Answer to a Popish Pamphlet Called the Touchstone of the Reformed Gospel, Part 2 · Subpart 39 – Subpart 40
39 THat the bread in the Lords ſupper is but a figure or remembrance of the bodie of Christ received by faith, and not his true bodie.
VVHichWhich he ſayeth is contrarie to Luke 22. 15. where hee ſayeth, with deſire I hauehave deſired to eat this paſſover with you. To which I anſwere 1. in generall, that we never did hold that the bread in the ſupper of the Lord is but a bare figure or remembrance of Chriſts bodie, and therfore ſayeth the confeſſion of our faith anno 1581. art. 21. Wee utterlie damne the vanitie of theſe that affirme ſacraments to be nothing but bare & naked ſignes, and in our late Confeſſion anno 1647. fitted for the whole three kingdoms, poſitivelie we ſay, Wherin as reallie but spirituallie, the Bodie and blood of Christ are preſent to the faith of Believers, as the Elements themſelves are to the outward ſenſes, (and ſo ſpeaketh Calvin in 1. Cor. 11. 24.) but that in this ſacrament (wherein the ſoule is spirituallis fed) the bread is tranſubſtantiated into Chriſts bodie, and received by the bodilie mouth, this we deny as moſt erronius and hereticall. 2. As to that place of Luke which hee bringeth to prove the ſame. 1. the mans ignorance and impertinencie is to be admired, wherin Chriſt only expreſſeth his great deſire to eat the typicall paſſover with his diſciples, wherof himſelf was the ſubſtance, 1. Cor. 5. 7. And which lamb being called the paſſover (it being but a ſigne and memoriall of the Lords paſsing over the houſes of the Iſralits, as we ſee, Exod. 12. 13. and 13. 9. maketh againſt papiſts, who will not admitt in the Euchariſt ſuch a ſacramentall ſpeech.
The ſecond place which he bringeth is, Luke 22. 16. wher Chriſt ſayeth, That he wil not drink any more of the fruit of the vine, till it be fulfilled in the kingdome of God. Which words (ſayeth he) cannot be underſtood figurativelie, more nor the former of eating the paſſover. To whom we anſwere 1. That never any of us ſaid any ſuch thing, that the words of eating the Paſſover were to bee underſtood figurativelie, nor yet that theſe words are to be underſtood figurativelie but properlie, which Chriſt ſpeakes heer of drinking the fruit of the vine, which pope Innocent the 3. declareth to be ſpokē of the ſacramentall cup, (de myſteriis Miſſae lib. 4. cap. 27.) As alſo their own Ienſenius cap. 131. p. 162. and Alfonſus a Caſtro, lib 6. Tit. de Euchar. §. ſexta haereſis, beſide fathers (as Origen tract. 301. in Math. Chriſoſt. Hom. 6…. in Math. Cyprian epiſt. 68. ad Cecil. and Beda in Luc. 22.) Next, theſe words are ſo farre from proving Tranſſubſtantiation, as that they quyte overthrow the ſame, ſeing that which out Saviour drank at his laſt ſupper, he calles it the fruit of the vine, that is, Wine in ſubſtance, and not blood, as what is eaten after conſecration is likewiſe called by the Apoſtle bread & not fleſh 1. Cor. 11. 26. Therefore ſayeth Chriſoſtome (hom. 83. in Math.) ſpeaking againſt ſome who uſed water in this ſacrament in place of wine, When our Saviour celebrated this myſtery (ſayeth he) he gaue unto his diſciples wine, calling it the fruit of the vine which produceth not water. For as Theodoret ſayeth (dial. 2.) The myſticall ſignes departeth not after conſecration frō their owne nature, but remaineth in their former ſubſtance, forme and figure, and may be ſeen and touched as they were before.
The third place is, Iohn 6. 51. wher Chriſt ſayeth, I am the living bread which came down from heaven, & being granted to bee living, what elſe is it but his bodie (ſayth he.) To whom I anſwere 1▪ as Bellarmin witneſſeth (lib. 1. de. Euch. cap. 5.) all theſe Romaniſts, to wit, Gabriel Biel, Cardinall Cuſanus, Thomas Aquinas, Cardinall Cajetan, Ruardus Tapperus, Joannes Heſſelius, affirmes, and Cornelius Janſenius eſpeciallie (concord. cap. 59.) unanſwerablie proveth, p. 387. & 389. That this chapter medleth nowiſe with any ſacramentall eating of Chriſts bodie, or drinking his blood. 2. This Text maketh rather againſt Tranſubſtantion, for tho Chriſt ſayeth I am the living bread, yet it followeth not that therfore his fleſh was tranſſubſtantiated into bread, & conſequentlie no more doth it follow, that when Chriſt ſaid of the bread, This is my bodie, that therefore bread was tranſſubſtantiated into His bodie.
The fourth and maine place is, Math. 26. 26. Take, eate, This is my bodie. To which I anſwere 1. with the forenamed Theodoret dial. 1. That our Saviour heerby honoured the viſible ſignes with the name of his bodie and blood, not changing their nature (ſayeth he) but adding grace to nature. And ſo likewiſe ſpeaketh Pope Gelaſius againſt Eutyches. (de duabus Chriſti naturis) 2. Augustin cont. Adimant. cap. 12. Tertullian cont. Marcion. lib. 4. c. 40. and Euſebius de demonſtratione evangelii. lib. 8. in fine, and many more fathers expoundeth theſe words, This is my bodie, that is, a ſigne and ſymbole therof. 3. The Popes own canon law, & Gratians gloſſe theron (diſt. 2. de conſecra. c. hoc eſt) expoundeth theſe words thus. The heavenly ſacrament which truly repreſenteth Christs fleſh is called the bodie of Christ, but improperlie, wherfore it is called ſo after the owne manner, not that it is ſo trulie, but in a ſignifying Myſterie, ſo that the meaning is (ſayeth the gloſſe on the former words) it is called the body of Christ, that is a ſigne of Christs bodie.
