, This cup is the New Teſtament in my blood. Since that which is in the cup is the Covenant in the blood of Chriſt, it is clear that it is not the blood of Chriſt. Si calix eſt in ſanguine, calix non eſt ſanguis. Or if by this word cup, the blood of Chriſt muſt be underſtood, theſe words, This cup is the Covenant in my blood, will ſignifie, This blood is the Covenant in my blood. Thus the blood of Chriſt ſhall be in the blood of Chriſt; an abſurd expreſſion, contradicting it ſelf: Unleſs they will make us here two real bloods of Chriſt, and two Chriſts, which is a prodigious impiety.
The ninth proofNinth proof. is drawn from theſe words of Chriſt, related by Saint Matthew, that after the Lord had given the cup, he ſaid, I ſhall drink no more of this fruit of the Vine, till I drink it new in the Kingdom of heaven. By theſe words the Lord ſaith expreſly, that what he drunk in the Sacrament with his Diſciples was of the fruit of the Vine, that is, wine not blood, as the Council of Worms ſaith, in the fourth Chapter,(f)Apud Juonem part. 2. fol. 68. Vinum fuit in redemptionis noſtrae myſterio cum dixit, Non bibam de genimine vitis, &c. It was wine in the myſterie of our redemption, when the Lord ſaid, I will drink no more of the fruit of the Vine. Innocent the III. in the fourth Book of the myſteries of the Maſs, chap. 27. ſaith the ſame.(g)Quod autem vinum in Calice conſecraverit, patet ex eo quod ipſe ſubjunxit, Non bibam à modo, &c. Now that it was wine which Chriſt conſecrated in the cup, it appears by that which he added, I will drink no more of the fruit of the Vine. It is true, that Saint Luke ſpeaks of two cups, the one of the Paſsover, the other of the holy Communion, and ſaith that the Lord called alſo the cup of the Paſsover, the fruit of the Vine. But Saint Matthew and Saint Mark ſpeak not of the cup of the Paſsover, but only of the cup of the Sacrament. By conſequent then, they call the cup of the Sacrament, the fruit of the Vine. They teſtifie alſo, that the Lord ſaid theſe words after he had given the cup of the Sacrament. Then the Lord ſpake of that laſt cup which he had given them with, or immediately before theſe words: Unleſs we will accuſe theſe two Evangeliſts, that they have unfaithfully related theſe words of Chriſt, taxing them to have inverted his words, and to have ſaid of the cup of the Sacrament, that which the Lord ſaid only of the cup of the Paſsover. Why do we not rather believe Matthew and Luke alike, believing that Chriſt called each of theſe cups the fruit of the Vine? But that Matthew ſpeaks only of the cup of the Lords Supper, becauſe his principal end was to relate Chriſts words in the inſtitution of the Sacrament?
Some not bold enough to accuſe Matthew and Mark, that they inverted the Lords words, have recourſe to other ſhifts, and ſay that the blood of Chriſt is called the fruit of the Vine, becauſe it was wine before the conſecration, and becauſe it ſeems ſtill to be wine, after the conſecration. Theſe men find figures where they liſt, and rejecting an uſual and familiar figure, conformable to the nature of the action, whereby ſigns take the name of the things ſignified, they forge other figures which are hard, violent, and falſe. For it is falſe that ever the blood of Chriſt was wine. It is true, that the rod of Moſes is ſtill called a rod, even when it was turned into a Serpent, becauſe it had been a rod before. But the blood of Chriſt cannot be called wine becauſe it was wine, for it was never wine. The ſame I ſay of the water converted into wine, John 2.9.
With the like abſurdity they tell us, that the blood of Chriſt is called wine, becauſe it ſeems to be ſo. For that alſo is falſe. The blood of Chriſt never ſeemed to be wine. That figure ſhould be contrary to the nature of the Sacrament, which requireth that the ſigns be called by the names of the things ſignified; but by this expoſition, they make ſignified things, to be named by the names of the ſigns. Examples may be found in Scripture, of attributing the name of the ſigns to the things ſignified, but never in the inſtitution of Sacraments.
