Popery Anatomized, Section 9
SECTION IX. Concerning Tranſubstantiation, and Christs real and ſubſtantial Body and Blood in the Sacrament of the Lords Supper.
Master Gilbert Brown.
Fourthly, Our doctrine is, that our Savior gave his true fleſh and very body and blood under the forms of bread and wine, to be eaten of his Diſciples at his laſt Supper, and that to be received by their very mouth: And this I ſay by the written Word, is the doctrine of Chriſt, and his Apoſtles. Chriſt ſaith, John 6.51. And the bread which I will give you, is my fleſh for the life of the world. And at the latter Supper, Take ye, and eat ye, this is my body: And, Drink ye all of this: For this is my blood of the New Teſtament which ſhal be ſhed for many unto remiſſion of ſins, Matth 26.27.28. And in S. Mark, This is my body, and this is my blood of the New Teſtament, which ſhal be ſhed for many, Mark 14.22.24. And S Luke ſaith, This is my body which is given for you: and this is the calice of the New Teſtament in my blood, which ſhal be ſhed for you, Luke 22.19.20 This ſame is the doctrine of the Apoſtles. For S. Paul ſaith, This is my body which ſhal be delivered for you: and this calice is the New Testament in my blood: and whoſoever ſhal eat this bread and drink the calice of our Lord unworthily he ſhal be guilty of the body and blood of our Lord. And after, For he that eats and drinks unworthily, eats and drinks judgement to himſelf, not decerning the body of our Lord, 1. Cor. 11.24.25 27.29. And in the chapter befo e, The calice of benediction which we do bleſs, is it not the communication of the blood of Chriſt? And the bread which we break, is it not the participation of the body of the Lord? 1. Cor. 10.10.
M. John Welſch his Reply.
I come now to the fourth point of your doctrine, your Tranſubſtantiation and real preſence. The firſt ye quote is the 6. of John, And the bread which I will give, is my fleſh, &c. This makes nothing for your real preſence. For firſt, our Savior ſpeaks not here of that ſacramental eating and drinking of his fleſh and blood in this ſermon, which was not inſtituted a year after that: For he ſpeaks here of that eating and drinking of his fleſh and blood, without the which there is no life. So our Savior teſtifies in the 53. verſe, Except ye eat, ſaith he, the fleſh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, ye have no life in you. But your ſelves grants that men may be ſaved without that ſacramental eating: therefore it is not of that which he ſpeaks here. Secondly, he ſpeaks of that eating and drinking of his fleſh and blood; which whoſoever ſo doth, hath eternal life to themſelves: ſo our Savior Chriſt promiſes in the 54. verſe. But your own doctrine is, that the reprobat eats and drinks Chriſts body and blood in the Sacrament, and yet have no life in them: therefore he ſpeaks not here of that ſacramental eating. Thirdly, if he ſpeak here of the ſacramental eating, as you ſay, then your Church not only hath erred foully, but alſo hath been and is the cauſe of the condemnation of your people theſe many years, becauſe you give them not his blood to drink. And our Savior ſaith not only, Except ye eat the fleſh of the Son of man, but alſo, except ye drink his blood, ye have no life in you. And this reaſon was ſo effectual, that it hath moved ſundry of your own Doctors, as Janſenius and Tapperus, with ſundry others, to expone this place, not of the ſacramental eating and drinking of the body and blood of Chriſt, but of the ſpiritual eating and drinking of him by faith. For they did ſee that it behoved them either to forſake this place, as not making for them, and grant that it ſpeaks not of the Sacrament: or elſe to confeſs that their Church hath erred, and through this error, hath been the cauſe of the damnation of many, in miniſtring the Sacrament but under one kind. And becauſe you ſay, if our expoſitions vere removed from the Scripture, they would ferve for you: whom therefore will you credit in exponing of this place? If our Savior, hear then how he expon s this eating and drinking of his fleſh and blood in the 35. verſe: I am the bread of life, he that cometh unto me, ſhal not hunger; and he that believes in me, ſhal never thirſt. So when we believe in Chriſt, we eat him: and when we come unto him (which is only by faith) we drink him. So Auguſtine alſo expones this place, Tractat. 25. in Johan. cap 6. Tract 26 & de doct. Chriſt. lib. 3 cap. 16. Believe, ſaith he, and thou haſt eaten. Clement Alexandrinus lib. 1. Padago. cap. 6. and Hieronymus in Pſal 147. and Bernard ſupra Pſal. 90 verſ. 3 all expones the fleſh and blood of Chriſt figuratively. And if ye will credit none of theſe, then I hope, ye will not diſcredit your own chief Doctors, who affirms, That this place is not meant of the Sacrament, but of the ſpiritual eating and drinking of Chriſt by faith. As Biel, Cuſanus, Cai…tanus, Heſſelius, and Janſ…nius cited by Bellarm. lib 1 de Euchariſt. cap. 5. And if ye will reply, that many others of the Fathers have exponed this place of the Sacrament then Janfenius and Tapperus, two Papiſts, will anſwer you; That they did it only by way of application unto the readers and hearers, to ſtir them up to the often receiving of the Sacrament. So this place can ſerve nothing for your Tranſubſtantiation; for it ſpeaks not of the Sacrament, but of his ſuffering upon the Croſs for the away taking of our ſins, and the purchaſing to us of eternal life.
The next place ye quote, is the words of the inſtitution, as Matthew, Mark, Luke, and the Apoſtles rehearſes them. Your argument is this. Chriſt calls the bread his fleſh (and ſo Paul) and the wine his blood: therefore the bread is changed in his body, and the wine in his blood, the outward formes of bread and wine only remaining. This is the chief and principal ground of your real preſence and Tranſubſtantiation.
