Answer to Book by Romish Priests, Doctrine 39 – Doctrine 40
XXXIX. That the Bread of the Supper of the Lord, was but a Figure, or Remembrance of the Body of Chriſt received by Faith; and not his true, and very Body.
Anſwer.
THIS is Fiction, and falſe Repreſentation. For we expreſly declare in the XXVIII. Article of our Religion, That it is a Sacrament of our Redemption by Chriſt's Death, in ſo much that to ſuch as rightly, worthily, and with Faith receive the ſame, the Bread which we break, is a partaking of the Body of Chriſt, &c. And in our Catechiſm we alſo declare, That the inward and ſpiritual Grace in this Sacrament, is the Body and Blood of Chriſt, which are verily and indeed taken and received by the faithful in the Lord's Supper. And Mr. Calvin himſelf ſaith as much.
But if we had not been of this mind, his firſt place of Scripture, XXII. Luke 15.XXII. Luk. 15. would have proved nothing againſt us; for it ſpeaks only of eating the Paſſeover; in duplicate page duplicate page which he inſtituted this Sacrament; but that followed after: Here he ſpeaks only of the Paſchal Feaſt. Inſomuch, that Menochius thus interprets it, He moſt earneſtly deſired to eat the Paſchal Lamb of this year, and this day, in which the Euchariſt was to be inſtituted; and ſhortly after it was to be ſhown by his Death, how much he loved Mankind, whom he ſo redeemed. It was not therefore the Paſche (as this Man ſpeaks) of his true Body and Blood, which our Saviour thus deſired to eat. This is an idle fancy of a dreaming Divine, who hath a Divinity by himſelf; which forbids him to admit Faith to have been in the Son of God. But St. Peter was a better Divine than he, who applies thoſe words of David to our Bleſſed Saviour, My fleſh ſhall reſt in hope, becauſe thou wilt not leave my ſoul in hell, &c. II. Acts 26, 27. Now I would fain know of this Learned Divine, whether there can be any Hope without Faith, which made him confidently expect to be raiſed out of his Grave.
XXII. Luke 18.That which follows alſo in XXII. Luke 18. I will not drink of the fruit of the vine, &c. plainly belongs to the Paſchal Feaſt, as they ſtand in St. Luke; who immediately thereupon proceeds to the Inſtitution of the Sacrament; and ſpeaks of the Cup that is there adminiſtred, as different from the Cup he had before mentioned. If this Man had underſtood his buſineſs, he ſhould rather have alledged XXVI. Matth. 29. where immediately after the Inſtitution of the Sacrament, he adds theſe words, But I ſay unto you, I will not drink henceforth of the fruit of the vine, &c. which St. Luke puts before the Inſtitution. But it is a wonderful ſtupidity, to conclude from hence, as this Man doth, That Chriſt will drink his own Blood in Heaven, (or elſe he concludes nothing) becauſe there is no material Bread and Drink in uſe there. Menochius (to name no others) might have taught him better, who thus expounds this paſſage. Our Saviour ſpeaks after the manner of men, who being to depart from their Friends for a long time, are wont to ſay, We ſhall Eat and Drink together no more. As I ſhall not drink of this fruit of the vine, till that day, &c. when I ſhall drink ANOTHER New and Coeleſtial Wine with you, in the Banquet of Eternal Glory. And he might have known, that we from hence, with a wonderful force, (to uſe his own phraſe) conclude, That Wine remains in the Sacrament after Conſecration; becauſe our Saviour calls that which he ſaid before was the New Teſtament in his Blood, the fruit of the Vine, that is Wine. And ſo not only we, but Origen, Cyprian, Chryſoſtom, Auſtin, Hierom, Epiphanius, Bede, Euthymius, and Theophylact, refer the fruit of the Vine unto the Blood of Chriſt, before mentioned; as Maldonate himſelf acknowledges, and could not produce ſo much as one Father to the contrary.
He might have known alſo, that a great many of his own Church,VI. John 51. do not think St. John VI. 51. and other verſes of that Chapter, ſpeaks of Sacramental Bread; as for other reaſons, ſo for this; that if he did, then ſuch as Judas, who eat the Sacramental Bread, muſt have Eternal Life. Which we find our Lord promiſes, v. 40, 47. to thoſe who believe on him; and this we take to be the eating he here ſpeaks of, as appears by the whole ſcope of the Chapter. For if any ſuch Converſion, as they fancy in the Sacrament, and call Tranſubſtantiation, could be proved out of this Text, it would prove the Fleſh of Chriſt is turned into Bread, rather than the Bread into his Fleſh; becauſe he ſaith. The Bread that I will give you, is my Fleſh. To make this good literally, it is manifeſt, his Fleſh muſt be made Bread. See into what Abſurdities theſe men draw themſelves, by their perverſe Interpretations. It is not worth conſidering what he ſaith about Beza's interpretation of one word in this Verſe; there being thoſe of his own Church, as well as he, that by living Bread, underſtand Bread that gives Life; which is muſt ſuitable to the words preceding, and unto v. 33.