Tenth proof.Finally, The Apoſtle immediately after the words of the inſtitution of the Sacrament, addeth theſe words, As often as you eat this bread, and drink this cup, you ſhall announce the Lords death till he come. Wherefore whoſoever ſhall eat this bread or drink this cup unworthily, ſhall be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord. But let a man examine himſelf, and ſo let him eat of that bread, and drink of that cup. This Apoſtle who writ the laſt of this matter, and more largely then others, ſaith three times together, that it is bread which we eate in the Lords Supper. Now the Lords Supper is not eaten, but after the conſecration. It is then bread after the conſecration. The ſame he ſaith in ver. 16. of the tenth chapter. The bread which we break, &c. And Act. 20.7. The Diſciples came together to break bread. The text ſaith not, that the Diſciples were come together to ſing Maſs, for it was not the language of the Apoſtles, but to break bread; Which language in our dayes would be ridiculous. He that going to Maſs, would ſay, We are going to break bread; or, We are going to eat the Lords Supper; (as Saint Paul ſpeaks, 1 Cor. 11.20.) ſhould be held either an Heretick, or a diſtracted man.
The ordinary anſwer is, that the Lords body is called bread, becauſe it looks like bread, that is, that Saint Paul ſpeaks according to the appearance, not according to the truth. So they fill all with figures. They ſhould have brought then ſome expreſs of the Apoſtle, where he expounds himſelf, that we might not be deceived: But that they do not. Beſides they affirm a falſe thing: For the Lords body never lookt like bread. They ſay alſo, that the Lords body is called bread, becauſe it was bread before the conſecration. That likewiſe is falſe, for the Lords body was never bread. They inſiſt alſo upon the Pronoun this, and ſay that Saint Paul did not ſay the bread, but this bread, that is, this bread of life, this bread deſcended from heaven, which is Chriſts body. But Saint Paul never ſpake of bread of life, nor of bread deſcended from heaven. Theſe terms are found in Saint John, who writ after Saint Paul. Wherefore it is impoſſible that Saint Paul ſhould have had reſpect to thoſe texts of Saint John. He could not ſend back the Corinthians to a book not yet written, to have the intelligence of that he writ to them. And that bread of life mentioned in Saint Johns Goſpel, is never oppoſed to the cup, nor diſtinguiſhed from the cup. That is proper to the bread of the Sacrament. Beſides, Saint Paul ſaying this bread, uſeth a demonſtrative Pronoun, which can have no reference to any thing, but to the bread mentioned in the precedent lines, ſaying, Jeſus took bread and brake it. If Saint Paul ſaid this bread, not the bread, in another place he ſaith the bread, 1 Cor. 10.16. The bread which we break. There their myſtical interpretation faileth them. To interpret thoſe words of Saint Paul, The bread which we break; and, As often as you eat this bread; by theſe of Chriſt, This is my body, is to overthrow the nature of things, it is to take for granted that Chriſt is the interpreter of the words of the Apoſtle, whereas it was the Apoſtles charge to expound the words of Chriſt. To which add, that the Apoſtle writ long after that Chriſt had ſpoken theſe things, and ſpoke of them more copiouſly: Yet his words are wreſted in our dayes with unuſual figures, contrary to the nature of the Sacrament.
Beſides, it is an errour to interpret Saint Pauls words, ſpeaking of the Sacrament, by the words of Chriſt, in the ſixth Chapter of Saint John, where Chriſt ſpeaks not of this Sacrament. For at that time the Sacrament of the Euchariſt was not yet inſtituted. And when Chriſt ſaid, I am the bread of life, he was already the bread of life, and ſo is ſtill, as well out of the Sacrament, as with it.
Saint Pauls words, 1 Cor. 10.16. The bread which we break, is it not the Communion of the body of Chriſt? put our Adverſaries upon the rack. Every word of that Text is contradicted by the Roman Church. The Apoſtle ſaith, that it is bread that we break. The Roman Church ſaith, that it is fleſh which cannot be broken, and that the whole body is under every crum. The Apoſtle ſaith, that the bread which we eate, is the Communion with the body of Chriſt. But the Roman Church ſaith, that it is not the Communion with the body of Chriſt, but the very body of Chriſt. Obſerve alſo, that the Apoſtle in the ſame place, to ſhew how this bread is the Communion with the body of Chriſt, oppoſeth the Communion of the Table of the Lord, to the Communion of the Table of Devils. And with that Table Communion might be had, although the meats conſecrated unto Devils, were not tranſubſtantiated into Devils.