Whereunto I anſwer: Firſt, there is not a ſyllable here that tells us that the ſubſtance of the bread and wine is tranſchanged in the body and blood of Chriſt unleſs ye will expone this word, is my body, for, it is changed in my body, which is a monſtrous expoſition: for both it is contrary to the native ſignification of the word eſt, (Eſt & Fieri, ſunt contraria) that ſignifies to be alreadie: (for to be already, and to be in a change, are contrary) as alſo it hath not the like form of ſpeach in the whole Scripture to warrant it, from the firſt of Geneſis, to the laſt of the Revelation. Bring one inſtance if ye can. And Augustin ſaith, in Geneſ. quaest. 117. in Pſal. 105. ſupr. Num. quaeſt. 95. The ſolution of a queſtion ſhould be warranted by ſome example of the like ſpeach in the Scripture, the which you are not able to do: Therefore your expoſition is without warrant.
Next, I ſay, by what Art of reaſoning can you gather this doctrine out of theſe places of Scripture? Chriſt ſaith of the bread, This is my body; and of the wine, This is my blood: Therefore the outward formes of the bread and wine only remains, but the ſubſtance of them is gone. Never ſuch an inkling in all theſe texts of this doctrine of yours.
Thirdly, this interpretation and doctrine which reſults upon it, is falſe: and that for theſe reaſons. Firſt, becauſe it is plainly gain-ſaid by the Scripture. Secondly, becauſe it deſtroys ſundry articles of our Faith, and many blaſphemous abſurdities doth follow upon it. Thirdly, it deſtroys the nature of the Sacrament. And laſt of all, is utterly repugnant to the words of the inſtitution. My argument then is this: That interpretation and doctrine which is gain-ſaid by the plain teſtimony of the Scripture, which deſtroyes the articles of our faith, and the fundamental points of our ſalvation, which hath many abſurdities following upon it, which overthrowes the nature of the Sacrament; and laſt of all, which is contrary to the whole inſtitution, muſt be falſe, blaſphemous and erroneous. This cannot be denyed but your interpretation of theſe words, This is my body, &c. and your tranſubſtantiation which ye gather upon it, is ſuch. Therefore it muſt be erroneous, &c. My aſſumption I prove thus.
Firſt, your interpretation is gain-ſaid by the plain teſtimony of the Scripture. Your interpretation is, that there remains no true bread nor wine in the Sacrament, but the ſubſtance of it is changed. But Matthew. Mark, Luke, and the Apoſtles all four teſtifies, That Christ took bread, brake it, and gave it to his diſciples: And leſt ye ſhould ſay that it was true bread and wine before the conſecration, but not after, the Scripture ſaith plainly. 1. Cor. 10.16. that it is bread which we break, and bread which is eaten, and the fruit of the vine which is drunken in the Sacrament. The Apoſtle ſaith, The bread which we break. &c. And as oft as ye eat this bread, &c. Whoſoever ſhal eat this bread, &c. And let a man examine himſelf, and ſo let him eat of this bread, &c. And our Savior ſaith, that after he had given the cup, and they had drunken of it, From henceforth ſhal I not drink of the fruit of the vine with you, &c. Therefore true bread and wine remains in the Sacrament, contrary expreſly to your interpretation.
Secondly, That your interpretation deſtroyes the Articles of our Faith, I prove it thus: If this be true that the bread and wine be really changed in the bodie and blood of Chriſt in the Sacrament, as ye expound the words: Firſt, It will follow that either Chriſt aſcerded not into heaven, becauſe he remaineth in the earth in the Sacrament: and ſo one of the Articles of our Belief is falſified: Or elſe if ye ſay he aſcended once but yet deſcends continually to be preſent in the Sacrament, then another Article of our Belief is falſified, which ſaith, That he ſitteth at the right hand of God his Father. And as Peter ſaith, abides in heaven, whom the heavens muſt contain, while the time of the reſtoring of all things come, Act. 3.21. foreign, &c.
Secondly, It will follow that Chriſts bodie is made of the bread: for if the ſubſtance of the bread be changed in the bodie of Chriſt, then it muſt follow that the bread is become the bodie of Chriſt, and Chriſt his bodie is made of that bread, as the wine was made of the water at the marriage of Cana in Galilee. And ſo Bellarmin, lib 3. de Eucharist. fol. 399. and Pope John 22. lib. orat. in ſcript. antidotar, animae, and the Maſter of Sentences, Lombard. lib. 4. diſtinct. 11. cap. 8 grants, that Chriſt it made of bread, and the ſubſtance of bread and wine it made Christs fleſh and bodie; and ſo here another article of our faith falſified, which ſaith, That Chriſt his bodie was made of the ſeed of the woman, and not of any other matter, and like to us in all things, except ſin.
Thirdlie, It will follow that Chriſt had two bodies together, one under the form of a man, and another under the form of bread: one ſpeaking, and another dumb: one giving to his diſciples to eat, and another the ſelf ſame thing which was given to be eaten: yea, it ſhal follow, if your expoſition be true, in ſaying, That Chriſts body and blood is under the forms of bread and wine in the Sacrament, not only that there are two Chriſts, one in heaven at the right hand of his Father viſible, glorious and in one place: and another Chriſt in the earth inviſible, circumſcribed by no place: but alſo that there are as many Chri s as there are Sacraments in the earth, yea, as many Chriſts as there are bits of bread in every Sacrament, and ſo the foundation of our ſalvation is overturned.
Fourthly. It will follow that the body and blood of Chriſt are ſeparat, as the bread and wine in the Sacrament which is turned in them is ſeparated.
Fifthly, It will follow that his body is ſeparat from his ſoul, and ſo a dead bodie, becauſe the bread and wine are not changed in his ſoul, but only in his body.
Sixthly, It will follow that the bread in the firſt Supper being changed in the body of Chriſt, that the ſubſtance of the bread hath ſuffered for us, died for us, and riſen again for us: and hath a part of our redemption, which is blaſphemous to think.
