The Sum of Christian Religion, Catechism · Part 2 · Section · Question 78

The Sum of Christian Religion · Catechism · Part 2 · Section · Question 78

p. 436Queſt. 78. Are then the bread and wine made the very body and bloud of Chriſt?ON THE 19. SABBATH.

Anſ. No verilyaaMatt. 26.29. Mark 14.24.Matt 26:29Mark 14:24: But as the water of baptiſm is not turned into the bloud of Chriſt, but is only a ſigne and pledge of thoſe things that are ſealed unto us in baptiſmbbEpheſ. 5.26.Eph 5:26: ſo neither is the bread of the Lords Supper the very body of Chriſtcc1 Cor. 10.16. & 11.26.1 Cor 10:161 Cor 11:26; although, according to the manner of Sacraments, and that forme of ſpeaking of them, which is uſuall to the holy GhoſtddGen. 17.10, 11. Exod. 12.11, 13. & 13.9. Titus 3.5. 1 Pet. 3.21. 1 Corinth. 10.4.Gen 17:10Gen 17:11Exod 12:11Exod 12:13Exod 13:9Titus 3:51 Pet 3:211 Cor 10:4 the bread is called the body of Chriſt.

The Explication.

THe Papiſts Tranſubſtantiation (under which alſo Conſubſtantiation, maintained by the Ubiquitaries and others, is comprehended) is in this Queſtion of the Catechiſme conſuted and rejected; and the ſacramentall kind of ſpeech which we uſe, with the true ſenſe of thoſe words of Chriſt, This is my body, examined and unfolded. We will firſt intreat of that forme of ſpeech which we uſe, and of the true meaning of Chriſts words: then will wee handle the controverſie of Tranſubſtantiation and Conſubſtantiation. That therefore which hath been heretofore ſpoken in generall of ſacramentall phraſes and termes, muſt be reſtrained to this Sacrament: For thus Auſtine himſelf deſcendeth from the generall rule of ſacramentall termes, unto a particular inſtance of eating Chriſts fleſh:E…iſt. 23. ad Bonif…. This (ſaith he) is the only way to find whether a phraſe be proper or figurative; That whatſoever in Gods word cannot properly be referred to ſome point of morall duty, or to the truth of faith, you may be aſſured, that it is figuratively ſpoken. And a little after hee produceth this example; Except yee eate the fleſh of the Sonne of man, and drink his bloud, yee have no life in you. Hee ſeemeth, ſaith Augustine, by theſe words to injoyne us ſome hainous crime. It is therefore a figurative ſpeech, instructing us, that wee are to partake of Chriſts paſsion, and joyfully and fruitfully to recall to mind how his fleſh was crucified and wounded for us. Wherefore, as of p. 437Baptiſme (as hath been already declared) ſo of the Lords Supper alſo the Scripture ſpeaketh ſometimes properly, and ſometimes figuratively. The ſpeech is figurative, when Chriſt ſaith of the bread, This is my body: and of the cup, This is my bloud. Likewiſe when Paul ſaith, This cup is the new Teſtament in my bloud. For in theſe the name of the thing ſignified is attributed to the ſigne: Paul alſo then ſpeaketh figuratively, when he ſaith, This is my body which is broken for you; becauſe he attributeth the property of the ſigne (which is, to be broken) to the thing ſignified. Thus Cyprian muſt be underſtood: When we drink of the cup, we cleave to the croſſe, Serm. de Coena. Hom 24. in 1 Cor. 10. & Hom. 27.1 Cor 10wee ſuck Chriſts bloud, and lay our tongues in our Redeemers wounds. Thus Chryſostome is to be interpreted, when he ſaith, Chriſts bloud is in the chalice; Chriſts body, which is in heaven, is preſented on earth to our view; and is not only ſeen, but touched of us; nor touched only, but eaten alſo: he is held, bitten, and eaten of us, in token of love, as ſometimes wee bite at him whom we love, and touch his fleſh with our tongue. Theſe ſentences are not truly ſpoken or underſtood of the body of Chriſt, but by a trope and figure uſuall in ſacraments. Now the ſpeech is proper, when Chriſt ſaith, Doe this in remembrance of me: and when the Fathers every where ſay, The breaking of bread is a memoriall, a lively ſhadow of Christs ſacrifice: The bread ſignifieth the body of Chriſt: It is a figure, a ſigne, a ſacrament of the body of Chriſt.

Of the controverſie concerning the words uſed in the Supper.

NOw, whereas our adverſaries, the Papiſts and others, deny that Chriſts words are ſacramentally ſpoken, and ſay we are to keep the letter; wee muſt here adde ſomething touching the controverſie of the letter, and meaning of the letter. The Papiſts bear us in hand, that by the vertue and force of conſecration there is made a tranſubſtantiation, or changing of the bread into the body of Chriſt, the accidents only remaining. Others tell us of a conſubſtantiation, or co-exiſtence of Chriſts body in, or with the bread. The Tranſubſtantiaries,The Tranſubſtantiaries and Conſubſtantiaries relie not on the ſimple meaning of Chriſts words. together with the Conſubſtantiaries, doe boaſt and glory, that they underſtand the words of Chriſt ſimply and aright: But neither perform that which they brag and boaſt of; for that is the true ſimplicity and property of the word, whereunto, for the juſt underſtanding and interpretation thereof, nothing is to be added, neither ought to be taken from it, neither any thing altered. But as many as hold that the body of Chriſt is with, in, or under the bread, they adde unto the words of Chriſt, and depart from true ſimplicity: For if that which Chriſt ſaid is ſimply to be retained, and that not to be admitted which he ſaid not; then may we not ſay, The bread is both bread and the body of Chriſt: but ſimply this only, The bread is the body of Chriſt. For he ſaid not, My body is with, or in, or under the bread; or, The bread is both bread, and my body together: neither addeth he, as theſe adde of their own, really, ſubstantially, corporally; but he uttereth theſe bare words of the bread, This is my body. Neither have the Tranſubſtantiaries their opinion drawn from the words of Chriſt ſimply underſtood, namely, that of the bread is made the body of Chriſt, or, the bread is changed into the body of Chriſt: for this is their own forgery and invention. For Chriſt ſaid not, that the bread was now made, or was a making, or ſhould be made; but ſimply ſaid, The bread is my body, where no change could come between: ſo that the words of Chriſt be ſimply underſtood. Therefore falſly do they perſwade the people that they ſimply reſt on the propriety of Gods word, when as manifoldly and moſt farre they ſwerve and depart from it.

The true interpretation of Chriſt. words.We Proteſtants retain the words of Chriſt without adding or altering; to wit, that the bread is the body of Chriſt, and indeed, the true and viſible body which was given for us. But becauſe theſe words literally taken, would admit a ſenſe repugnant to the truth of Chriſtian faith (for if bread were properly Chriſts body, it would follow, that bread was crucified for us) therefore we affirm, that in Chriſts words a convenient meaning muſt be inquired after; that is, Chriſts words muſt be underſtood ſacramentally: namely, that the bread is called Chriſts body, becauſe it is a ſigne of Chriſts body; the cup, or wine in the cup is called Christs bloud, p. 438becauſe it is a ſign of Chriſts bloud; the cup is alſo called the new Teſtament, becauſe it is a ſigne of the new Teſtament; even as baptiſm is termed a waſhing away of ſins, and a laver of new birth, becauſe it is a ſigne of both theſe, which are wrought properly by the bloud and ſpirit of Chriſt. The true ſenſe therefore and naturall interpretation of Chriſts words is, This is my body which is given for you: that is, This bread broken by me, and given to you, is a ſigne of my body delivered to death for you, and an authentick ſeal of your conjunction with me; ſo that he which ſhall beleeve, and eat this bread, he truly and really after a ſort eateth my body. Here therefore to the ſigne is attributed the name of the thing ſignified, both for the conjunction which the thing ſignified hath, in the right uſe of the Supper with the ſigne: and alſo for the proportion which the ſigne hath with the thing ſignified.

In this expoſition we are not led and over-ruled by Philoſophy and humane reaſon (as our adverſaries traduce us, and bear the world in hand we are) but we obſerve thoſe rules by which, in the joint conſent of all ſound wiſe men, wee are to cenſure the interpretation of any Scripture whatſoever: namely by the analogie and rule of faith: by the nature of the thing or ſubject: by the teſtimonies of Scripture which teach the ſame thing. Three rules w…ereby we may judge of the interpretation of Scripture.For by help of theſe three rules, the naturall ſenſe of Scripture is wont to be examined, as often as neceſſity driveth us from the letter to the ſenſe and meaning. 1. That no interpretation be received diſſonant from the rule of faith, or repugnant to any article thereof, or any commandement of the Decalogue, or any expreſſe teſtimony of Scripture: for the ſpirit of truth is not contrary to it ſelf. 2. That the ſenſe derived out of words ſignifying any thing, have a congruity with the nature of the thing ſignified by the words, as in this preſent ſubject of the Supper whereon wee inſiſt; when any queſtion or doubt is moved therein, we are to enquire, ſeeing it is a Sacrament, how the Scripture elſe-where ſpeaketh of Sacraments, and of the Supper it ſelfe. 3. That other like places be weighed and conſidered, by which it is either manifeſt and granted, or may be demonſtrated by ſome circumſtance, that they contain the ſame doctrine concerning the ſame thing, which is contained in the place in controverſie. For if we be fully reſolved of the meaning of any cleerer and uncontroverſed place, we ſhall alſo be reſolved of the ſenſe of the place in controverſie, if the ſame thing be delivered in both. So then it is out of doubt, that that meaning of the words of the Supper which is agreeable with theſe rules, is true: and thoſe untrue which diſagree from them. But this our conſtruing and interpretation (which indeed is not ours, but the doctrine of Chriſt himſelf, his Apoſtles, and all orthodox or right-beleeving antiquity) doth every way ſute with theſe rules: wherefore undoubtedly it is moſt true, and beſt beſeeming the truth of the Goſpel. Now let us come to the arguments by which wee prove our interpretation to be true: they are of four ſorts; 1. Some are taken out of the text it ſelf, and circumſtances of the inſtitution of the Lords Supper. 2. Some are taken from the nature of the thing or ſubject; that is, by underſtanding the ſpeech, as the thing it ſelf doth bear and ſuffer: namely, according to the nature of all Sacraments. 3. Some are drawn from an analogie of the articles of our faith, or from a conference of places or parts of Chriſtian doctrine. 4. Some are taken from other like places of Scripture, where the ſame thing is delivered in ſuch words as are manifeſt, and whereof there is no controverſie.

1. The first ſort of arguments taken out of the text and circumſtances of the institution of the Lords Supper.

He ſate down.1. CHriſts humane nature, at the firſt celebrating of the Supper, by a corporall kind of placing, ſate in his proper place at the table, and now is in heaven: wherefore then it was not, neither is it now corporally in the bread, or in the place of the bread.