By all theſe proofs, it appears in what ſenſe bread is called the body of Chriſt, even becauſe it is the Sacrament of the remembrance of the ſame. For it is the nature of Sacraments to name ſigns, with the name of things ſignified, not to call things ſignified with the name of ſigns. Thus circumciſion is called Gods Covenant, Gen. 17.10. And the Paſchal Lamb is called the Paſsover, that is, the paſſage, Exod. 12.11. and in many other places, becauſe it was the commemoration of the paſſage of the Angel through Aegypt. And the Ark is called the Lord, 2 Sam. 6.2. And the ſtone which yielded water in the Wilderneſs, is called Chriſt, 1 Cor. 10.4. And the cup of the Sacrament, in this very text is called the New Covenant. Thus then the bread is called the body of Chriſt, becauſe it is the commemoration of the ſame, as Chriſt declareth, Do this in remembrance of me. Neither could any thing be more convenient, then in an action which is a figure, to uſe a figure ſuitable to the nature of the action,
There is more, for all that are skilled in the Hebrew tongue, know that it hath no proper word to ſay, This ſignifieth my body, and that inſtead of ſignifies, it ſaith is alwayes. Thus the three branches are three dayes, Gen. 40.12. And the ſeven kine are ſeven years, and the ſeven ears are ſeven years of famine, Gen. 40. Theſe bones are the whole houſe of Iſrael; Ezek. 37.11. The tree that thou ſaweſt, it is thou O King, Dan. 4.20, 22. And the ten horns are ten Kings, Dan. 7.24. The ſeven heads are ſeven hills. And the woman which thou ſaweſt is the great City, Rev. 17.9. & 18. See Gal. 4.24.
This figure is ſo natural and uſual, that he that would ſpeak otherwiſe and uſe proper words, ſhould make himſelf ridiculous, as if inſtead of a ſphere one ſhould ſay, the repreſentation of the Celeſtial ſpheres.
Our Adverſaries themſelves make this evident, for while they will avoid this figure, ſo natural and ſo convenient to the nature of the Sacraments, they are forced to bring in a multitude of other unuſual and violent figures. For by the word this, they underſtand that which is under theſe ſpecies, and make it an individuum vagum, and no certain thing. And by this bread, they will underſtand this fleſh, or this body. And when Saint Paul ſaith, The bread which we break, by the bread they underſtand the fleſh, and by breaking, they underſtand not breaking. For (ſay they) Chriſts body remains whole in every piece. Thus when the Lord ſaith, This cup is the New Teſtament in my blood; they forge(h)Bellar. lib. 1. de Euchar. cap. 11. ſect. ad quartum. Sanguis accipitur duobus modis in his duobus locis. two bloods of Chriſt, the one in the cup, the other ſhed on the Croſs, the one being in the other, making Chriſt to ſay, This blood is the New Teſtament in my blood, as if the blood of Chriſt were in the blood of Chriſt.
Thus when Chriſt ſaid, I leave the world, John 16.18. and, I am no more in the world, John 17.11. And me you have not alwayes, John 12.8. And when Peter ſaid of Chriſt, that the heaven muſt receive or contain him, until the times of the reſtitution of all things. Acts 3.21. to make theſe texts to agree with the doctrine of the Roman Church, which ſaith that the body of Chriſt is alwayes preſent in earth in a million of places, in Altars, in boxes, in ſtomacks, &c. ſo that he is far more preſent in earth, then he was before his Aſcention, and is not contained in heaven; they ſay that Chriſt in thoſe texts ſpake of his viſible preſence, and that when he ſaid, I leave the world, and am no more in the world, we muſt ſupply viſibly: This tayl they ſow up, and add this gloſs of their own, without the Word of God: And ſpeak againſt common ſenſe; For they ſpeak as if one ſwore that he hath no money, reſerving this ſecret meaning, none that you can ſee.
Certainly, to have Chriſt inviſibly, is to have Chriſt. That man ſhould be a lyar, that would ſay, that he hath no money becauſe his money is hidden, or that he hath no ſoul, becauſe his ſoul is inviſible, or that he goeth out of the Town and leaveth it, whereas he remains hidden in the Town. They make then Chriſt to leave the world, and yet to ſtay in the world; to go out of it, and yet not to ſtir out of it: And that the heaven contains the Lords body, as Saint Peter ſaith, and yet that body is out of heaven, and is not contained in it.