Seventhly, It will follow that Chriſt eated his own body, and drank his own blood, which is abſurd: for Chryſoſtom, hom. 83. in Mar. and your Canon Law, de conſecr. diſt 2. Canon. Nec Moſes, teſtifies, that he ate the ſame thing which he gave to his Diſciples. And alſo he ſaith himſelf, From hence forth will I not drink with you more of the fruit of this vine, &c. So he drank of that which they drank of. And laſt of all, it will follow, that the Maſs-Prieſt is the creator of his Creator: and ſo their Breviaries and Lombardus, and Bellarmin grants. In their Breviaries the Prieſt ſaith, Qui creavit me ſine me, creatur mediante me: that is, He that created me without me, is created by my moyen. Lombardus ſaith, diſtinct. 12. lib. 4. cap. 5. The Prieſts are ſaid to make the body and blood of Chriſt, becauſe by their miniſtry the ſubſtance of the bread is made his fleſh. And Bellarmin ſaith, lib. 3. de Euchariſt cap 24 Sacerdotes conficiunt corpus Chriſti ex pane, That the Prieſts makes Chriſt his body of bread. Now if there be no blaſphemous abſurdities, I know not what is blaſphemy. Now chooſe ye whither ye will ſubſcribe to all theſe abſurdities, which you with all the wit of the Roman Clergy, is not able to eſchew, if ye grant this interpretation of yours to be true: or will you forſake this interpretation of yours, as falſe, erroneous, and contrary both to the plain Scriptures of God, and the articles of our Faith, and the grounds of our ſalvation.
As to the third: Your interpretation deſtroys the nature of all Sacraments, and makes the Supper of the Lord no Sacrament; for every Sacrament conſiſts of an outward and viſible ſign, and of a ſpiritual thing ſignified by that ſign, the which ſign hath a reſemblance with the thing ſignified. The ſign is ever earthly, and the thing ſignified is heavenly, as ſhal appear by all the reſt of the Sacraments, both of the Old and New Teſtament. In Paradiſe, Gen. 2.9. Rev. 2.7. there was a very tree for the ſign, and Chriſt the thing ſignified by it. In circumciſion there was a cutting of the skin, Gen. 17.9.20. Rom 4 11. Deut. 30.6. Col. 2.11. and the cutting off of ſin. In the Paſsover there was a Lamb and Chriſt, Exod. 12. 1. Cor. 5.7.8. John 19.36. And in the Sabath there was a day of reſt, and eternal reſt, Heb. 4.1 3.4.5. &c. In the Sanctuary there was an holy Place, and heaven, Heb. 9 24. In the wilderneſs there was a Rock yeelding water, and Chriſt yeelding his blood, 1. Cor. 10 4. In the apparition there was a dove, and the holy Ghoſt, John 1.32. In the Manna there was bread, and Chriſt, 1. Cor. 10.3. In Baptiſm there was very water which waſheth us, and Chriſts blood waſhing our ſins, Tit. 3.5. 1. Pet. 3.21. Therefore in the Sacrament of the Supper muſt be bread and wine feeding this natural life, and reſembling our communion one with another, and Chriſts fleſh & blood feeding our ſpiritual life, 1. Cor. 10.16. 17. otherwiſe this Sacrament is againſt the nature of all other Sacraments, which is abſurd to think, and ſhould be no Sacrament at all, as Augustin ſaith, Epist. 23. If the Sacraments had not a reſemblance with the things whereof they are Sacraments, they ſhould not be Sacraments at all. But your interpretation and doctrine deſtroys both the ſign, and the reſemblance which they ſhould have with the things ſignified in the Supper; for there is no outward ſign there which is an earthly ſubſtance, but only accidents of color, and quantity, if your doctrine be true; and there is nothing there to reſemble either our ſpiritual nowriſhment by the fleſh and blood of Chriſt, or yet our ſpiritual fellowſhip one with another: unleſs you will ſay, that accidents feeds, and nowriſhes: the which if you will ſay, then to ſay no more to it but this. If you and your common Clergy who is ſo bold and ſtrong in maintaining this monſtrous Tranſubſtantiation of yours againſt the truth of God, were fed with no better ſubſtance then accidents; then, I ſay, you would have fainted long ſince in the defence of it. Seeing therefore your interpretation makes the Supper to be no Sacrament, and makes it unlike all other Sacraments, therefore it muſt be falſe and erroneous.
As to the fourth, that it is againſt the whole inſtitution and uſe thereof, I prove it thus. Firſt, I will ask you, what was it which Chriſt took in his hand? If you ſay his fleſh, then the text will ſay the contrary, And Jeſus took bread, in all the three Evangeliſts, and the Apoſtle Paul. So it was bread which he took, after he did take it, he bleſſed it: What did he bleſs, but the bread which he had taken? ſo it is yet bread. After he bleſſed it, he brake it. What did he break? If you ſay, it was his fleſh or body, then the Scripture will ſay the contrary: There was not a bone of him broken, Exod. 12. John 19. And the Apoſtle ſaith, It is bread which we break, 1. Cor. 10. So it is bread which is broken. Then yet it is bread. After he brake it, he gave it. What gave he but the thing which he brake? And what brake he but bread? 1. Cor. 10.17. and 11.26. 27.28. So it is bread which he gave. After he had given it, they received it, and did eat it. But what did they eat, but that which he gave? And therefore the Apoſtle ſaith four times, It is bread which is eaten, and whereof we are partakers, and that after the conſecration: For it is broken, given, and received, and eaten, after the conſecration. And when they did eat it, he ſaid, This is my body. What did he call his body, but that which they did eat, and that was bread? So when then ſhould this change be, ſeeing it is bread all the time while he took it, bleſſed it, and gave it, and they did eat? For, I ſuppoſe, ye will not ſay, it is changed after it is broken, and given, and in eating.