He took bread.2. Chriſt at the firſt Supper took not into his hands, nor brake his body, but bread: wherefore bread is not properly and really the very body of Chriſt.

This is my body.3. Chriſts body was born of a virgin: But bread is made of meal: therefore it is not really Chriſts body.

p. 4394. Chriſt ſaid of the viſible bread being broken, This is my body; and of the viſible cup being diſtributed unto his diſciples, This cup is the new Teſtament in my bloud: Therefore the Papiſts retain not the letter, when they ſay, My body is contained under the forms of bread and wine: nor the Ubiquitaries, when they thus ſpeak, My body is in, with, under this bread: and much leſſe when both of them ſay, My inviſible body, contained under this form, or under this bread, is my body. For both of them do not only manifeſtly decline from the letter to a gloſſe of their own; but ſhamefully pervert Chriſts words in the former gloſſe, as if it were written, My body is under this: and in the later they father on Chriſt a childiſh tautologie, or repetition of the ſame thing; as if he had ſaid, My body is my body.

Which was given for you.5. Chriſts body which we eat in the Supper was delivered to death, and crucified for us: But bread was not given and crucified for us: Therefore bread is not properly and really the body of Chriſt.

This cup is the new Teſtament.6. As the cup is the new Teſtament, ſo the bread is the body of Chriſt: The cup is the new Teſtament ſacramentally (as before hath been ſhewed, and now may be farther proved by this reaſon; The new Teſtament properly is not drunk with the mouth, but beleeved with the heart: but the cup is drunk with the mouth: therefore the cup cannot properly be the new Teſtament.) Therefore the bread is Chriſts body in the ſame ſenſe, to wit, ſacramentally.

7. If the bread be properly Chriſts body, and the cup his bloud, it muſt needs be, that in the firſt Supper the bloud was ſeparated from Chriſts body, and that now both of them be given us apart, as they are ſignes apart: But neither in the firſt Supper was the bloud then without the body, neither is the body now given without bloud (for then Chriſt was not yet dead, and now he dieth no more:) Therefore the bread is the body, and the cup the bloud of Chriſt, not properly, but ſacramentally.

8. That which Chriſt himſelf did eat and drink, was not properly his body and bloud; elſe ſhould hee have eaten and drunken himſelfe: But hee did eat of that bread, and drink of that cup; for he ſaith, I will drink no more of the fruit of the vine: Mark 14.25.Mark 14:25and Chryſoſtome commenting hereon, ſaith, Hee alſo drank of the cup, Hom. 83. in Mark.lest hearing thoſe words, they ſhould ſay, What? Doe wee then drink bloud, and eat fleſh? and ſo be troubled. For when hee first made mention of this kind of eating and drinking, many took offence for the words ſake onelyonly: Therefore, lest this ſhould then alſo happen, hee himſelfe first did eat and drinke, that ſo hee might lead them with a quiet repoſed mind to the communion of the myſteries. The bread therefore and the cup are not properly Chriſts body and bloud, but ſacramentally.

Doe this in remembrance of mee.9. Remembrance is not of things corporally preſent, but of things abſent: Chriſt inſtituted this ſacrament to be celebrated in remembrance of him: Therefore Chriſt is not corporally preſent in the bread or ſacrament.

Doe this.10. Either Chriſt with his body is not ſubſtantially in the bread or forme of bread, or the Supper is not to be any more celebrated: (For the Apoſtle biddeth us eat of this bread, and drink of this cup, and ſhew forth the Lords death till he come:) But queſtionleſſe, the celebration of the Supper is not yet to be intermitted, but ought to be continued unto the end of the world: Chriſt therefore is not yet come, neither is he corporally in the bread, or form of bread.

11. As the bread was the body of Chriſt in the firſt Supper, and the diſciples did eat Chriſts body; ſo and no otherwiſe the bread is now Chriſts body, and wee eat Chriſts body; for our Supper is no other then the Supper of the diſciples was: But in the firſt Supper the bread was not eſſentially Chriſts body, neither did the diſciples eat Chriſts body with their mouthes in the bread, or in the form of bread; for Chriſt corporally and viſibly ſate at the table with his diſciples, and ſuffered no change the whole action throughout: Therefore now alſo the bread is not eſſentially Chriſts body, neither do we eat Chriſts body with our mouthes in the bread, or in the form of bread.

p. 4402. The ſecond ſort of arguments which are taken from the nature of the Sacraments.

1. THe very manner and form of ſpeaking yeeldeth us a firm and ſtrong argument. Bread is the body of Chriſt: But bread is not in his own proper ſubſtance his body (for by reaſon hereof have they invented Tranſubſtantiation and Conſubſtantiation): Therefore it is a figurative ſpeech, even ſuch a one as is uſuall unto ſacraments, and is afore declared in the inſtitution of the Supper.

2. In all ſacraments, when the name or properties of the things ſignified are attributed unto the ſignes, there is not ſignified the corporall preſence of the thing in the ſignes; but firſt, a ſimilitude of the things with their ſignes, and a ſealing of them by their ſignes; then a conjunction and union of the things with their ſignes in the right uſe: But in this Sacrament Chriſt attributeth the names of the things ſignified (his body and bloud) to the ſignes (the bread and wine) ſaying, This is my body: This is my bloud: Therefore there is not thereby ſignified a corporall preſence of his body.

3. The nature of all ſacraments is, that the ſigns be underſtood and taken corporally, that the things ſignified muſt be underſtood and taken ſpiritually; and that the viſible things be not the things ſignified, but only ſignes and pledges of them.

4. Sacramentall phraſes and termes are ſacramentally to be underſtood: Theſe words of the Supper, This is my body, This is my bloud, are ſacramentall phraſes; for they ſignifie the Sacrament, and attribute the names of the things ſignified to the ſignes: Therefore they are to be underſtood ſacramentally. Object. There is no figurative ſpeech expreſſed in the words of the Supper: Therefore wee may not ſo interpret them. Anſw. The Antecedent is falſe: for Chriſt himſelfe adjoined a ſacramentall declaration immediately on them, ſaying, Doe this; that is, eat this bread, and drink this cup: in remembrance of me; that is, that therby ye may be certified and aſſured, that my body was given, and my bloud was ſhed for you, and given to you to be meat and drink unto life eternall. Again, This cup is the new Teſtament in my bloud; that is, the ſeale of the new Teſtament, and promiſe of grace now fulfilled in my bloud.

5. Whatſoever is not promiſed in the Goſpel, that cannot be ſealed unto us by the Supper; for ſacraments confirm, exhibite, promiſe, ſeal no other thing then the word doth; whence they are termed viſible promiſes, and viſible words: In the Goſpel is promiſed no corporall eating;Joh. 6.62, 63.John 6:62John 6:63 nay, it is peremptorily reproved and condemned by Chriſt in the Goſpel by two arguments: 1. Becauſe not long after hee would exalt his body into heaven, and remove it far from the Jews mouthes. 2. Becauſe the corporall eating of his fleſh profiteth nothing. Neither doth he there diſtinguiſh the eating of him into a groſſe and a finer manner; but ſimply rejecteth all eating of his fleſh with the bodily mouth: We may not therefore forge any corporall eating in the Supper contrary to the Goſpel.

6. The conceit of a corporall preſence and feeding on Chriſts fleſh under the bread, is wholly different and diverſe from the formall conſideration of a Sacrament: Therefore it is to be rejected. The Antecedent is proved; becauſe it cannot be accounted either for the ſigne, or the thing ſignified, of which two every Sacrament wholly conſiſteth. It is not the ſigne or ſacrament, becauſe it is not object to the ſenſes; and if it were, there is nothing which it might ſignifie. And further, it hath no proportion or ſimilitude with the thing; that is, with the ſpirituall eating. Neither can it be ſaid to be the thing ſignified, ſeeing the Scripture no where ſpeaketh of an eſſentiall transfuſion, and reall commixtion of Chriſts fleſh with our bodies, neither can there be any, except wee entertain the follies and dreams of Eutychians and Swenckfeldians: For the ſacraments teſtifie of thoſe bleſſings only, and them onelyonly doe they ſeale unto us, which are contained in the promiſe of the Goſpel. Againe, it is not the thing ſignified; becauſe this eating may be without faith, and is common to the godly and ungodly: But the things ſignified in the ſacraments are p. 441received by faith alone, and of the faithfull and godly alone. Beſides, if it were the thing ſignified, none had ever beene ſayed, or at any time ſhould have beene ſaved without it. For, in all Sacraments the things ſignified are the ſame, and are given to all that are to be ſaved; becauſe they are the benefits of the Meſſias, comprehended in the promiſe of the Goſpel: which benefits are the ſame unto all, and without them no man is ſaved: Therefore no place is left for a ſubſtantiall preſence, and mouthy eating of Chriſts body under the bread, or under the forme of bread; and this ſubſtantiall preſence, and mouthy eating, is indeed nothing but a vaine name, and Idoll in the world. Object. The corporall eating is a ſigne of the ſpirituall eating, and a ſingular confirmation of faith: Therefore Chriſts body is alſo a Sacrament or ſigne; and inviſible grace is the thing ſignified. Anſw. The Antecedent is denied: 1. Becauſe Chriſts fleſh under the bread is inviſible: Therefore it cannot ſignifie another inviſible thing, or ſtrengthen faith. For Sacraments or ſignes ought to be viſible; ſo that it deſerveth not (ſaith Eraſmus) to be called a Sacrament, which is not accompliſhed by an externall ſigne. For to this end and uſe are they given of God, that they may (as it were) effectually ſhew to our outward ſenſes, that which is promiſed in the Word, and performed by the holy Ghoſt in our hearts, that they may be viſible teſtimonies and pledges of the promiſe of grace exhibited and applyed. Whence is that ſaying of Austine: a Sacrament is a viſible word: And,Lib. 19. cap. 18. cont. Fault. & lib. 2. cap. 1. De Doct. Chriſt. & de Catech-rud. ca. 26. Proſp. in ſentent. it is a viſible forme of inviſible grace. And, A ſigne is a thing beſides that forme which it preſenteth to our ſenſes, cauſing ſomething elſe by it ſelfe to come into the knowledge. And, the ſignes indeed of divine things are viſible, but the things themſelves are inviſible. And that of Proſper; The ſacrifice of the Church conſisteth in two things: in the viſible forme of elements, and the inviſible fleſh and bloud of our Lord Jeſus Chriſt: in the Sacrament or ſigne, and in the thing of the Sacrament; that is, the body of Chriſt. Therefore no thing or action which is inviſible, inſenſible, and not naturall, can make the nature or appellation of a Sacrament. And conſequently they, who will have Chriſts fleſh in, under, or with the bread to be a Sacrament, or will have the bread to be transſubſtantiated into his fleſh, let them ſhew us a viſible or ſenſible eating of it in the Supper, leſt they ſeeme to diſſent from the ancient Fathers. 2. There muſt be an analogy and proportion betweene the ſigne or Sacrament, and the thing ſignified, or the thing of the Sacrament. For, Except the Sacraments (ſaith Auſtine) had ſome ſimilitude of thoſe things, whereof they are Sacraments, they were not verily and Sacraments. Now,Epiſt. 23. ad Bonifacium. if Chriſt fleſh be alſo a Sacrament, and the thing of thoſe Sacraments be inviſible grace; what proportion then and ſimilitude ſhall there be between the two Sacraments? but ſeeing there can be none, it followeth, that Chriſts fleſh may not be called a Sacrament; as being no leſſe the thing it ſelfe of the Sacrament, then eternall ſalvation ſignified, by way of proportion, by viſible bread, as by a ſigne. Wherefore the ſacramentall eating, which is done naturally by the mouth, doth not belong unto the body of Chriſt, conſidered by it ſelfe, in any phyſicall or naturall reſpect: becauſe unto this ſacramentall eating the externall ſignes only are object in their owne nature. S. Auſtine demanding how bread is the body of Chriſt, and wine his bloud: Theſe (ſaith he) brethren, are therefore called Sacraments: becauſe in them one thing is ſeene, and another thing underſtood. That which is ſeene, Serm-ad Infant.hath a corporall forme; that which is underſtood, hath a ſpirituall fruit. If then thou wilt underſtand the body of Chriſt, here the Apostle ſpeaketh to the faithfull, Yee ar the body of Chriſt and his members. If then yee be the body of Chriſt, and his members, your mystery is ſet on the table, &c.