No Painter with his anticks can come near their extravagancies and prodigious licence in wreſting Scripture, and forging figures, for which neither Grammar nor Rhetorick ever found any name.
Circumſtances.The circumſtances of the action, time and perſons give here a great light. 1. When Chriſt inſtituted the Lords Supper, his body was not yet glorified, but was infirm, paſſible and mortal. By conſequent, to give unto Chriſt a body without place, and yet in an hundred thouſand places, having a length without extent, in vain do they alleadge that the body of Chriſt is glorious. For it was not glorious as yet, when he gave the bread, ſaying, This is my body. By conſequent, they give us two bodies of Chriſt at the ſame time, clad with contrary qualities, the one glorious and impaſſible, the other infirm and paſſible. The one having a place, the other having none. The one ſitting at the Table, ſpeaking and ſtirring his hands, the other in the mouthes and ſtomacks of his Diſciples, not ſpeaking, and not able to change place, becauſe he was not in any place. The one having a certain extent of length, and the parts of his body different in ſeat, the other having no extent, and having all his parts under the ſame point of the Hoſt. If they were two bodies of Chriſt, which of the two was our Saviour? If it was but the ſame body, how can the ſame body be contrary to himſelf? The ſame man can in the ſame time be poor and rich, great and ſmall, but in divers reſpects, that is, when he is compared with divers perſons. He may be great, compared to a Dwarf, and ſmall compared to a Giant. But here they attribute contrary things unto Chriſt at the ſame time, without comparing him to any other but himſelf.
It is moſt important to obſerve, that Chriſts body is preſented to us in the Lords Supper, for the food of our ſouls; Not as he is now glorious and impaſſible, but as dying for us, and ſuffering for our redemption. As often as you eat this bread, (ſaith the Apoſtle) you ſhall announce the Lords death. Wherefore alſo the bread is broken, to ſignifie his body ſuffering on the Croſs. Then is Chriſt, whether in the Sacrament, or out of the Sacrament, the food of our ſouls, when we apprehend him dying for us, and delivering himſelf to death, for the life and ſalvation of the world, John 6.51.
In vain then do they go about to cover all the abſurdities ariſing out of the doctrine of Tranſubſtantiation, by ſaying that the body of Chriſt is glorious, ſeeing that we apprehend him in the Sacrament as infirm, and dying, and in the loweſt point of his ignominy.
2. It is conſiderable alſo that as Chriſt made no elevation of the Sacrament, ſo the Apoſtles made no adoration of that which Chriſt held in his hands, but remained ſitting at the table. Neither is it to any purpoſe to reply that they did not adore Chriſt, becauſe they had him continually with them; for they had never eaten him, and never been preſent at ſuch a ſacrifice. Now every ſacrifice of neceſſity implyeth adoration.
3. It is alſo a notable circumſtance that Chriſt in the holy Communion ate and drank with his Diſciples. According to the doctrine of the Roman Church, he ate his own body. He had his head in his mouth; His whole body entred into his ſtomack; This implyeth a thouſand contradictions, which we have repreſented in another place. And that work of eating himſelf being more miraculous then his conception, reſurrection, and Aſcenſion, yet our Adverſaries can produce no benefit of the ſame, and cannot tell us how it conduceth to our redemption, that Chriſt ate himſelf, yea and drank his bones and fleſh, ſince they teach that the body was whole in every drop of the Chalice.
4. We muſt not omit that our adverſaries hold with Auſtin and Hierome that Judas took the Sacrament, and ate with the other Apoſtles. Now the Goſpel witneſſeth that the Devil entred into him when he ſate at the table. If our Adverſaries muſt be believed, the body of Chriſt, and the Devil entred together into Judas. Theſe two gueſts ſhould have been ill together. And we muſt believe beſides that the ill gueſt, the Devil prevailed.