Secondly, I will ask you, what are the words whereby this monſtrous change is made, as ye ſuppoſe, of the ſubſtance of the bread in Chriſts body? If this change be made by any word ſpoken in the inſtitution of this Sacrament, then, I ſay, it muſt either be by this word, And he bleſſed it; or by theſe words, This is my body, &c. But not by the firſt: for after he bleſſed it, he called it bread. And the Apoſtle ſaith, it is bread which we break, therefore it remains bread after the bleſſing. Not by the other words: for if they be not ſpoken to the bread and wine, they cannot change their nature. But Mark ſaith plainly, they were ſpoken to the Diſciples, And he ſaid unto them, This is my blood, Mark 14.24. Therefore they changed not their nature. And Durand a Papiſt, ſaith, in his Rationals, That this change is made by the bleſſing. Therefore not by theſe words which were pronounced after the bleſſing. And theſe words cannot work a change: For they are not words importing an operation, as theſe are, Let light be, Let the earth bring forth fruit, Gen. 1. Come out, Lazarus John. 12. and ſuch like: but only ſignifying the things themſelves, as theſe are, Thou art my well-beloved Son. So if theſe words ſhould have wrought any change, they would not have been, This is my body, &c. but, let this be my body: Therefore there is no ſuch change at all here, as ye imagine.
Thirdly, it ſhould follow that the cup ſhould alſo be changed in his blood, and in the New Teſtament, becauſe Chriſt calls the cup his blood and New Teſtament, as he calls the bread his body. But this you will not ſay. Wherefore then are you ſo abſurd as to ſay the other?
Fourthly, I will ask you whither do ye receive in the Sacrament that body which is mortal, or that body which is glorified? For one of them you muſt receive, either Chriſts body as it was mortal, or his body as it is now glorified. If ye ſay a mortal body; then I ſay, Chriſt hath not a mortal body to give you now in the Sacrament, for it is glorified: therefore ye cannot receive it. If ye ſay an immortal and glorified body; then I ſay, ye muſt ſeek another warrant then this text of Matthew, Mark and Luke. For at that time his body was not glorified. For the Sacrament was inſtituted before his death, and he was not glorified until after his reſurrection: And if ye receive that ſame body which the Apoſtles then received; then ye receive not a glorified body. What a body is this then which ye receive, neither mortal nor glorified?
Fifthly, the text ſaith, they who receives unworthily, receives their own damnation. But if Chriſts fleſh and blood were there preſent, as ye ſay, then all who received it ſhould receive their ſalvation, becauſe our Savior ſaith, He that eats my fleſh and drinks my blood, hath life everlaſting, John 6 54. Now I conclud, ſeeing your interpretation of theſe places of Scripture, and your doctrine of Tranſubſtantiation which ye gather thereupon; firſt, is plainly gain-ſaid by the expreſs teſtimonies of the Scripture; next, overthrows all the main foundations of our ſalvation, and articles of our Faith: thirdly, deſtroys the nature of a Sacrament, and maketh it no Sacrament at all, and like no other Sacrament, either of the Old or New Teſtament: and laſt of all, is contrary to the whole inſtitution thereof, as I hope I have ſufficiently proved: therefore of neceſſity it muſt be falſe and erroneous
As for the 10 of the 1. Cor 16. The cup of bleſſing which we bleſs, is it not the communion: and the bread which we break, is it not, &c. I anſwer: This Sacrament of bread and wine, becauſe it not only repreſents and ſeals up to us our communion with Chriſt, but alſo by it, as by a moſt effectual inſtrument, the holy Ghoſt increaſes and nowriſhes this communion, both with him, and among our ſelves: therefore it is called the communion of his body and blood But this moſt clearly proves, that there is no ſuch change here, as ye ſuppoſe: for the Apoſtle ſaith plainly, The bread which we break; and this breaking, you ſay, is after the conſecration: therefore after the conſecration true bread remains in the Sacrament, and ſo there is no tranſubſtantiation in the ſame. But becauſe you ſay, the ſubſtance of the bread and wine is not there, I pray you, tell me whither are they gone? Whither are they turned to nothing, or are they changed in Chriſts body? If you ſay, they are turned to nothing: Firſt, I ſay, this were a ſtrange kind of reaſoning: This is my body; therefore the ſubſtance of the bread is turned to nothing. Next, the Apoſtle ſhould not ſpeak truly, to call it bread which is broken, and bread which is eaten, &c if it were turned to nothing. Thirdly, then this ſhould not be called Tranſubſtantiation, or changing of one ſubſtance into another: but an annihilation of one ſubſtance, that is, a turning of it to nothing, and a bringing in of another ſubſtance in the room of it. And fourthly, Thomas of Aquin, your great defender of this doctrine, is againſt this, lib. 4 diſt. 8. But if you ſay, they are turned in Chriſts body, which the word Tranſubſtantiation imports; then, I ſay, as oft as the Sacrament hath been miniſtrated, as oft hath there been ſome quantitie of ſubſtance added to his body: and it ſhal ſtill grow in greatneſs and quantitie, as long as it ſhal be miniſtred: but this is monſtrous to think. And to end this, if you ſay there is no ſubſtance of bread and wine left in the Sacrament, then let me ask you whoſe are the whiteneſs, and redneſs, and roundneſs that we ſee? What means this taſte in our mouthes of bread and wine, if there be no ſubſtance of them there? May we not ſay to you, as Chriſt ſaid to Thomas, who doubted of his reſurrection, Put thy finger here, behold my hands; put thy hand in my ſide, and be not incredulous, but believe? So, may not we ſay to you, who doubteth whither the ſubſtance of bread and wine be here remaining yet, touch them, taſte them, look on them, and feel them, and be not incredulous, but believe? For behold, there would not be ſuch a color, ſuch a taſte and ſmel, and there were not ſubſtance of bread and wine here. And I pray you, tell me what is this that rots then, and growes in worms in the bread, and ſouers in the wine, if they be long kept? If their ſubſtance remaineth not, will you ſay Chriſts fleſh and blood rots and conſumes and ſouers? What is this but to make him mortal, yea to crucifie him again? And if you will not ſay that, then either muſt you confeſs that their ſubſtance remaines and is not changed, or elſe Chriſts fleſh and blood is tranſubſtantiated in theſe ſubſtances which rots and ſouers, or elſe that the accidents is changed again in their ſubſtances: and ſo ye ſhal not have one, but mo changes in your Sacrament. Yea, if their ſubſtance be gone, and nothing but their accidents remaining, then how could Pope Victor the 3. and the Emperor Henry the 7. have been poiſoned with them; as Faſciculus temp. Platina, Blond, teſtifieth, accidents and Chriſts body could neither poiſon them, nor be capable of poiſon: therefore they felt by experience that there was no Tranſubſtantiation in the Sacrament. So we ſee the texts ye brought with you, is againſt you, as the ſword that Goliah brought to ſlay David, cutted off his own head. But yet you will ſay, If the bread be not his body, why then did he call it his body? this is the chief thing you have for your doctrine; & anſwer this, and the plea is won. Unto this then I anſwer, that in that ſame ſenſe he ſaid, This is my body: In the which he ſaid afterward, which is broken for you, 1. Cor. 11.24. Luke 21. foreign which is given in the preſent time. But there can be no ſenſe of theſe words, but this; the bread was broken, and ſignified that his body ſhould be broken with the ſorrows of death: for his body was not broken before he ſuffered: and the Apoſtle ſaith, it is bread which is broken: ſo then as the breaking of the bread ſignified the breaking of his body, ſo the bread ſignified his body: and as his body was not broken indeed when the bread was broken, ſo the bread could not be his body in very deed when he ſo called it For the reſemblance and likeneſs thereof between the bread and his body, the bread it is called his body, &c. and this phraſe is very frequent in the Scripture, to give the name of the things ſignified to the ſign, as ſhal be ſeen afterward.