7. The communion of Chriſt, which is promiſed in his Word, and ſealed in his Sacraments, is not corporall, but ſpirituall. But the communion of Chriſt, which is given in the Supper, is the ſame with that which is promiſed in the Word and ſealed in all other Sacraments: Therefore the communion of Chriſt in the Supper, is not corporall, but ſpirituall. The Major is manifeſt. For, in the Goſpel, no other communion is delivered or ſpecified, but that which is ſpirituall. The Minor alſo is evident, becauſe the ſame benefits are propoſed in all the promiſes of the Goſpel, which are preſented and offered in the Sacraments. For the Sacraments are the viſible p. 442word; becauſe they promiſe that which the Word promiſeth, by viſible ſignes, and are ſeales of the promiſe of the ſame grace.

8. There is one and the ſame ſignification of all the Sacraments of the Old and New Teſtament; and in them, one and the ſame communion of Chriſt. But the ſignification of all other Sacraments, and their communion is ſpirituall onelyonly: Therefore there is no other in the Supper. The Minor is granted on all ſides. The Major is demonſtrated by the Apoſtle in theſe words;1 Cor. 12.13. & 10.2.1 Cor 12:131 Cor 10:2 By one ſpirit we are all baptized into one body: And, All were baptized unto Moſes in the cloud and in the ſea, and did all cate the ſame ſpirituall meate. Object. There is not the ſame thing ſignified of all Sacraments. For, in Baptiſme, the thing is, The waſhing by the bloud of Chriſt; in the Supper, The body and bloud of Chriſt. Anſ. The thing is not diverſe: becauſe it is the ſame, To be waſhed by the bloud of Chriſt, and, To drink the bloud of Chriſt: as we have heretofore proved. But the manner of the ſignifying one and the ſame thing is diverſe: that is, there is a diverſe ſimilitude of one and the ſame thing ſignified by the ſignes, or one and the ſame thing hath a diverſe ſimilitude or proportion: Therefore, as in Baptiſme, ſo in Circumciſion likewiſe and the Paſſeover, is promiſed a ſpirituall thing, not a corporall; and ſo alſo here in the Lors Supper.

3. The third ſort of Arguments, which are deduced from the analogie of faith.

1. FIrme and ſtrong reaſons are drawne from the Article, which is concerning the truth of Christs humane nature. Chriſt took a humane nature, like unto us in all things, ſinne only excepted, and retaineth the ſame through all eternity, for our comfort and ſafety: but humane nature is neither infinite, neither can it be in moe places at once, nor viſible and inviſible both together. For, it is proper unto the Deity only, which is unmeaſurable, to be eſſentially in many, or in all places at once, according to that ſaying of Scripture:Jerem. 23.24.Jer 23:24 Am not I he which fill heaven and earth? and by this very attribute or property God is diſtinguiſhed from all creatures. Now, the God-head it ſelfe cannot at the ſame time be both viſible and inviſible, finite, and infinite, but in its own ſubſtance remaineth alwayes inviſible, incomprehenſible and infinite, elſe could it not be unchangeable. We may not therefore imagine, that when Chriſt ſaid, This is my body, his body then ſate both viſible to them at the Table, and yet was inviſible alſo in the bread: or that now it is both viſibly converſant in heaven, and inviſibly contained in the bread.

2. From the Article of Aſcenſion: Chriſt aſcended truly; that is, was in his body viſibly and locally taken up into heaven, ſo that his body remained not, nrr now remaineth on earth, but in heaven, whence he ſhall viſibly returne to judgement. He is not therefore in the bread. Or thus we may urge the reaſon: Chriſts body is finite, as being a true body. But it is now in heaven: Therefore Chriſts body is not in While they beheld him, he was taken up. Acts 1.9. Coloſ. 3.1.Acts 1:9Col 3:1Seek the things which are above, where Christ is. The Major alſo is evident. For if the true and very body of Chriſt be infinite, it is on earth, was no true body of Chriſt, but apparent and phantaſticall: becauſe it cannot agree, no not to the God-head it ſelfe, to be at one time finite and infinite, ſenſible and inſenſible: and ſo all thoſe things which are ſpoken of Chriſt in the Articles of our Beliefe, ſhould not have been done indeed, but only ſhould have ſeemed and appeared to be done; and ſo we ſhould as yet remain in death. Now here are two things to be noted: 1. That by the argument drawn from the aſcenſion, Chriſts body is not cleane taken out of the Supper, as ſome cavill, but only out of the bread. For the diſtance of heaven and earth only hindereth the exiſtence of Chriſts body, both in heaven and in the bread together, but not his preſence in the Supper to be ſpirituall eaten by faith. For our faith in the word of the promiſe, annexed to the bread and wine, beholdeth and imbraceth the body and bloud of Chriſt, and all his benefits there preſent. 2. That the Argument of the Aſcenſion (not done, but together with the former p. 443Argument of the truth of his humane nature) overthroweth the opinion of a corporall preſence of Chriſt in the bread. For if Chriſts humane nature might be every-where, or preſent in many places; his Aſcenſion could not hinder, but that he might at once be both in heaven and in the bread. But whereas the humane nature is finite, not preſent in many places, nor every-where: hence it is, that the Argument, borrowed from the Article of his Aſcenſion, preſſeth moſt powerfully; and, as in the firſt Supper, the conſequence derived from the property of his humane nature thus; Christs body ſits at the Table, Therefore it is not in the bread, or in the mouth of his Diſciples, is ſound and good: ſo now we neceſſarily conclude out of the truth of his Aſcenſion thus; Chriſts body is in heaven, Therefore it is not in the bread, or elſewhere on earth. Object. It is humane reaſon alone that judgeth Chriſts corporall preſence in the bread contrary to theſe Articles of faith: Therefore they are not indeed contrary. Anſw. We deny the Antecedent. For not reaſon onelyonly, but the Chriſtian faith, and Gods Word reacheth us, that Chriſts body is a true humane and finite body, and not converſant at once in all, or many places; and that now, ſince it aſcended into heaven, it is not in the earth, but remaineth and abideth in heaven, untill he returne thence to judge the quick and the dead. That Chriſts body then ſhould be preſent at once in heaven and in the bread, is repugnant not to humane reaſon only, but alſo to Gods Word. This indeed is a principle uncontroverſed,How farre forth we are not to liſten to mans reaſon in divine matters. That mans reaſon in divine matters, oppugning Gods Word, is not to be regarded, but ought to be ſubject thereunto. Notwithſtanding, it is not ſimply to be caſhiered or diſcharged, no not in controverſies of Divinity, as if we were to bring a meer brutiſh and blockiſh ſenſe to the ſifting of the truth of Gods Word: but we are to uſe reaſon aright, to diſcern therby truth from falſhood. For to this end was reaſon given to us men, that we ſhould diſcern by the light of underſtanding contradictory opinions; and fully conceiving what is conſonant with Gods Word, and what jarreth therewith, ſhould applaud and imbrace the one, and reject the other. If this be not grounded and ſettled in us, there will be no opinion ſo abſurd and impious, there will be nothing in the polluted ſinks of all Hereticks ſo filthy and monſtrous, which may be confuted by holy Scripture. For Hereticks and Deceivers will alwayes except againſt us, that their opinions impugne not the truth of Gods Word, but that they ſeeme onelyonly in mans reaſon ſo to doe. Repl. The Scripture attributeth to Chriſts body many properties and prerogatives ſupernaturall, or above and beyond nature, which are not incident to our bodies: as, to walke on the waters, to be transfigured, to be carried up into heaven, to pierce and paſſe through a ſtone and cloſed doores, to be united to the God-head perſonally, to be made a ſacrifice for our ſinnes, &c. Therefore it is no abſurdity to attribute unto it preſence in heaven and in the bread both at once, or even ubiquity it ſelfe. Anſ. In the Antecedent are many untruths mingled with ſome truths. For the penetration of Chriſts body through the ſtone, and through the doores, is no where expreſſed in Scripture: and therefore we deny it. The reſt of the prerogatives are there expreſſed indeed, but they abrogate not the truth of humane nature. For Peter alſo walked on the waters; and we ſhall be transformed, and lifted up: but ubiquity and preſence of Chriſts fleſh in all, or many places, is no where extant in Scripture, and it ſuffereth not Chriſts fleſh to be any longer a creature, much leſſe a true body. For, to be every-where, or in divers places at once in its owne ſubſtance, is the property of the unmeaſurable Deity alone: but every creature is finite,God only is every where: becauſe he is infinite. and by his finiteneſſe is diſcerned from his Creatour. Now that which is finite, cannot be in moe places then one. Hence it is, that the Scripture and and Doctors of the ancient Church produce this property of preſence in many places, as a certain argument of true and ſole Divinity: as Chriſt himſelfe, ſpeaking of himſelfe, ſaith: The Son of man, John 3.13.John 3:13which is in heaven. And Dydimus ſaith: The holy Ghoſt himſelf, if he were a creature, Lib. 1. Cap. 1. de Spiritu ſancto.ſhould at least have a circumſcribed or limited ſubſtance, as all things elſe which are made: For although the inviſible creatures be not circumſcribed in place; yet they are finite in the property of their ſubſtance. But the holy Ghoſt being in many, hath no circumſcribed or limited ſubſtance. Tertullian alſo ſaith: If Chriſt be man only, Lib. de. Trin.how then is he preſent whereſoever he is called on? ſith this is not the nature of man, but of God, To be preſent in every p. 444place. Our adverſaries therefore thus reaſoning, that thoſe prerogatives are the cauſe of his preſence every-where, or in many places, which verily are no cauſes hereof, commit the fallacy of alledging a falſe cauſe. For indeed the reaſon of thoſe prerogatives, and the ubiquity, are very diverſe.