5. To avoid ſo many abſurdities there is no other way, but to ſay with the Evangeliſts that Chriſt gave bread, and that the Diſciples are bread, and drunk the fruit of the vine; and that this bread is called the body of Chriſt, becauſe it is the commemoration and the ſign of the ſame, according as the Sacraments and ſigns are commonly named with the name of that they ſignifie and repreſent. As Auſtin ſaith in the 23. Epiſtle to Bonifacius, The Sacraments, by reaſon of the likeneſs, are commonly named with the name of that they ſignifie or repreſent. And againſt Adimantus, ch. 12.(i)Non dubitavit dicere, Hoc eſt corpus meum, cum daret ſignum corporis ſui. The Lord made no difficulty to ſay, This is my body, when he gave the ſign of his body. And Theodoret in the firſt Dialogue(k)foreign. The Lord gave unto the ſign the name of his body. (l)foreign.Again, Chriſt hath honoured the viſible ſigns with the appellation of his body and blood, having not changed their nature, but added grace unto nature. And Tertullian in the fourth book againſt Marcion, ch. 40.(m)Hoc eſt corpus meum, id eſt, figura corporis mei. This is my body, that is, the figure of my body. And Maximus who commented on Dionyſius, ſpeaking of that which is received in the Sacrament,(n)foreign. Theſe things (ſaith he) are ſignes and not the truth. Of which teſtimonies we ſhall ſpeak more exactly hereafter.
Out of all that we have ſaid it appeareth, how ill grounded the reaſon of Cardinal du Perron is, who alleadging theſe words, This is my body, clipt and curtailed, weighing neither what goeth before nor what comes after, ſaith that this very thing that the Lord ſaid, This is my body, and did not expound how it was his body, ſheweth that theſe words need no explication, and therefore muſt be taken according to the outward literal ſenſe, not according to a hidden indirect and Allegorical ſenſe. For we have ſhewed how clearly theſe words, are expounded in the Goſpel, in that it is ſaid that Chriſt gave bread, and that in remembrance of him, and that the Lord hath drunk the fruit of the vine with his Diſciples, and that it is bread which we eat in remembrance of his death, and in that the Lord calls the cup his Covenant, although it be but the Sacrament or the ſign of his Covenant. And how expreſs and excellent is St. Pauls expoſition whereby he expounde…h theſe words, This is my body, ſaying, The bread which we break is it not the communion of the body of Chriſt?
Yet ſuppoſe that in the Goſpel theſe words, This is my body, are not expounded, doth it follow thence that there is no figure in them? When Chriſt ſaid,(*)Joh. 15.1. I am the true vine, and my Father is the husbandman, he added no expoſition to it, yet our Adverſaries acknowledge a figure in that expreſſion. And whereas after he had ſaid, This is my body, he ſaid, This cup is the new Teſtament; they are conſtrained to acknowledge a figure in it. Yet the Lord added no expoſition to it. I ſay more, that when figures are clear, familiar, and uſual, that man ſhould be ridiculous that would trouble himſelf to expound them. He that ſhewing the picture of Julius Caeſar ſaith, This is Julius Caeſar, ſaith enough to be underſtood; And he ſhould ſhew himſelf a ſhallow braind man if he added, By Julius Caeſar I underſtand, not his perſon, but his picture. And our Adverſaries feigning to avoid all figures in theſe words wreſt them into a figurative ſenſe, ſince by the word this, they underſtand not that which Chriſt held in his hand (for accoding to their belief he held bread yet at that time) but an individuum vagum, and that which lyeth under the accidents. So that by the word is, they underſtand ſhall be, or ſhall become. (*)Pag. 867.And the Cardinal himſelf ſaith, that by the word this is underſtood that which Chriſt held when he had made an end of pronouncing the words; Whereby he interfereth himſelf with a contradiction. For when Chriſt ſaid this, he had not yet made an en end of pronouncing. The Cardinal then ought to have ſaid, not that which Chriſt held, but that which he was to hold after pronouncing. Truly in that matter the Adverſaries ſtumble at every ſtep, and the contrary of that they ſay muſt alwayes be underſtood. They ſay that the hoſt is round, yet they know that Chriſt is not round, and that the accidents are not the Hoſt, or victim for our ſins. They ſpeak of making an elevation of God, yet they know that God cannot be elevated. They ſpeak of the Sacrament of the body of Chriſt, whence it follows that the Sacrament is not the body of Chriſt. They ſay that the Sacraments are ſacred ſigns, and yet ſay that they worſhip the Sacrament. It is the nature of thoſe that defend an error, to ſay, and unſay, and deſiring to be believed, yet they believe not themſelves.