We have noted often enough our Saviours words, both in XXVI. Matth. 26. and XXII. Luke 19. And therefore do not ſay, as he ſlanders us, That Chriſt gave, and the Apoſtles received, nothing elſe but bare Bread; for it was the Sacrament of Chriſt's Body; as Druthmarus, and a great many more Ancient than he, expound thoſe words, This is my Body. We believe alſo, and thankfully acknowledge, that the Bread and Wine in the Sacrament, is the Communion of the Body and Blood of Chriſt. But thoſe are St. Paul's words, 1 Cor. X. 16. not our Saviours; which ſpoils this man's Obſervation, that our Lord calls it his Body, both before, and at the very giving of it. Which if he had done, (tho theſe, as I ſaid, are St. Paul's words, who only calls it the Communion of his Body, &c.) it would prove nothing, but that the Bread is his Body, which we believe, and they are ſo abſurd as to deny. Tho we have bidden them note, how St. Paul, in that very place he next mentions (1 Cor. XI.) often calls that, which he ſaith is the Lord's Body, by the name of Bread, v. 26, 27, 28. But they ſhut their Eyes, and will not take any notice of it. Why ſhould we then regard his frivolous Argument (to which he at laſt betakes himſelf) againſt our true and real receiving of Chriſt by Faith? Unto which Dr. Fulk hath long ago given a ſufficient Anſwer, in his Notes upon this Chapter. We receive him after a Spiritual manner, By Faith on our behalf, and by the working of the Holy Ghoſt on the behalf of Chriſt. So there is no need, either of our going up to Heaven, or Chriſt's coming down to us, as he ſillily argues.
His Ancient Fathers have been ſo often viewed, and ſhown to be againſt them by our Writers, and that lately (particularly the two firſt he mentions) that I will not go about a needleſs labour, to give an account of them.
XL. That we ought to receive under both kinds; and that one alone ſufficeth not.
Anſwer.
VEry true: for ſo Chriſt appointed; ſo the Apoſtles both received and gave it; ſo the Church of Chriſt for above 1000 years practiſed; and wo be to them, who alter Chriſt's Inſtitution. Which cannot be juſtified by ſuch fallacious Arguments as this man here uſes, inſtead of giving us expreſs Scripture for it. That he promiſed, but alas! could find none; and therefore makes little trifling reaſonings his refuge.
Firſt from VI. John 51.VI. John 51, 53. which I have ſhewn doth not ſpeak of Sacramental eating: but if it did, the next Verſe but one, he could not but ſee, told him, that it is as neceſſary to drink Chriſt's blood, as to eat his fleſh. To which the Anſwer is not ſo eaſy as he fancies: for we have only Dr. Kelliſon's word for it, that the conjunction and is uſed for or. Men may put off any thing by ſuch ſhifts: and it is as ſufficient, and as learned, for us to ſay, it is expreſly and in our Bible, and not or; and you do nothing if you confute us not, as you undertook, by the expreſs words of our own Bible. How ſtrangely do men forget what they promiſe, and what they are about? Beſides, the Fathers from theſe very words prove the neceſſity *See late Treatiſe againſt Communion in one Kind. Ch. 3.of giving both the body and blood of Chriſt: and attribute a diſtinct effect to each of them. Particularly the Author of the Comments under the name of St. Ambroſe, in I. Cor. XI. The fleſh of Chriſt was delivered for the ſalvation of the body, and the blood was poured out for our ſouls.
He ſhould have proved, not barely affirmed, that Chriſt gave the Sacrament to the Diſciples at Emaus, XXIV. Luke 30, 35.XXIV. Luke 30, 35. We ſay he did not; though if he had, it is to be ſuppoſed there was Wine as well as bread: elſe it will prove it is lawful for their Church to conſecrate, as well as to give the Communion, in one kind alone. Nor are there any of the ancient Interpreters who thus expound it. St. Auſtin and Theophylact, only apply it allegorically and myſtically to the Sacrament (as Janſenius ingenuouſly acknowledges) the vertue of which may be here inſinuated (as Theophylact phraſes it, not expreſly declared) to enlighten the eyes of men. The Author of the imperfect Work upon St. Matthew is thus to be underſtood: or elſe we muſt make St. Paul's breaking bread in the Ship among the Soldiers and Mariners (Acts XXVIII.) to be giving the Sacrament: for that Writer joins this together with the other. The later Scholaſtick Writers, all expound it of common breaking of bread, ſuch as Albertus Magnus, Bonaventure, Dionyſ. Cathuſianus, nay Tho. Aquinas himſelf, whatſoever this man is pleaſed to ſay, as any one may be ſatiſfied who can look into him, in Tertull. Diſt. XXI. Q. 55.
It is more impudence to quote II. Act. 42. to prove one kind to be ſufficient: when all acknowledge this Action was performed in the Apoſtolical Aſſemblies, by giving the Wine as well as the Bread. Therefore breaking of bread is uſed as a ſhort form of Speech, to ſignify they had Communion one with another, at the ſame holy Feaſt.
He durſt not here quote ſo much as one ſingle Father, as hitherto he hath done every where elſe: becauſe they are all manifeſtly againſt him. As not only Caſſander, and ſuch as he, acknowledge, but Cardinal Bonel *Rer. Liturg. l. 2. c. 18.himſelf ſaith, that Always and every where, from the beginning of the Church, to the Twelfth Century, the faithful communicated under the Species of Bread and Wine.