3. From the Article of the communion of Saints: 1. Such is the communion of Saints with Chriſt now, as it was of old ever ſince the beginning, and ſhall be ever hereafter; as well of thoſe who uſe the Sacraments, as of them who are by neceſſity excluded from them.1 Cor. 10.3, 4. Epheſ. 4.4. Rom. 8.9. 1 Cor. 6.17. 1 John 4.13. John 15.5. Epheſ. 1.22. Epheſ 4.15. Epheſ 5.30.31. Epheſ. 4. 1 Cor. 10. Rom. 8.1 Cor 10:31 Cor 10:4Eph 4:4Rom 8:91 Cor 6:171 John 4:13John 15:5Eph 1:22Eph 4:15Eph 5:30Eph 5:31Eph 41 Cor 10Rom 8 For there is but one only communion of Saints with Chriſt; becauſe we are all one body with Chriſt. But this communion of Saints with Chriſt was alwayes ſpirituall: as the Apoſtle doth ſhew; He that is joyned to the Lord, is one ſpirit. Hereby know we, that we dwell in him, and he in us; becauſe he hath given us of his ſpirit. He is the Vine, we are the branches: He is the Head, we are the members: He is the Bridegroome, and we (with the whole Church) are his Spouſe. Or the argument may be thus formed: All the Saints have the ſame communion with Chriſt, both in the Old and New Teſtament (as well they, who have power to approach and partake of the Supper, as they who have not:) and we cannot eat Chriſt any otherwiſe, then his Diſciples did eat him in the firſt Supper. But they did eat him ſpiritually: Therefore we eat him alſo ſpiritually. Out of the ſelfe ſame Article we thus argue: 2. Such is our eating of Chriſt, as is his abiding in us. But this is ſpirituall: Therefore our eating of him is ſpirituall. The Major is out of queſtion, becauſe he is therefore eaten, that he may remaine in us, and we in him; not that being once eaten, he ſhould forthwith vaniſh away;John 6.56.John 6:56 He which cateth my fleſh, and drinketh my bloud, abideth in me, and I in him. The Minor, namely, that Chriſts abiding in us is ſpirituall, is ſufficiently proved and perceived by this, in that ſuch is his abiding in us, as is his Fathers:John 14.23.John 14:23 If any man love me, he will keep my word, and my Father will love him, and we will come unto him, and will dwell with him. But how doth the Father dwell in us or abide with us? Truly by his holy Spirit: Therefore Chriſt alſo ſo abideth with us, or dwelleth in us.1 John 4.13.1 John 4:13 Hereunto belong thoſe ſayings: By this we know that he dwelleth in us, and we in him, becauſe he hath given us of his Spirit. That Chriſt may dwell in your hearts through faith. I am the Vine, ye are the branches: he that abideth in me, and I in him, Epheſ. 3.17.Eph 3:17the ſame bringeth forth much fruit. 3. Chriſt abideth in us perpetually: Therefore that abiding or preſence is not corporall: becauſe, as touching his humane nature,John 15.5.John 15:5 he ſaith, Me ye ſhall not have alwayes: Therefore he is not eaten of us corporally; nay, he cannot be eaten of us corporally, except he be in us corporally, and that alſo perpetually.

4. From the Article of remiſsion of ſinnes. If Chriſt be corporally in the bread, and be reached out and delivered unto us by the hand of the Miniſter, then we are to crave remiſſion of ſinnes at Gods hands, for his ſake, who is in the bread, and whom the Miniſter handleth, whether the bread ſtill remaine together with him, or no. For remiſſion of ſinnes is moſt eſpecially to be craved then, when we celebrate the Supper. So then every communicant muſt thus pray: I beſeech thee, O heavenly Father, to be gracious and mercifull unto me for this thy Sonnes ſake, who is here preſent in this bread, and whom the Miniſter handleth, and whom I eat with my mouth: But this is that horrible Idolatry, which is practiſed in the Popiſh Maſſe, which without doubt is ſo abominable in the ſight of God, that it were better for us to ſuffer a thouſand deaths, then once commit the ſame. For the Goſpel teacheth us to begge of God remiſſion of ſinnes, not for that Chriſts ſake, who is in the bread, and is carried about in the Miniſters hands, and eaten with mens mouths: but for that Chriſts ſake, who ſuffered and died for us, who is now in heaven at the right hand of his Father, and maketh interceſſion for us. So then thus we reaſon, That which eſtabliſheth the horrible Idolatry of the Maſſe, is to be avoided of the true profeſſors of the Goſpel: But the corporall preſence of Christ, and the eating of him with our mouths in the bread, establiſheth the horrible Idolatry of the Maſſe: Therefore it is to be avoided by all true profeſſors of Christs Goſpel.

5. Unto the former may be adjoyned alſo arguments taken from the ſacrifice and adoration of Christ. Wherefore Chriſt is preſent corporally, whether it be after a p. 445viſible or inviſible manner, there he is ſo to be adored, to wit, by our minds, and the motions of our bodies converted and turned thither. But he is not thus to be adored in the Supper: Therefore he is not preſent in the Supper corporally, either in the bread, or in the place of bread. The Minor, That he is not to be adored in the Supper, is eaſily proved: becauſe in the New Teſtament ſince Chriſts aſcenſion it hath not been, nor is lawfull to tie and binde invocation to any certaine place or thing, without the expreſſe command and permiſſion of God, except we will commit open Idolatry. For all adoration, bound and reſtrained to any certaine place or thing on earth, is abrogated and cancelled by Chriſt. The houre cometh, John 4, 21, 22, 23, 24.John 4:21John 4:22John 4:23John 4:24when ye ſhall neither in this mountaine, nor in Jeruſalem worſhip the Father. Ye worſhip that which ye know not; we worſhip that which we know: for ſalvation is of the Jews. But the houre commeth, and now is, when the true worſhippers ſhall worſhip the Father in ſpirit and truth: For the Father requireth even ſuch to worſhip him. God is a Spirit: and they that worſhip him, muſt worſhip him in ſpirit and truth. Againe, if Chriſt be ſo to be adored and worſhipped in the Supper, by our minds and motions of body converted unto the bread, that whole oblation and ſacrifice ſhould conſiſt in the hands of ſacrificing Maſſe-Prieſts, becauſe they offer the Sonne unto the Father, to obtaine remiſſion of ſinnes: and ſo were his crucifying to be re-iterated. Object. Chriſt commanded not himſelfe to be offered or adored, but to be eaten: Therefore we eſtabliſh not the Papiſts offering up of Chriſt to his Father, or their worſhipping of him in the bread, by that corporall preſence which we uphold. Anſ. This their reaſoning is two waies faulty: Firſt, they begge that which is in queſtion, whileſt they ſay, that Chriſt commanded us to eate him in the bread: for this is no where found in Scripture. 2. They ſhift and ſeeke to ſlide from the queſtion, in averring, that Chriſt commanded not himſelfe to be adored: for we have a generall precept of adoring Chriſt in theſe words;Pſal. 45.13. Pſal. 97.7. Heb. 1.6.Ps 45:13Ps 97:7Heb 1:6 He is the Lord thy God, and thou ſhalt worſhip him. And let all the Angels of God worſhip him. This generall precept, without any ſpeciall exception or expectation of any particular injunction, ſhould no leſſe binde us all unto obedience, and to the adoring of Chriſt in the bread, if we had any evident proofe of his inviſible exiſtence therein, than if we beheld him preſent with our eyes. Thus Thomas expecteth not ſome ſpeciall expreſſe warrant, but doth well in worſhipping towards the place where he ſeeth Chriſt ſtanding, ſaying; My Lord, and my God. Wherefore,John 20.28.John 20:28 as long as the opinion of corporall preſence ſtandeth, ſo long the Papiſts idolatrous adoration and oblation, and their whole Maſſe muſt needs ſtand alſo. For the Papiſts themſelves will not have, that we underſtand their offering of Chriſt in the Maſſe of any ſlaughtering or murthering him, but only of a publique ſhewing him being there corporally preſent, and of a craving and obtaining remiſſion of ſinnes for his ſake, whom the Prieſts beare in their hands, and preſent unto God the Father.

4. The fourth ſort of Arguments drawne from like places of Scripture, where namely the ſamething is delivered in words, whereof there is no controverſie.

1. LIke phraſes have a like ſenſe and interpretation. But all theſe phraſes are accounted for like; namely, for ſacramentall formes of ſpeech, wherein the names or proper effects of the things ſignified, are attributed to the ſigne: as, Circumciſion is the Govenant of God. The Lamb is the Paſſeover of the Lord. Gen. 17.10, 11. Exod. 12.11. & 31.16. Levit. 1.4. Exod. 24.18. Exod. 26.34. 1 Cor. 10.3. Marke 2.26. Luke 22.20. Acts 22.16. Titus. 3.5. 1 Pet. 3.21. Gen. 17.11. Exod. 12.13, 14. & 13.9. & 31, 17.Gen 17:10Gen 17:11Exod 12:11Exod 31:16Lev 1:4Exod 24:18Exod 26:341 Cor 10:3Mark 2:26Luke 22:20Acts 22:16Titus 3:51 Pet 3:21Exod 12:13Exod 12:14Exod 13:9Exod 31:17The Sabbath is the Covenant of the Lord. The Leviticall ſacrifices are an expiation or doing away of ſinne. The bloud of ſacrifices is the bloud of the Covenant. The covering of the Arke is the mercy ſeate. The Rock was Chriſt. The bread is the body of Chriſt. The cup is the New Teſtament. Baptiſme waſheth away ſinne. Baptiſme is the waſhing of the new birth. Baptiſme ſaveth us, &c. Therefore their interpretation is alike. Now God himſelfe interpreteth ſome of them thus; Circumciſion is a ſigne of the Covenant. The Lamb is a ſigne and memoriall of the Paſſeover. The Sabbath is a ſigne of the Covenant: Therefore we may juſtly interpret the reſt on the ſame manner. The Leviticall ſacrifices ſignifie the attonement for ſinnes, made by the Meſſias. The bloud of ſacrifices is a Sacrament p. 446or ſigne confirming the Covenant; or a ſigne of Chriſts bloud, whereby the Covenant was eſtabliſhed. The covering of the Arke ſignifieth the Mercy-ſeate. The Rock ſignifieth Chriſt. The bread is a Sacrament of the body of Chriſt. The cup is a Sacrament ſealing the new Covenant. Baptiſme is a Sacrament of the waſhing away of ſins, and of our regeneration and ſalvation.