As for the teſtimonies of Fathers, he citeth Ambroſe, wher he ſayth, It is bread before the words of conſecration but after, of bread it is made the fleſh of Chriſt. To which I anſwere 1. That hee perverteth Ambroſe words, which are theſe. It was not Christs bodie before conſecration, but I ſay to thee, that after conſecration it is Chriſts bodie. 2. In the ſame place be explaines himſelf, ſhowing that the ſubſtance of bread remaineth not withſtanding, & the change is only ſacramētal, ſo that it is the fleſh of Chriſt only in a ſacramental way, Therfore (ſayeth hee) Chriſts bleſſing is of that force, ut ſint quae erant, & in aliud commutentur, that is, that the Elements they remaine in ſubſtance what they were before, and yet they are changed into another thing. And illaſtrateth this change by this ſimile. Thou thy ſelſwas (ſaith he)-but thou was an old creature, but after that thou art conſecrat, thou began to be a new creature. Now I hope, no man will ſay that by regeneration, or our conſecrating to Gods ſervice, we are changed in ſubſtāce, but in quality, from a ſinfull di…poſition to a more holie. And in his fourth book of the ſacramēts. cap. 5. he therfore calleth the conſecrated bread The figure of Chriſts bodie, wherby the ſame is repreſented to us. So that this converſion aboliſheth not the things that were, as we ſee in Theodoret, but maketh them to be in a ſacred uſe what before they were not.
His ſecond teſtimonie is out of an obſcure and late Monck, whom he calleth S. Remigius, ſaying, That Christs fleſh & the conſecrated bread are one bodie, but telleth not where he ſpeaketh ſo, neither doeth it prove any converſion of the ſubſtance of the bread into Chriſts fleſh, but that theſe two are one by a ſacramentall union. As for other fathers whom he onlie citeth, but ſetteth not down their words, none of them proveth any popiſh tranſſubſtanciation, yea, Juſtin Martyr whom he citeth, apol. 2. his words overthrowes the ſame, ſaying only, That the ſacramentall bread is not cō mon bread, wherby our fleſh and blood is nouriſhed, which is not done by Chriſts bodie, it being onelie the food of the ſoule.
40 THat we ought to receive under both ki…ds, and that one alone is not …ufficient.
VVHichWhich he ſayeth is contrarie to Iohn 6. 51. where Chriſt ſayeth, If any man ſhall eat of this bread, he ſhall live for ever, heer (ſayeth he) life ever lasting is promiſed to him that eateth of the bread onlie. To whom I anſwere 1. as I ſhew before in my anſwere to the ſame place, a number of famoꝰ Romāiſts declareth, that ther is no ſpeech of ſacramentall eating in that chapter, and in particular Cardinall Cuſanus (epiſt. ad Bohemos p. 858.) when he hath affirmed the ſame, and that the ſpirituall feeding only on Chriſt by faith is ther ſet down, he concludeth thus, Et …aec est neceſſaria omnium Doctorum ſententia (ſayeth he) 2. If this were ſpoken of ſacramentall eating, then al who receive not the ſacrament, as childrē before ripe age who die, ſhould be damned, becauſe our Saviour ſayeth verſe 53. Except yee eat the fleſh of the ſonne of man and drink his blood. yee hauehave no life in you. 3. We ſee heere drinking of his blood as neceſſ…rie requi…ed as the eating of his fleſh, which is againſt their depriving of people of the ſacramentall cup.
The ſecond place is, Luke 24. 30. Chriſt at Emaus (ſayeth he) communicated his diſciples under one kind. To which I anſwere, That the Evangeliſt ſpeaketh there onlie of ordinarie refection, as he did Mat. 14. 19. which is heere called The breaking of bread, Therefore ſayeth their own Carthuſian, He took bread and bleſſed it but did not convert it into his bodie (ſayeth he) but onlie as his cuſtome was to bleſſe meat. whence alſo ſayeth their owne Ianſenius (cōcord. c. 146. p. 249) Ther ar ſ…me who from this place would take an argument (ſayeth he) to prove that it is lawfull under one kind to give or receive the ſacrament of the Euchariſt, which opinion is neuher certa…ne nor hath it liklie-hood▪ of irueth (ſayeth he) And as for the n…v…l…ie of this half communion, which Pope Gelaſius calleth ſacriledge (part. 3. decret de conſecra. d. 2.) there Alfonſus a Castro ſhoweth the ſame; ſit. Euch. §. ultima haereſ. p. 120. Caſſander alſo telleth us, Conſult. art. 22. That it was not in the Roman Church till Aquinas time (anno 1265.) and is not in the greek church (ſayeth he) untill this day. Wherefore wee conclude in Bellarmin's words (lib. 4. de Euch. cap. 7. §. quia vero) That it cannot be doubted, but that it is beſt to bee done which Chriſt did, and we know that Chriſt ſaid to his diſciples, repreſenting (ſayeth Caſſander) the perſons of all faithfull Communicants (drink yee all of this) as the Apoſtle alſo ſpeaketh accordinglie 1. Cor. 11. 28. And therfore as for their fiction of concomitance, wherby they would elude theſe words. I will ove… throw the ſame onlie by their biſhop Ianſenius words (concord. cap. 59 p. 389.) ſaying, It doth not eaſilie appeare how the outward taking of the bread alone can be called drinking, for it is rightlie called eating, becauſe ther is ſomthing taken there by way of meate, but how can that be called drinking (ſayth he) where there is nothing taken by way of drink?