M. Gilbert Brown.
Now let the Miniſters come in here with their natural reaſons againſt the omnipotencie of Chriſt, that he cannot be in two places at once, and with their figurs, ſigns, ſimilituds, ſymbols, and ſpiritual eating of a natural body, with many the like; which are the inventions of their own brains, not contained in the written Word. And who can ſay but that our doctrine in this is the doctrine of Chriſt and his Apoſtles, and not theirs?
M. John Welſch his Reply.
Ye prevent our anſwers here, and firſt ye bid us hold away our natural reaſons againſt the omnipotency of Chriſt, that he cannot be in two places at once. Whereunto I anſwer, that we ſhal bring no reaſon, neither natural nor ſupernatural, againſt the omnipotency of Chriſt, for we acknowledge it, and adores it. But we ſay to you, pretend not his omnipotency for your monſtrous imaginations, which have no warrant of his will in his Scripture. For firſt, we ſay this argument of yours will not follow: Chriſt is able to make his body to be in two places, both at once, in heaven, and in the Sacrament: therefore he makes it to be ſo. For you muſt firſt prove he will do ſo: for your ſelf, M. Gilbert, can do many things which you do not, becauſe you will not; ſo from can to will, it follows not. And if you ſay, that Chriſt hath willed ſo, becauſe he ſaid, This is my body: I have anſwered to it before, refute you it, and all your Roman Clergy, if you can. For you might as well ſay, Chriſt willed the cup wherein the wine was, to be changed in his blood and New Teſtament, and himſelf to be changed in a vine-tree, and a door, and a rock to be changed in him: becauſe ſo hath he and his Apoſtles ſpoken, John 10. and 13. 1. Cor. 10 and 11. and theſe ſpeaches are as true, as that; and yet there is no change here. Next, I ſay, your own School-men and great defenders of Tranſubſtantiation, Thomas of Aquin, and others, ſay, lib. 1 cap. 84. & lib. 2. cap. 25. contra Gent. That it is againſt the omnipotency of God to affirm that he may do any thing which implyes a contradiction in its ſelf; for that is rather to be called a weakneſs then a power. And the Scripture affirms, that God cannot lie, nor deny himſelf, nor be tempted, and that yea and nay it not in Chriſt, Heb. 6. 2 Tim. 2. James 1.2. Cor. 1. but to Chriſts body, both to be a true body, like to us in all things (to wit eſſential) except ſin, as the Scripture ſaith, and to be in mo places at once, which makes him to have not a true body like ours. For Auguſtin ſaith, ad Dardanum (ſpeaking of Chriſts glorified body) If it be a true body, it is then in a certain place: and take away from bodies their quantities, they are no more true bodies) implyes a contradiction, and is yea and nay in him: and Chriſts body both to be viſible and inviſible at one time: to be in a certain place in heaven with his own length and breadth, and not to have his own length and breadth at once in the Sacrament, is a manifeſt contradiction, is yea and nay in Chriſt: therefore both by the Scripture and your own doctrine, the omnipotency of Chriſt cannot be alledged or pretended for this your doctrine, which is yea and nay, and implyes a manifeſt contradiction. So this in very truth, is the invention of your own brain, which is alledged for your Tranſubſtantiation, and wants the warrant, yea is gain-ſaid both by the written Word, and your own School-men. Next, ye would have us to hold away our figurs, ſymbols, and ſimilituds: I anſwer: our own figurs we ſhal hold away: but theſe figurs, ſymbols, and ſigns, wherein our Savior hath delivered his truth to us, we muſt and will acknowledge So then, obeying rather God who hath ſet them down in his Scripture, then you who forbids us to acknowledge them: and what a monſtrous expoſition would you make of infinit places of Scripture, if you would admit no figures in them, but all to be underſtood plainly and literally as they were ſpoken? The Scripture aſcribes to God eyes. ears, foot, hands, and a face: and the Scripture calls Chriſt a door, a vine. Now if you will admit no figurs here, but will have all theſe places exponed literally, as you will have us to do in the Sacrament, then you would be reckoned in the number of the old hereticks called Anthropomorphitae, who becauſe they ſaw the Scripture ſpeak ſo of God, they taking it literally and exponing it without figurs, as you would have us to expone the Sacrament, they thought that God was bodilie: yea, you muſt make another monſtrous Tranſubſtantiation of Chriſt in a door, and vine-tree, for ſo he calls himſelf. And to come to the Sacraments themſelves, how many tranſubſtantiations will you make in all the Sacraments, both of the Old and New Teſtament, if you will remove figurs and ſigns from them, and expone them literally, as you would have us to do in this Sacrament. Circumciſion is called the covenant, Gen. 27. and yet it was but the ſign of the covenant: the Lamb in the Paſsover, is called the Paſsover of the Lord, Exod. 12. and yet it was but the ſign of the Paſsover: the Rock in the wilderneſs, is called Chriſt, 2. Cor. 20. and yet it was but a ſign of Chriſt: the Ark is called the Lord, Pſal. 24. and yet it was but a ſign of the Lord: the land of Canaan is called the reſt of the Lord. Heb. 4. and yet it was but a ſign of that reſt: and Baptiſm is called the waſhing of regeneration, Tit. 3. and yet it is but the ſign of our regeneration. Do you think that the forms of ſpeaches in all other Sacraments are figuratively taken, and the form of ſpeach in this Sacrament only to be literally underſtood? What reaſon can there be of this diverſity? But it may be you think that the form of ſpeaches in all other Sacraments ſhould be taken figuratively: but the phraſe of ſpeach in this Sacrament is to be taken literally. But firſt, what then will you ſay to this ſpeach, This is my body which is broken for you; and this, The cup is the New Teſtament in my blood, and the cup is my blood; and the bread which we break, is it not the communion of the body of Chriſt? and the cup which we bleſs, is it not the communion of the blood of Chriſt? 