2. As the cup is the New Teſtament, ſo is the bloud of Chriſt the New Teſtament. The cup is the New Teſtament Sacramentally; that is, it is a ſigne of the New Teſtament: Therefore Chriſts bloud is a ſigne of the New Teſtament. The Major is apparent, becauſe without doubt the words of Luke and Paul, This cup is the New Teſtament in my bloud; and the words of Matthew and Marke, This is my bloud of the New Teſtament, have all one meaning. The Minor is proved before in the firſt argument, and cannot be taken otherwiſe. For the New Teſtament is no externall thing or ceremony, but a free reconciliation with God, promiſed in the Goſpel, through the bloud and death of Chriſt. The cup then is either the thing promiſed, or the ſeale of the promiſe; but it is not the promiſe, nor the thing promiſed: Therefore it is the ſeale of the promiſe.

3. The bread which we breake (ſaith the Apoſtle) is it not the communion of the body of Chriſt? As bread is the communion of the body of Chriſt, ſo alſo it is the body of Chriſt. The reaſon is cleere, becauſe Pauls words and Chriſts have both one meaning; ſeeing Paul interpreteth Chriſt. But the bread is the communion of the body of Chriſt ſacramentally; that is, it is a Sacrament or ſigne of our ſpirituall communion with Chriſts body. For properly and literally, bread cannot be termed a communion: Therefore, bread alſo is Chriſts body ſacramentally; that is, it is a Sacrament or ſigne of Chriſts body. Now that the communion or communication of Chriſts body is ſpirituall, is thus proved: 1. Paul ſpeaketh of ſuch a communion, as whereby we being many, are made one bread, one body. But we being many, are one body ſpiritually: Therefore the communion mentioned of Paul is ſpirituall. 2. The communion of Chriſt, whereof he ſpeaketh, cannot ſtand with the communion of Divels:1 Cor. 10.21.1 Cor 10:21 Ye cannot (ſaith he) drink the cup of the Lord, and the cup of the Divels: ye cannot be partakers of the Lords Table, and of the table of the Divels. The argument is not deduced from an inconvenience or an undecency, as ſome fondly tell us,Mat. 6.24.Matt 6:24 but from an impoſſibility: as that of Chriſt, Ye cannot ſerve God and Mammon. Where the words foreign, ye are not able; or, ye have no poſſibility, are likewiſe uſed, as well as in this place:2 Cor. 6.15.2 Cor 6:15 and as that of the ſame Apoſtle elſe-where; What concord hath Chriſt with Belial? or what part hath the Beleever with the Infidell? 3. This communion of the Saints with Chriſt, and Chriſt with the Saints, is ſpiritually expounded in Scripture,1 John 1.6, 7.1 John 1:61 John 1:7 Our fellowſhip is with the Father, and with his Son Jeſus Chriſt. If we ſay, that we have fellowſhip with him, and walke in darkeneſſe, we lye, and do not truely. But if we walke in the light, as he is in the light, we have fellowſhip one with another, and the bloud of Jeſus Chriſt cleanſeth us from all ſinne. Neither doe we in the Creed beleeve any other communion of the Saints with Chriſt, and Chriſt with the Saints, but that which is ſpirituall. Hom. 24. in 1 Cor. 10.1 Cor 104. Laſtly, Chryſoſtome interpreteth Pauls words of a ſpirituall communion. Why ſaid he not participation? That he might manifeſt unto thee ſomewhat more excellent then it, to wit, the ſtrongeſt and mightieſt union that can be. And a little after, Why call I it communion? Yea, we are the ſelfe-ſame body of Chriſt. What is the bread? even the body of Chriſt. What are they made, who receive the body of Christ? not many bodies, but one body. For as the bread is kneaded of many graines, ſo we alſo are joyned with Chriſt.

4. Out of the words of Chriſt:John 6.62.John 6:62 What then if ye ſhould ſee the Sonne of man aſcend up where he was before? It is the Spirit that quickneth, the fleſh profiteth nothing: the words that I ſpeake unto you are ſpirit and life. In theſe words Chriſt expreſly rejecteth all eating of his fleſh with our mouths, and overthroweth by two arguments, which wee have heretofore declared: and on the other ſide he approveth and confirmeth our ſpirituall eating his fleſh. Wherefore we may not forge any corporall eating of Chriſts body in the Supper, when ſuch a kinde of eating is preciſely reproved in the Goſpel. Object. The ſixth chapter of John treateth not of the Supper: p. 447Therefore this teſtimony maketh nought againſt the eating of Chriſts body with our mouths inſtituted in the Supper. Anſw. Here our Adverſaries deceitfully argue from the deniall of a part, to the deniall of the whole. This Chapter, we grant, pertaineth not to the Ceremony of the Supper: But hence it followeth not, that ſimply it pertaineth not to the Supper. For it concerneth the promiſe; This is my body, which is given for you: becauſe this promiſe is deſumed out of this Chriſts Sermon regiſtred in this ſixth of John, and is ratified and confirmed by the ſignes of bread and wine. Wherefore it cannot be underſtood of any other eating of Chriſts body in the Supper, then of that which is delivered in the ſixth of John, which is ſpirituall. For, bodily eating is in that Sermon condemned. Repl. It is not ſimply the eating with the mouth that is there condemned, but a Capernaiticall eating. Anſw. All eating with the mouth is Capernaiticall. For, a Capernaiticall eating is not a bloudy renting onelyonly and eating of Chriſts fleſh, and chewing it between the teeth, but ſimply any eating with the mouth. For the Capernaites ſay not among themſelves: How can this man give us his fleſh to devoure, to gnaw on with our teeth, to rend aſunder? &c. But they ſay: How can this man give us his fleſh to eate? John 6.54.John 6:54Neither doth Chriſt re-call them from a groſſe eating with the mouth, to a ſubtile kinde of eating with the mouth; but to his aſcenſion into Heaven, which ſhould ſhortly come to paſſe, and thereby his body ſhould be far removed from their mouthes, and trained them to a ſpirituall eating, which is with the heart by faith.

5. Out of the ſame ſixth Chapter of John, To eate Chriſts fleſh, and, To drinke his bloud, ſignifieth, To beleeve in Chriſt, To dwell in Chriſt, and, Verſe 54, 56.To have Chriſt dwelling in us: as appeareth, becauſe he attributeth the ſame effect of eternall life to both; namely, to the eating of his fleſh, and to faith in him: But in the Supper this eating is authoriſed: (For no other purpoſe beſides this can be ſhewed in the whole Goſpel, for ſealing whereof the Supper was inſtituted.) Therefore, To eate Chriſts body, and, To drink his blood, is, To beleeve in Chriſt, To dwell in Chriſt, and, To have him dwelling in us.

6. By one ſpirit are we all baptiſed into one body, whether we be Jews or Grecians, 1 Cor. 12, 13.1 Cor 12:13whether we be bond or free, and have beene all made to drink into one ſpirit. Hence we draw two arguments: 1. Such as is the drinking of Chriſt, ſuch is the eating of him in the Supper. The drinking of him is ſpirituall: Therefore the eating of him is ſpirituall. 2. The eating of Chriſts body, and drinking his bloud, is common to all the faithfull, even to the Fathers of the Old Teſtament. For we have all bin made to drink into one ſpirit. But the eating with the mouth is not common to all the faithfull: (For the Fathers before Chriſts birth could not, and at this day Infants, and many of ripe yeeres, having not liberty to partake of the Supper, cannot eate his fleſh with their mouthes.) Wherefore, this mouthy eating of Chriſts fleſh, urged by our Adverſaries, is not that true eating which the Goſpel promiſeth, and which the Supper ſealeth.

The teſtimonies of Fathers in this point.