That which the Cardinal addeth, that the thing which our Lord held in his hand before the pronouncing of theſe words, This is my body, was not the body of Chriſt, That, I ſay, is falſe, and the ſpring of the whole error. For it was not by theſe words that Chriſt conſecrated the bread but by the prayer and bleſſing which went before. And it is clear that theſe words, This is my body, are not words which make bread to become the body of Chriſt, but words declaring that the bread was his body already. All the Antient Fathers agree in that, and hold that the conſecration is made by prayer and invocation. Juſtin Martyr in the ſecond Apology calls that which we receive in the Euchariſt,(o)foreign. a food conſecrated by the prayer of the Word proceeding from God. Auſtin in book 3. ch. 4. of the Trinity,(p)De fructibus terrae acceptam & prece myſtica conſecratam That which is taken from the fruits of the earth, and conſecrated by the myſtical prayer. (q)foreign.Theodoret in the ſecond Dialogue brings in an heretick, and advocate of Tranſubſtatiation ſpeaking thus, The ſignes of the body and blood are other before the Prieſts invocation, but after the invocation they are changed. (r)foreign.Origen in book. 8. againſt Celſus, We eat loaves by prayer made a body which is a certain holy thing. (s)Qui eſt à terra panis, percipiens invocationem Dei, jam non communis panis eſt, ſed Euchariſtiae.Ireneus book. 4. ch. 4. The bread receiving Gods invocation is no more common bread but the Euchariſt.
Baſil in the book of the holy Ghoſt. ch. 27. calls the words of Conſecration, foreign, the words of invocation when the bread is ſhew'd.
(t)Corpus & ſanguinem Chriſti dicimus illud, quod de fructibus terrae acceptum & prece myſtica ſanctificatum rectè ſumimus, &c.And the Canon Corpus in the ſecond Diſtinction of the Conſecration, We call the body and blood of Chriſt that which being taken from the fruits of the earth, and conſecrated by the myſtical prayer, is rightly taken by us for ſpiritual ſalvation, in memory of the Lords paſſion. And which is more, that great builder of Decrees and Canons, Innocent the III.(u)Alii dixeruns, quod & Sacramentum confecit, & formam inſtituit poſt benedictionem, cum dixit, Hoc eſt corpus meum, &c. Quibus illud videtur obſiſtere, quod prius fregerit quam dixerit, Hoc eſt corpus meum. in the fourth book of the myſteries of the Maſs ch. 6. holds that Chriſt did not conſecrate by theſe words, This is my body, but by his divine vertue before he pronounced theſe words. Yet this day the Greek Church conſecrateth by prayer, as Bellarmin acknowledgeth in book 4. of the Euchriſt, ch. 12. §. Habemus.
The Cardinal goeth on, A ſubſtantial attribute (ſaith he) cannot be ſaid ſubſtantially of a ſubject, of which it was not ſaid before, unleſs either the ſubject be ſubſtantially changed, or the ſubject have taken ſome other ſubſtance in an hypoſtatical union. By theſe words he preſuppoſeth the thing in queſtion, namely that this word body is ſubſtantially, attributed to that which Chriſt held, that is, to the bread: But that we deny, and he brings no proof for it.
Upon that falſe preſuppoſition all the reſt of the chapter is grounded, and by conſequent doth not concern us. By the way this Prelat gives us an excellent proof of his exquiſite learning, in theſe words, When the water pots of the Architriclin were filled up. He ſpeaks of the Architriclin, as if he had been a man of that name, and the owner of theſe water pots. Or if he takes not theſe words for a proper name, it is evident howſoever that he knew not what the office of the(x)De Architriclino vide Graeco rum catenam; & Theophylactum in cap. 6. Joh. Chryſoſt. hom. 11. in Johan. ubi ait, Architriclinum nihil adhuc guſtaviſſe & curaviſſe, ut in convivio omnia recte diſponerentur. Architriclin was. For if he had known it, he had known alſo that thoſe water pots were none of his. The office of the Architriclin was to wait in a feaſt, to give order to the kitchen and to the ſerving of the meat and to taſte the wine. He did not ſit at the table but went up and down the houſe, doing the ſame in mean houſes as ſtewards do in great houſes. See Chryſoſtom Hom. 21. upon John. Every houſe of the Jews had ſuch water pots for the legal waſhings and purifications. As it is ſeen, Joh. 2.6. and they belonged not to the care of the Architriclin, who had the ordering of the feaſt. By the ſame reaſon the tablecloth diſhes and plate might have been called the Architriclins goods.