1 Cor. 11. Luke 22. Mark 14. 1. Cor. 13. all figurative ſpeaches, and to be underſtood figuratively: otherwiſe Chriſt ſhould have been broken in the Sacrament, which is both contrary to the Scripture, and alſo abſurd. For then he ſhould have ſuffered twiſe; once in the Sacrament, and once upon the croſs: and not only ſhould there be one tranſubſtantiation in the Sacrament, but many: as of the cup in the blood of Chriſt, and of the bread and cup in the participation of the body and blood of Chriſt: and ſo you ſhould not only have one tranſubſtantiation, but many. And how, I pray you, can Sacraments which are but figurs, ſigns and ſymbols, be underſtood but figuratively? And how can duo diverſa individua alterum de altero praedicari in praedicatione, and be ſpoken of another, without a figure, as it is here. This bread is my body, &c. Can you or any at all of your Roman Clergy, underſtand ſuch propoſitions otherwiſe then figurativelie? What an unreaſonable thing is it then to you to forbid us to acknowledge figurs in this Sacrament, which is but a figure and ſign, ſeeing they are ſo frequentlie uſed in the Scriptures of God, and eſpeciallie in Sacraments, as alſo in this Sacrament? So nil ye will ye, ſigns and ſymbols, tropes and figurs ye muſt admit in the expoſition of this Sacrament. Laſt of all, ye think a natural bodie cannot be ſpirituallie eaten. Would you be ſo abſurd and blaſphemous, as to have Chriſts bodie naturallie eaten? For then his bodie muſt be naturallie chawed, digeſted, turned over in our ſubſtance, and caſten out in the draught, and ſo be mortal and ſuffer again; Apage hanc blaſphemiam.
Let me ask you, whither is Chriſts bodie the food of the ſoul, or the food of the bodie? If you ſay it is the food of the bodie to fill the bellie; then, I ſay, it muſt be naturally eaten; but you are blaſpemous in ſo thinking. But if you ſay, it is the food of the ſoul, as it is indeed, and as our Savior ſaith, John 6.35. then it cannot be eaten naturally: For as the food of the body cannot be eaten ſpiritually, ſo the food of the ſoul cannot be eaten naturally, but ſpiritually by faith. And if you underſtood this true eating of Chriſt by faith, all your contention would take an end. But this is the ſtone which ye ſtumble at, and therefore ye forbid us to come in with a ſpiritual eating of Chriſts natural body, as though it could be eaten otherwiſe then ſpiritually by faith Will you neither underſtand the Scriptures, John 6 35. nor the ancient Fathers, August tract. 26. in Joh. 6 & lib 3. de doct. Chriſt. cap. 16, & Clemens Alex Hierom. S Baſilius, Bernardus ſupra citat. nor your own Church. Bellarm. de Euchar. lib. 1. cap. 7. and your Canon Law, de conſecrat. diſt. 1. cap. 5. who all acknowledge a ſpiritual eating of Chriſt by faith? What groſs darkneſs is this wherewith the Lord hath blinded you above all, that ye cannot underſtand it? As Chriſt dwells in us, and we in him, ſo do we eat him, and drink him. But the Apoſtle ſaith, he dwells in us by faith, Epheſ. 3. therefore we eat him, and drink him by faith. And ſeeing your Church grants, that the eating of Chriſt corporally doth no good, and the eating of him by faith only will bring eternal life, as our Savior ſaith, John 6. what needs then this corporal and real eating of Chriſt? And why are ye like the groſs and carnal Capernaits, who can underſtand no eating, but a corporal eating of him? And what is the cauſe that ye cannot underſtand the doctrine of your own Church, which acknowledges a ſpiritual eating of Chriſt by faith, both by the Word and by the Sacrament alſo, de conſecr diſt. 2. cap. Ut quid. I had never have thought that ye had been ſo far blinded of the Lord. But I leave you to the Lord. Let the Chriſtian Reader now judge whether our doctrine or yours be the invention of mans brain, and which of them have their warrant out of the written Word of God.
M. Gilbert Brown.
And further, I ſay, of theſe words, This is my body which ſhal be delivered for you, 1. Cor. 11.24. which is a true propoſition, and therefore this muſt follow: But there was no body delivered for us, but the natural body of Chriſt: therefore it was his natural body that he gave to his Diſciples to be eaten. Then if it were his natural body, it was not natural bread. As Saint Ambroſe expounds the ſame, Let us prove, ſaith he, this not to be that that nature formed, but that thing which the bleſſing hath conſecrate, and greater ſtrength to be in bleſſing then in nature: for nature it ſelf is changed by bleſſing. He hath the ſame more amplie in the fourth book in the 4 chap. de Sacramentis.