UNto theſe arguments drawne out of the ſacred Scripture, and the ground of our faith, may be added teſtimonies of the Fathers, and the purer Church; who, if we looke into their writings, we ſhall finde, that they plainly teach the ſame doctrine touching the Lords holy Supper, which we do. Among many we will produce onelyonly ſome few notable and cleere in this point. Irenaeus ſaith,Lib. 4. cap. 34. The earthly bread, taking his name from the word of God, is no longer common bread, but becometh the Euchariſt or Sacrament, which conſiſteth of two things; an earthly, and an heavenly thing. Tertullian, The bread which he tooke and diſtributed among his Diſciples, he made it his body, ſaying, This is my body; that is, The figure of my body.Lib. 4. contra Marcion. Praedag. lib. 2. cap. 2. Lib. 2. Epheſ. 3. Serm. de Coena.Eph 3 Clemens of Alexandria, This is to drinke Chriſts bloud, to be partaker of Chriſts immortality. Cyprian, Neither can his blood, wherewith we are redeemed and juſtified, ſeeme to be in the Chalice, when the wine faileth in the Chalice, wherein Chriſts bloud is ſhewed, which is ſpoken of in every Sacrament and teſtimony of Scripture. Againe, the ſame Father ſaith, As often as p. 448we doe this, we ſharpen not our teeth to bite withall, but we breake and part the ſanctified bread with a ſincere faith, whilſt we diſtinguiſh and ſeparate that which is divine, from that which is humane, and joyning them againe after their ſeparation, confeſſe one God and man: yea, we our ſelves are made his body by this Sacrament, and knit and united to our head by the thing ſignified by the Sacrament. De divina menſa, Et quod.The Canon of the Nicene Councell: Againe, here alſo is the Lords Table: Let us not childiſhly cleave to the bread and wine ſet before us, but lifting up our minds on high, by faith, let us conſider, that on that Table is ſet the Lamb of God taking away the ſinnes of the world, which is offered of the Prieſts without killing: and let us, truely receiving his precious body and bloud, beleeve that they are SIGNES of our reſurrection. For therefore we receive not much, but little; thereby to acknowledge that it is not received to ſatisfie, In Litur. de Trin. l. 8. Orat. de paſ.but to ſanctifie us. Baſil: We have ſet on the Table the figures of the ſacred body and blood. Hillarie: The bread and wine received, and drunke, effect and worke that both we are in Chriſt, In 1 Cor. 11.1 Cor 11and Chriſt in us. Gregory Nazianzene: The figures of the precious body and bloud of Chriſt. Ambroſe: Becauſe we are delivered by our LORDS death; being mindfull thereof, in eating, and drinking wee Signifie, (or Repreſent) the fleſh and bloud that were offered up for us. De Sacr. l. 4. c. 5. Cont. Adim. cap. 12. In Pſa. 3 Epiſt. 23. ad Boniſac.Ps 3Againe, This oblation is the FIGƲRE OF THE BODY AND BLOƲD of our LORD Jeſus CHRIST. Auguſtine: Our Lord doubted not to ſay, This is my body, when he gave a TOKEN of his body. Againe, The Lord admitted Judas to that banquet, wherein he miniſtred and gave to his diſciples the FIGƲRE of his body and bloud. The ſame Father ſaith: Ʋnleſſe Sacraments had a certaine likeneſſe of the things, whereof they bee Sacraments, without queſtion they were no Sacraments. And in conſideration of this likeneſſe, oftentimes they beare the names of the things themſelves. As therefore the Sacrament of the body of CHRIST is AFTER A CERTAINE MANER the body of Chriſt: and the Sacrament of Chriſts bloud is his bloud: ſo the Sacrament of faith is faith. In ſenten. Proſper. de auſe. diſt. 2. c. Hoc eſt.Againe, As then the celeſtiall bread, Chriſts fleſh, is IN SOME SORT called Chriſts body, whereas indeed it is a Sacrament of Chriſts body; namely, that viſible, palpable, and mortall body which was nailed on the Croſſe, and the ſacrificing of his fleſh, done by the hands of the Miniſter, is called Chriſts Paſsion, death, and crucifying, NOT IN THE TRƲTH OF THE THING, but in a myſterie SIGNIFYING it: So the Sacrament of faith, by which is meant Baptiſme, is faith. Serm. ad infant.Alſo: Theſe, my brethren, are therefore called Sacraments, becauſe in them one thing is ſeene, another underſtood. That which is ſeene hath a bodily forme: that which is underſtood, hath a ſpirituall fruit or benefit. In Mat. Hom. 83.Chryſoſtome: This is my bloud, which is ſhed for the remiſsion of ſinnes; which Christ ſaid, to ſhew that his Paſsion and Croſſe was a myſterie, and to comfort his diſciples. Dialog. 1.Theodoret: Our Saviour verily changed the names of the ſignes and the things ſignified, and gave the ſame name to the body, which is proper to the ſigne; and that to the ſigne which is proper to the body. The cauſe of this change is manifeſt to them that are entred into the firſt principles of divine myſteries. For he would that they who uſe the Sacraments ſhould not bend and ſet their minds on the nature of the things which are ſeene, but, for the alteration of the names, ſhould beleeve that alteration which is made through grace. For he who tearmed that by name of corne and bread, which is by nature a body, and called himſelfe a vine, he honoured the ſignes, which are ſeene, with the title and name of his body and bloud, not by changing the nature, but by adding grace to the nature. Macarius the Monke hath a famous ſaying to this purpoſe:Hom. 27. Bread and wine are a correſpondent type of his fleſh, and they who receive the bread which is ſhewed, eate the fleſh of Chriſt ſpiritually. Other teſtimonies for briefeneſſe ſake we omit.

Of Tranſubſtantiation.

NOw it is eaſie to ſee what we are to think of Tranſubſtantiation, even that it is an impious invention and device of the Papiſts: which alſo we will ſhew and prove briefly by divers reaſons. But firſt we muſt declare in a word what the Papiſts properly meane by their Tranſubſtantiation. They ſuppoſe that by force of Conſecration; that is, of uttering theſe words upon the creatures of bread and wine, This is my body, This is the cup of the new Teſtament in my bloud, the bread and wine is ſubſtantially p. 449converted or turned into the body and bloud of Chriſt, the formes onelyonly or accidents of bread and wine remaining; namely, the ſhape or figure, the heat, the taſte, the weight, &c. They therefore call theſe words of Conſecration, operatorie, and effective, able to work and effect the converſion and change: and they ſay, that the change is fully accompliſhed in the very laſt inſtant of uttering the ſyllable**The Latine particle was UM, hoc eſt corpua me ƲM, which I choſe rather to reſemble by the Engliſh forme of Conſecration. DY, This is my boDY: and then there is no longer bread and wine, but the body and bloud of Chriſt is preſent, and is contained under the forms of bread and wine, and is eaten and drunk in the Euchariſt or Supper by the mouth of the Communicants. Concerning the manner of the change, it is not agreed on by all. Some ſay, that the ſubstance of bread and wine is by Transſubſtantiation changed into the ſubſtance of Chriſts body and bloud: ſo that the bread and wine is eſſentially made the very body and bloud of Chriſt, the externall formes only remaining; and this they terme a ſubſtantiall change, or change of the ſubſtance.What the Papiſts call a ſubſtantiall change. Others are of opinion that the ſubſtance of bread and wine is not changed, but vaniſheth by annihilation, or by being brought to nothing; and that then the ſubſtance of Chriſts body and bloud ſucceedeth in place thereof; ſo that the ſubſtance of Chriſts body and bloud after the conſecration, cometh under theſe formes and accidents, under which before was the ſubſtance of the bread and wine: And this they call a formal change, or a change of formes. Lombard in his Sentences expoundeth both theſe opinions,What they call a formall change. Li. 4. di. 11. Tho. Aqui. p. 3. q. 78. a. 5. and ſeemeth to approve the former alone. Howbeit they call both theſe changes by the name of Transſubſtantiation. They affirm alſo that the particle This, in the words of conſecration, doth note ſome indeterminate ſubſtance in generall (as they uſe to ſpeak) without quantity or quality, contained under thoſe accidents, ſo that it demonſtrateth unto us neither bread, nor Christs body, but only ſomething contained under the formes and accidents, which before Conſecration was bread, but by vigour and force of the words of Conſecration, began to be the body of Chriſt: ſo that the meaning is on this wiſe; This is my body, that is,Their vaine queſtions where the Accidents in Transſubſtantiation may be grounded. that which is contained under this, or theſe formes, is my body. Touching the accidents, where they are grounded and ſeated, whether in the body of Chriſt, or in the aire, or in the ſurface of the bread and wine, or in nothing, they curiouſly and diverſely diſpute; and the common received opinion is, that they are exiſtent without any ſubject. This is the doctrine of the Schoole-men and all Papiſts, whereof (as we ſee) there are two maine heads: one of Transſubſtantiation, another of eating Chriſts body with the mouth. But each of them is a falſe profane forgery, utterly repugnant with the words of Chriſt. As for the later of theſe, it is overthrown and refuted by the ſame arguments whereby we have already proved the ſpirituall eating of Chriſts body; and Transſubſtantiation is thus oppugned:

11. That which is Christs body in the Supper, remaineth and is not therein transformed, nor reduced to nothing: elſe Chriſts body ſhould not remaine,Arguments againſt Transſubſtantiation. nor be preſent in the Euchariſt: But in the bread is Chriſts body, namely, ſacramentally, as before we have made evident demonſtrance:) Therefore bread remaineth in the Supper, and is not transformed, or reduced to nothing. The Minor is already proved, and is confirmed,Proofes that the bread in the Sacrament is Chriſts body. 1. By the authority of Luke and Paul, in theſe words: This cup is the new testament: and, The bread is the communion of the body of Christ. 2. Farther proofes are deduced alſo out of theſe words thus: What Chriſt brake, that he called his body: But he brake bread, not ſome uncertaine ſubſtance, nor the meere accidents of the bread. Therefore the bread is the body of Chriſt. Againe, The Article THIS demonſtrateth and pointeth out either the bread, or the meere accidents, or the body of Chriſt, or ſome determinate thing or ſubſtance whatſoever. But it concerneth not any indeterminate ſubſtance; Becauſe Chriſt brake not any undeterminate thing, that is, I know not what: but determinately and preciſely it is ſaid, He brake bread, it concerneth not Chriſts viſible or inviſible body; for his viſible body ſate and talked with his Diſciples: and an inviſible body Chriſt never had: and moreover the Papiſts themſelves confeſſe, that Chriſts body is not yet preſent under the forme of bread, when the Prieſt beginneth to pronounce the particle THIS, but then, when once the change is made; the change (ſay they) is made in the laſt inſtant of conſecration, at the pronouncing of this p. 450laſt ſyllable DY, in theſe words, This is my boDY. Laſtly, it concerneth not the accidents onelyonly of the bread; For Chriſt brake not bare and meere accidents. Wherefore, the Article THIS intimateth nothing elſe but the bread; and Chriſts words. This is my body, have no other meaning then this, This bread is my body.

22.Christ brake bread: but he did not then break his body: therefore the bread is not really his body.

33. Chriſts body was given for us: The bread was not given for us: Therefore the bread is not really Chriſts body.

44. Chriſt ſaith not, as the Transſubſtantiaries ſay, Ʋnder theſe formes is my body, or, My body is contained under theſe formes: Therefore the Transſubſtantiaries retaine not, but pervert Chriſts words.

55. Chriſt ſaid not, Let this be made, but, This is my body. Therefore Chriſts words turne not the bread into the ſubſtance of his body; but they teach onelyonly that the bread in this uſe is Chriſts body, to wit ſacramentally.

66. Paul expreſly calleth that which is taken, bread, both before and after the eating: Therefore the bread is not reduced to nothing, nor changed into the ſubſtance of Chriſts body, but continueth bread.

77. Two things there are in every Sacrament: the ſigne, and the thing ſigned: or, as Irenaeus ſpeaketh, the earthly, and the heavenly thing; and without theſe two, no Sacrament can conſiſt or ſtand. But Transſubſtantiation taketh away the ſigne or earthly thing, namely bread and wine from the Euchariſt. Therefore it taketh away the whole fence or nature of a Sacrament.

88. A bare imagination of bread and wine cannot confirme the faith of heavenly things, but will mock and deceive it, as being a vaine thing, and not that which it ſeemeth. But the ſigne in the Lords Supper muſt confirme the faith of heavenly things, to wit, that we are as certainly fed with the body and bloud of our Lord, as we are ſure we receive the bread and wine. For Sacraments were inſtituted to confirme faith by viſible ſignes. Farewell Transſubſtantiation, which transformeth the ſigne into a ſhadow and imagination.

99. Transſubſtantiation taketh away the analogie or proportion of the ſigne and the thing ſigned;E…ſt ad Bonifac. whereof Saint Auguſtine ſaith, that The body ſo feedeth the ſoule, as the bread nouriſheth the body: and as corn bread, is one maſſe made of many grains; ſo many are made one bread and one body, which partake of one bread. For, the bare accidents of bread and wine cannot uphold and beare this Analogie, ſeeing they nouriſh not; neither can you ſay, As the accidents of the bread and wine nouriſh the body, to the maintenance of this life; ſo Christs body nouriſheth my ſoule to life eternall: for then the compariſon will be betweene a true and a falſe thing: wherefore the very Analogie of the ſigne, and the thing, doe ſufficiently refute Transſubſtantiation.

Of Conſubſtantiation.

THe Papiſts feigned that two great miracles were wrought in the Euchariſt by the vertue of Conſecration, namely, the changing of the ſubſtances of bread and the Lords body, and the ſubſiſting of Accidents without any ſubject: of which two, the former ſubverteth the Analogie of the whole Chriſtian faith; the later contradicteth all ſound Philoſophy. And that force of Conſecration they boaſt of, is nothing elſe but a magicall device of the Devill,What Conſubſtantiation is. and an invention of mans brain. This, when of ancient ſome Doctors eſpied, to avoid theſe ſo abſurd miracles, in ſtead of Tranſſubſtantiation they coined Conſubſtantiation: that is, The co-exiſtence of two ſubſtances in one place; or, the preſence of Chriſts body and bloud, not under the formes of bread and wine, but under the bread and wine it ſelfe. Theſe therefore were of opinion that the ſigns were not transſubſtantiated, that is, changed not their ſubſtance, but conſubſtantiated, that is, that the bread and wine remained, but with, in, and under the bread and wine: Chriſts body and bloud were really and ſubſtantially preſent, and eaten and drunken with the month of the Receivers.Lib. 4. Dut. 11. c. Quidam. The age and parentage of Conſubſtantiation. This opinion Lombard relateth, and teſtifieth that it was before his time maintained by ſome; but he calleth it a Paradox, a ſtrange or wonderfull opinion. Guitmund fathereth it on Berengarius, after his p. 451recantation, and termeth it Impanation. Others impute it to one Walrame, againſt whom Anſelme hath two books extant. Some faſten it on Rupert Abb. Tuit, who lived not long after Guitmond, about the year of the Lord 1124. Petrus de Alliaco, Cardinall of Cambray, ſaith,In lib. 4. ſentent. q. 6. art. 2. that he had rather defend Conſubstantiation the Tranſubſtantiation, unleſſe the Church of Rome had defined the contrary. He lived about the year of our Lord 1416.Lib. de Ca. Babyl. At length Luther approving the judgement of this Cardinal of Cambray, as himſelf witneſſeth, firſt thought it no article of faith to beleeve that the ſubſtance of bread remaineth, or remaineth not; but either point might be held without hereſie. Afterwards it ſeemed more probable unto him, that the bread ſhould remaine, and the body of Chriſt ſhould be under, in, and with the bread. And this is now their opinion, who name themſelves Lutherans. Wherefore they interpret Chriſts words, This is my body, thus: In this, with this, under this bread is my body: and they glory and boaſt no leſſe then the Papiſts, that they retain the letter without any trope or figure. And ſo have they ranked themſelves, that, if they combate with Papiſts, then the particle This, noteth with them bread only, and the bread it ſelf is the body of Chriſt: If they bend their forces againſt us, whom they call Sacramentaries, then the particle This, ſhall not ſignifie bread only, but bread with the body of Christ lodged inviſibly therein; and the ſenſe ſhall be, This is my body, that is, This bread, and my body lying hid in this bread, is my body. They illuſtrate this their gloſſe with vulgar ſimilies, as they call them; that Chriſt, when he gave his inviſible body in the bread, in like manner ſaid, This is my body; as the Country-man ſaith of the graine in his ſacke, This is corne, pointing at the ſack: or the Merchant, of the money in his purſe, This is money, pointing at his purſe: or the Mother, of the Infant in his cradle, This is my child, ſhewing the cradle only: or the Vintner, of his wine, This is Rheniſh wine, when he reacheth out the Goblet. Theſe formes of ſpeech are noted and obſerved out of their books and diſputations. But (good men) they have that luck which the Poet alotteth unto fooles: Fooles when they ſeeke to avoid an inconvenience, Horat. Serm. lib. 1. ſat. 3.fall into an evill. For in place of that abſurd miracle, of the ſubſiſting of accidents without any ſubject, they have induced another more abſurd, of the penetration of two bodies: and, whether we reſpect the letter or the ſenſe, they have wandred & departed farther from Chriſts words, then the Papiſts. For the letter thus lieth; This, that is, This bread is my body: The ſenſe ſtandeth thus: The viſible bread broken and diſtributed is my true and eſſentiall body, given for you. It is my true body, not by any change of eſſence and nature, as the Papiſts would have it (for bread was not aſſumed by the Word for us; neither was bread given and crucified for us): but it is my true body in a myſticall ſenſe and Sacramentall kind of ſpeech, according to the interpretation of the ſounder antiquity, of Paul, yea, and of Chriſt himſelfe. The Transſubſtantials gloſſe is farte wide of this the letter, and meaning of Chriſts words. As then the Papiſts retaine not the letter, when in ſtead of Chriſts words, This is my body, they annex this ſeraphicall or ſuper-angelicall gloſſe: This thing or ſubſtance whatſoever, undeterminate, contained under theſe formes, is my body: ſo much leſſe doe theſe reſerve entire the letter and ſenſe of Chriſts words, when, inſtead of them, they place their own, ſaying: My body is in, with, under the bread: or, The bread, and the body lying hid inviſibly in the bread, is my body: For neither is the bread alone, nor the bread with the body incloſed therein, properly Chriſts body; as an empty or full purſe, is not properly, and without all figure of ſpeech, termed money. Now, the phraſes they uſe, are too improper, and too much unfitting that they would expreſſe. For as for the inſtances produced by them we know as ſoone as the Countrey-man. Merchant, Mother, or Vintner ſpeaketh, that graine is in the ſacke, money in the purſe, an infant in the cradle, and wine in the goblet. But when theſe men tell us, This is Chriſts body, we know not forth-with that Chriſts body is in the bread; neither can it be proved; becauſe an Article of the Chriſtian faith teſtfieth, that it is in heaven.

Of the Schiſme of the Conſubſtantials.

LUthers foundation and maine ground, at firſt, was thoſe words onelyonly of Chriſt, This is my body. Afterwards in a diſputation bad with the adverſaries of this opinion p. 452pinion the 27. and 28. yeere he retired and fled to the Ubiquity, and for that one foundation or ground afore-named he aſſumed four other: 1. The perſonall union of the natures in Chriſt. The right hand of God, which is every where. 3. The truth of God, which cannot lie. 4. The three fold manner of the exiſtence of Chriſts body in any place. But being at length repulſed from theſe holds, he betook himſelfe againe to Chriſts words, and deſired that all diſputation of Ubiquity ſhould quite be revoked. Notwithſtanding, ſince his time, ſome, Lutherans by profeſſion, finding no ſufficient warrant for their cauſe in Chriſts words, have ſet Ubiquity on foot againe, and at this day account it the beſt ſtake in their hedge;Three ſorts of Lutherans. though others utterly diſclaime it. Hence aroſe a faction and diviſion among the Conſubſtantials: ſome are **1. Simplices.ſimply Lutherans, who by Chriſts words only defend the being of Chriſts body in the bread, and the eating it with the mouth: ſome are **2. Multipraeſentiarii, Omnipotentiarii.multipreſentiarie and omnipotentiarie Lutherans, that is, ſuch as think Chriſts body to be preſent at once in many hoſts, by reaſon of the omnipotency really communicated therewith. Laſtly, ſome are **3. Omnipraeſentiarii, Ubiquitarii.omnipreſentiarie Lutherans, who, to aſſoile the preſence of Chriſts body in the bread, lay hold on the ſhield of Ubiquity, and teach that Chriſts body is every where preſent by vertue of the union with the Word, and therefore is preſent in the bread, both before and after the uſe thereof in the Supper; and that the right of conſecration doth effect only that it be eaten in the bread. Of this our young Divines, for the underſtanding of this controverfie, may not be ignorant. For hereby they perceive, that at this day there are two maine columnes or pillars erected to under-prop Conſubſtantiation, namely,The two principall grounds of Conſubſtantiation 1. The Ʋbiquity. 2. The words of Christ. The Ubiquity hath beene at large diſcourſed of before in expounding the Articles of the perſonall union of the two natures in Chriſt, of his aſcenſion into heaven, and of his ſitting at the right hands of God the Father, and the difficulties therein diſcuſſed, fully reſolved, and Ubiquity it ſelfe confuted. Chriſts words (witneſſe the Papiſts themſelves) neither intimate Conſubſtantiation, neither can beare that interpretation. Which the Ubiquitaries alſo in their writings diſſemble not: and have therefore deviſed and invented the Ubiquity becauſe they ſaw that the ground and foundation of their opinion, if it were laid on Chriſts words only, were too ruinous, and like to have a ſpeedy down-fall. Chriſt ſaid, This is my body, which is given for you; which words the Conſubſtantials retaine not,Conſubſtantiation over browne by Chriſts very words. neither literally, nor according to their ſenſe and meaning. We need not therefore any argument to refute Conſubſtantiation, but Chriſts very words, whereunto we recall them, and thus reaſon againſt them: Chriſt ſaid not, In this bread is my body; but, This is my body: neither is the ſenſe of both theſe propoſitions all one; ſeeing the former declareth what is in the bread, and where Chriſts body is; the later, what the bread it ſelfe is in the Euchariſt: Therefore the Conſubſtantials who teach, that in the bread is Chriſts body, retaine neither the letter, nor the meaning of Chriſts words.

A refutation of objections framed to confirme Conſubſtantiation.