Maiſter John Welſch his Reply.
Firſt, I anſwer, the words of the Apoſtle is not as ye cite them here which ſhal be delivered, but foreign, which is broken, and in the preſent time, and ſo in Luke foreign, which is given; ſo you are not faithful in tranſlating this place of Scripture, both contrary to the Greek and Syriak copies. Upon the which I reaſon thus, this propoſition is true, This is my body which is broken for you: ſo the Apoſtle ſaith; but Chriſts body was not broken then really, for not a bone of him was broken at all, as the Scripture teſtifies, Exod 12. and the Scripture ſaith, John 19. and all men confeſſes that he ſuffered but once, ſo only his ſufferings are ſignified then by the breaking of the bread in the Sacrament here: ſo as Chriſts body was not broken then really, that is, ſuffered; but his ſuffering only ſignified by the breaking of the bread, ſo his body was not given really and corporally to be eaten, but only ſignified. Secondly, I ſay, it is true, that Chriſts natural body was delivered to the death for us: but yet it will not follow upon this, that it was his natural body which he gave to them to be eaten corporally: for his natural body was really delivered to death for us: and it was but given to them ſpiritually to be eaten. You muſt coyn a new Logick, M. Gilbert, ere you can make theſe two ſtick together: and the one neceſſarilie to follow upon the other. For by that ſame reaſon you may as well conclud, that Chriſt gave his natural body to be eaten corporally in the word, for he gives himſelf to be eaten in his word, as well as in his Sacrament, 2. John 6.35 Bellarmin grants this alſo, lib. 1. de Euchariſt. cap. 7. and alſo he gives that ſame body to them in the word, which was delivered to death: for the ſelf ſame Chriſt is offered and received as well in the word as in the Sacrament. So from his bodilie death, to a corporal eating of him, it will not follow. And further by that ſame reaſon you may as well ſay, that the Fathers before Chriſt under the Law, did eat Chriſts body corporally, for they ate that ſame ſpiritual food, and drank that ſame ſpiritual drink, in their Sacraments, which we do now in ours. So the Apoſtle teſtifies, even that ſelf ſame Chriſt his body and blood which was delivered to the death, and yet it will not follow, that they did eat his natural body, &c. As for Ambroſe, it is true he ſo ſpeaks, but he expones himſelf in that ſame chapter, while as he ſaith, Before the bleſſing another form or thing is named, but after the conſecration, the body of Chriſt is ſignified. If the bread then ſignifie the body of Chriſt, it is not changed in his body. And becauſe of this holy uſe to ſignifie the body of Chriſt, Ambroſe ſaith, That the nature is changed by bleſſing: and that this is his meaning, his words following will declare it, where he ſaith, Shal not the words of Chriſt be of force to change the form of the elements. In that ſame ſenſe Ambroſe ſaith, the nature of the elements is changed, in the which he ſaith, the form of them is changed, for he affirmeth both there. But ye will not ſay, I ſuppoſe, unleſs you will overthrow your tranſubſtantiation, that Ambroſe means; that the form of the elements is changed in ſubſtance, but only in uſe and ſignification; for you ſay the forms remains, therefore you muſt alſo grant that Ambroſe means not by the change of nature, the change of the ſubſtance of them, but only the change in the uſe of them, from a common uſe to a holy uſe. And becauſe it may be you will delay to ſubſcribe to the truth of our doctrine, until you hear the ſentence and judgement of the Fathers. Therefore I will ſet them down here. Tertullian ſaith, contra Marc. lib. 4. This is my body, that is, a figure of my body. Chryſostome ſaith, in 1. Cor. cap. 10. What is that which the bread ſignifies, the body of Chriſt. Theodoret ſaith, dialog. 1. and 2. The bread and wine is ſigns and figures of the body and blood of Chriſt. And he ſaith, Our Savior in the institution of the Sacrament enterchanged the names and gave to the ſign or ſymbol the name of his body: and theſe myſtical ſigns of theſe holy things whereof are the ſigns. Unto the which he anſwers, Are they not ſigns of the body and blood of Chriſt? Hieronymus ſaith, in Mat. 2.6. That Chriſt by taking of the bread, which comforts the heart of man, repreſenteth the truth of his bodie. Cyrillus ſaith, ad Euop. Matth. 11. Baſ. Liturgia Nazian. in orat. 2. de Paſ. & funere Gorg. Our Sacrament avoweth not the eating of a man. Baſilius and Nazianzen calls the bread and wine in the Supper foreign, figurs or ſigns of the body of Chriſt. Cyprian ſaith, lib. 1. ep. 6. ejus contra Adima, cap. 12. & Pſal. 3. The Lord called bread made of many grains his body, and wine made of many grapes his blood. Augustin ſaith, Our Lord doubted not to ſay, This is my body, while as he gave but the ſign of his body. And he calls it, the figure of his body and blood. And their Canon Law ſaith, de conſeer diſt. 2. cap. Hoc eſt. The heavenly bread which is the fleſh of Chriſt, is called after a manner the body of Christ, while as it is but the Sacrament of his body. And the Gloſs there ſaith, The heavenly bread, that is the heavenly Sacrament which repreſents truly the fleſh of Chriſt, is called the body of Christ, but improperly. I omit the reſt which is exceeding many, and becauſe if you be a right defender of the Catholick Faith, you will ſay with the reſt of your Clergie, that the Pope cannot err. Therefore a Pope, Gelaſius by name, ſaith, de duabus natura in Chriſto: Neither the ſubſtance of the bread, nor nature of the wine, ceaſeth to be any more then they were before; but remain in their own ſubſtance. And he calls them there, An image and reſemblance of the body and blood of Chriſt. Now tell me, Master Gilbert, do not theſe ſpeak as plain as we? Will you avow your tranſubſtantiation, which they ſo flatly deny. And as our Savior ſaith, A Kingdom divided againſt it ſelf, cannot ſtand; ſo the manifold diviſions among your ſelves concerning this tranſubſtantiation, is a very ſure argument of the falling, both of you and your doctrine. Some of you expounds this word, hoc, this(1)Bonaventure, Gerſon contra Florentiū, lib. 4. of the bread. (2)As Thomas lib. 4 ſeu diſt 8. Occam in 4 ſent d. 13. q. 16.17Some of Chriſts body: (3)Innocent 3 de offic. miſſ. pag. 3 object. 14 & Scotus in l. 46. d. 8. q. 3.and ſome calls it, an individuum vagum: (4)Durandus rational. 4ſome ſaith, it ſignifieth nothing: (5)Holcot in 4. ſent. quaeſt. 1,and ſome ſaith, it ſignifieth a thing which is common both to terminus à quo, and terminus ad quem.