Schmidline his argument in the conference at Mulbr. La…. Pag. 159.OBject. 1. It is an uſuall kind of ſpeech when two things are joyntly given, the one apparent, the other in covert, that that onelyonly be named, which appeared not: as we ſay of purſes fraught with money, This is money: of a caske of wine, This is wine. But Christ in his Supper delivering in the ſame manner two things joyntly at once, namely, the bread and his body, named that onelyonly, which appeared not, under the bread, ſaying: Take, this is my body: Therefore Chriſts manner of ſpeech is moſt uſuall and proper, neither needeth it any explication at all. Anſw. To the Major we anſwer, that it is a forme of ſpeech moſt uſuall, &c. but with this limitation, when it is certaine that the thing which is named, though it be not apparent, yet it is contained in that thing which is apparent; as it is certaine, that money is in the purſe, and wine in the caske. Otherwiſe it is no uſuall, plaine, or true forme of ſpeech, to ſay of an empty purſe, This is money. But hitherto it is not cleere, neither have the Conſubſtantials as yet proved, that Chriſts body lay hid in the bread, when Chriſt ſaid thereof, This is my body; as it ought to be evident, that money is in the purſe, and wine in the veſſell, when it is ſaid, This is money, This is wine. Yea, and we avouch the contrary, to wit, that Chriſts p. 453body in the firſt Supper, lay not hid in the bread, but ſate at table, and now is in heaven, untill it thence returne in judgement: Therefore this forme of reaſoning, is a begging of that which is in controverſie betwixt us. Anſw. 2. The Minor alſo is falſe. For Chriſt, delivering unto his Diſciples, not his body but bread, taken from the table, and broken ſaid, Take, cate, This (that is, this bread) is my body. Which expoſition is proved: 1. Becauſe it is ſaid of the cup, This cup is the New Testament. 2. Paul expoundeth the particle This, of the bread, ſaying: The bread which we break is the communion of Chriſts body. 3. Becauſe the bread and body of Chriſt (both together) are neither properly, not figuratively Chriſts very body: and hereby a Tautologie, or a vaine and childiſh iteration of the ſame thing ſhould be fathered on Chriſt, in ſaying; My body is my body. 4. We deny alſo the conſequence, becauſe their concluſion compriſeth more then their premiſſes in force. For they conclude, that it is a moſt uſuall and proper ſpeech. But theſe two, uſuall and proper, are not in force and ſignification alike. For the moſt uſuall form of ſpeech may be figurative, as thoſe very triviall, and yet Synecdochicall ſpeeches urged by them, This is money, This is wine: who is ſo mad, as to think the purſe alone, or the purſe with the mony, is properly money? So was that Sacramentall ſpeech of the Paſſeover frequent, and well knowne unto the Diſciples of Chriſt: Where wilt thou that we provide the Paſſeover? Yet ſpake they not properly, but figuratively, attributing to the ſigne the name of the thing ſignified, by a ſacramentall Metonymie or change of names. That which followeth therefore out of the premiſſes, is only this, That Chriſts words were triviall, plaine and known to the Diſciples; but not that they were underſtood properly, literally, and without all Trope or Figure.

Object. 2. Christ ſaid, This is my body. But Christ is true: Therefore we must beleeve him, ſetting apart all Philoſophicall ſubtilty and ſharpneſſe; and ſo by conſequent, bread is not a ſigne of his body, but his body, as the words lie; which are ſimply and literally to be underſtood. Anſ. Here they alledge us that for a cauſe, which is indeed no cauſe of the matter in hand. For Chriſts truth is a cauſe onelyonly that his words are true; yea, moſt true: to which we ought to give credence, ſetting apart all Philoſophicall ſubtilty: but it is no cauſe why his words ſhould be proper, and literally taken. For he which ſpeaketh figuratively, may alſo ſpeak truly: as Chriſt him ſelfe was no leſſe true, yea truth it ſelfe, when he ſaid, I am the light of the world, the doore of the ſheepfold, the good Shepheard, the true Vine, my Father is an Husbandman, ye are the branches; then when he ſaid, This is my body. And they deſerve to be hiſſed out of Schooles, who preſume to terme figurative ſpeeches by the name of lies. 2. We retort their Minor thus; Chriſt is true: Therefore he ſaid not, that his body lay hid in the bread, when all his Diſciples ſaw that it ſate at Table. 3. We retort their concluſion on them thus; Christs words muſt be underſtood ſimply: Therefore yee may not cloake and colour them with your gloſſe, which perverteth the letter, when ye ſay, that In, With, Ʋnder the bread is Christs body; or that the bread is the cloſet of Chriſts body.

Object. 3. Chriſt is omnipotent: Therefore he can effect that his body ſhould be really in the bread. Anſ. The reaſon is of no force, which will conclude a thing to be done, becauſe it may be done. The queſtion is not, What Chriſt can doe, but what he will. He no where promiſed the preſence of his body in the bread, or in the preſence of the bread: Therefore we derogate nothing at all from his omnipotency, when we beleeve no ſuch preſence. Repl. Bread is preſent in place of the Supper. Bread is Chriſts body: Therefore Chriſts body is preſent in place of the Supper. Anſ. The Minor of this Syllogiſme is figurative, by the confeſſion of the adverſaries themſelves. For Jacobus Andreas in a diſputation held at Mulbr. when he could no wayes elſe eſcape, expreſly confeſſed, that this propoſition is figurative; Bread is the body of Chriſt. Protoc. lat. pag. 160.The ſame Andreas afterwards wrote, that this phraſe, Bread is Christs body, is proper,Behold the ſpirit of contradiction. and to be underſtood, without any trope or Figure. Is not this to blow hote and cold out of the ſame mouth? to ſay one thing, and to unſay it againe?

Object. 4. Chriſts words are not to be changed. Chriſt uſed the word IS: This IS my body: Therefore there may not be put in place thereof the word SIGNIFIETH. Anſ. We grant the whole. For we place not the word ſignifieth inſtead of the word p. 454is; neither doe we change Chriſts words; but retaine them as they were pronounced by Chriſt. But we ſay, that this is the true and naturall ſenſe of thoſe words; namely, that the bread is the body of Chriſt ſymbolically: that is, as a ſymbole or token of it, or that it ſignifieth Chriſts body: For ſo Chriſt himſelfe conſtrueth them, ſaying; Doe this in remembrance of me: So Paul interpreteth them; This cup is the New Teſtament in my bloud. Tertublib. 4. Cont Marc.And Tertullian ſaith, The bread which he took and diſtributed among his Diſciples, he made it his body, ſaying: This is my body; that is, the figure of my body. Lib. 4. cap. 4, 5. de ſacr. Con. Adim. ca. 12.And Auſtine; Our Lord doubted not to ſay, This is my body, when he gave a token of his body. 2. We retort the argument on our adverſaries, thus Chriſts words are not to be changed: Therefore the Tranſubſtantials gloſſe is falſe, averring thus; Ʋnder theſe forms is, or is contained my body: and likewiſe the Corſubtantials gloſſe, in, with, under this bread is my body inviſibly preſent. 3. The words are not to be chaged, to wit, into another ſenſe then Chriſt will have: but otherwiſe, they are often to be chaged; that is, interpreted aright: as when it is ſaid, Pluck out thine eye. To him that taketh away thy coate, give thy cloake alſo. For words are to be underſtood according to the nature of things.

Object. 5. The words of Testaments are to be understood properly, leſt occaſion of ſtriving about the will of the Teſtator fall out: the Supper is the New Teſtament: Therefore the words therein are properly to be understood. Anſ. To be Major we make anſwer, that the words of Teſtaments are properly to be underſtood, if they be properly ſpoken; and figuratively, if they be figuratively uttered. If they ſay, All words of Testaments are properly to be underſtood, we deny the Major: For it is ſufficient, that the words of Teſtaments be cleere and plaine, though oftentimes they be not proper, but figurative. For when we are ſure of the Teſtators will, what it is, in vaine doe we then diſpute of the letter. So God in the old time ſpake figuratively of Circumciſion, of the Paſchall Lamb, of the Sacrifices. And Chriſt in the New Teſtament ſpake by a figure, Take, drinke; This cup is the New Teſtament in my bloud. For here is a double figure: 1. A Synecdoche, when he biddeth them drink of the cup; that is, of the wine in the cup. 2. A Metonymie, when he calleth the cup the New Teſtament; that is, the reconciliation of mankind with God, ſealed by his bloud.

Object. 6. The eating of bread is done by the mouth: but the eating of the body, is the eating of bread: Therefore the eating of the body is done by the mouth. Anſw. The Minor is either figurative, or falſe: It is figurative, if you underſtand it thus, The eating of the body is the thing ſignified and ſealed by the eating of bread. And ſo, the manner of predication or affirmation being changed, nothing is proved. If it be properly underſtood, it is falſe. For the eating of the bread is externall, corporall, and viſible: but the eating of the body is internall, ſpirituall and inviſible. Wherefore they are not properly one kind of eating; but as the thing ſignified is diſtinguiſhed from the ſigne, ſo the receit of both of them is diſtinct, though both be at once in the lawfull uſe of the Sacraments.

Object. 7. That which quickneth and nouriſheth, must needs be received into us. The body and bloud of Chriſt doe quicken us; Therefore they muſt needs be received into us; that is, be eaten and drunken with the mouth. Anſ. The Major is but meerly particular; and therefore falſe in generall: for, not whatſoever quickneth and nouriſheth us, muſt neceſſarily be received into us. That onelyonly muſt be received into us neceſſarily, which quickneth and nouriſheth naturally; that is, by a joynt-touching of our body. This meate, which ſo nouriſheth us after a naturall manner, doth not nouriſh us, except thereby the ſubſtance of our body be increaſed. But we ſpeak farre otherwiſe of the nouriſhing of the ſoule, which is ſpirituall. Chriſts body doth not at all nouriſh us naturally: for it doth not, being received in us, quicken us, by working in us new corporall qualities, like as a medicine doth: but the body of Chriſt nouriſheth and quickneth us after a manner diverſe from that naturall nouriſhing: and accordingly as this manner of nouriſhing and quickning us requireth, ſo receive wee Chriſts body.The manner how Chriſts body and bloud nouriſh us. The manner, whereby Christs body and bloud nouriſh us, is, 1. The reſpect of his merit: For, for us Chriſts body is given, and his bloud ſhed p. 455for us, and for the body and bloud of Chriſt, we have eternall life given to us. After this manner then the body and bloud of Chriſt quickneth us, as it is a merit deſerving for us this bleſſing. 2. His body or bloud quickneth or nouriſheth us when we receive that merit of Christs body and bloud: that is, when we beleeve with a true faith, that for it we ſhall have eternall life. This faith reſteth and hangeth on Chriſt, hanging on the Croſſe, not corporally dwelling in us. 3. It nouriſheth us, when the ſame ſpirit uniteth us by faith unto Christ, and worketh the like in us, which he doth in Chriſt. For, except we be graffed into Chriſt, we doe not pleaſe God. For he will on that condition receive us into favour, and pardon us our ſinnes, ſo that by faith, through the working of the holy Ghoſt, we be joyned with Chriſt, and ingraffed into him. Seeing then this is the manner, whereby the body and bloud of Chriſt quicken and nouriſh us, there is no need of any deſcending of the body and bloud of Chriſt into our bodies to quicken us.

Repl. Not onelyonly our ſoules, but our bodies alſo are fed with Chriſts body and bloud unto eternall life: Therefore our bodies must eate as well as our ſoules. But our bodies eate and drinke by the mouth Anſw. The Major here omitted, proceedeth thus: Whatſoever is fed with Chriſts body, eateth it; and is falſe, being univerſally propoſed. For doth thy thigh or thine elbow therefore eate, becauſe it is nouriſhed by the meat, which thou conveyeſt in by thy mouth? It ſufficeth, that eating is by the mouth, as an inſtrument framed by nature to this end, to miniſter nouriſhment to the whole body. So it is not neceſſary, that our bodies ſhould eate Chriſts body with their mouches, therewith to be fed unto eternall life: but it ſufficeth, that the mouth of faith taketh the ſpirituall meate, that ſpirituall nouriſhment and life may be tranſfuſed throughout the whole man.