Secondly, in the expoſition of the word eſt, is: ſome for, it is: ſome for, it is changed. Thirdly, ſome(a)Thomas. ſaith, the ſubſtance of the bread and wine returns to nothing: ſome ſaith(b)The gloſs of Gratian, and the extravag, de cō ſecr. dist. 2 cap. Species &c firmit extr de ſumma Trinitate. it paſſes in the body of Chriſt. Fourthly, ſome ſaith(c)C. non oportet, & ibi gloſſ. de conſecrat. diſt. 2. &c. Cum Martha para verum eleemoſ. the water in the Sacrament returns to nothing: ſome ſaith it is changed in the blood with the wine: ſome ſaith it is(d)Thomas 3974 art. 8. turned in Chriſts vital humors: ſome ſaith, it is turned in the wine, and after in the blood: ſome ſaith(e)Durand. lib. 4. cap. 42. they dare not define it. Fifthly, ſome ſaith,(f)Thomas Epiſt. 59. & 3. quaeſt. 79. the worms that are bred of the Sacrament, comes of the quantitie: other ſome ſaith(g)Durand. lib. 3. cap. 41. they are bred of the ſubſtance. Sixthly, ſome ſaith, Chriſt(h)Idem lib. 4. cap. 41. conſecrated by the word, he bleſſed: ſome by the(i)M. Gilbert. words, This is my body, and the bleſſing together: ſome(k)Gloſſ. in cap. Utrum in verbis perferri de conſ. diſt. 2. will have the conſecration to be made in heaven: and ſome frankly(l)Scotus in repor. diſt. 8. qu. 2. confeſſes, That they neither know the words, nor the number of them, whereby this conſecration is made. And to omit ſix hundred the like, I will only touch theſe few:(m)Gloſſ. in l. tribus. ſome ſaith, The body of Christ is taken bodily with the mouth: (n)Cajetan. tom. 2. cap. 2. & 3. & 5.ſome ſaith, That it feeds: (o)Gloſſ. ibidem.ſome ſaith, As ſoon as it is preſſed with the teeth, the body of Chriſt is caught up to heaven. (p)Durand. rational. lib. 4.But other ſome faith, It paſſeth from the teeth to the heart, and then the bodily preſence ceaſes: (q)Bonavent. 4. diſt. 13. art. 2. qu. 2.and other ſome will have him go to the ſtomack, &c. but not to the mind. And yet he ſaith, He doubts whither he goes to the belly or not, for the variety of opinions: and in ſo great variety, he ſaith, what to hold, is hard to judge. And ſuppoſe he holds it, That the body of Christ goes not into the belly of a mouſe, or is caſten out into the draught; becauſe, ſaith he, the ears of well diſpoſed perſons would abhor it, and infidels and hereticks would jeſt at it, and laugh us to ſcorn. Yet ſundry others holds, as Alexander de Hales, part, quaeſt. 45. & Thomas Aquin, parte 3. qu. 80. art. 3. & Antonius Archiepiſc. part. 3. tit. 13. cap. 6. That not only it goes into the belly, but alſo Chriſts body may be vomited up or purged out in the draught, and that brute beaſts may eat Chriſts body, & it may go into the belly of dogs and ſwine. O filthy mouthes, & unclean ſpirits! what heretick, what Capernait was ever ſo groſs and carnal; yea, ſo barbarous and brutiſh, as ye are? So not only are ye more groſs then the Capernaits, who thought that ſaying hard: but alſo like the barbarous Canibals, who eat the fleſh of man. O blind leaders of the blind, ſhal myce, dogs and ſwine, eat and drink the precious body and blood of Chriſt? Shal they then have eternal life? I think the ears of all Chriſtians will abhor this your doctrine, and their hearts will tremble at it. Theſe abſurdities, together with Scriptures and Fathers againſt the ſame, hath made ſome of your great pillars to ſay, as Fiſher againſt the captivity of Babylon, That no man can prove by the words of the Goſpel, that any Prieſt in theſe days doth conſecrat the very body and blood of Chriſt. And others, as Lindanus Panop. lib. 4. Caniſius and Petrus a Soto ſupra citati. That tranſubſtantiation it but a tradition, which hath not the author of it in the Scripture, nor cannot be defended by the ſame. And others, as Tonſtal de Sacramentis, That it had been better to have left every man to his own conjecture, as they were before the Council of Lateran, then to bring in ſuch a queſtion.
I have been longſome in this, but yet it ſo behoved me, becauſe it is the foundation of their ſacrifice of the Maſs, and their other idolatries and abominations. So then, to conclud this, ſeeing your doctrine of Tranſubſtantiation is agreeable neither to the doctrine of Chriſt, nor his Apoſtles, nor ancient Fathers, nor your own Canon Law and Popes, as they have been cited: And ſeeing ye are at ſuch variance among your ſelves concerning the ſame, therefore it is to be rejected as heretical, damnable and blaſphemous, by all Chriſtians. And this for the fourth point of your doctrine.