An answer to a challenge madeAn ansvver to a challenge made

If these words be not of themselves clear enough, but have need of further exposition: can we look for a better, then that which S. Paul giveth of them, 1. Cor. 10.16. The bread which we break, is it not the communion ⟨p. 57⟩of the body of Christ? Did not S. Paul therefore so understand Christ, as if he had said; This bread is my body? And if Christ had said so; doth not Kellison confess, and right reason evince, that he must have been understood figuratively? considering that it is simply impossible, that Bread should really be the Body of Christ. If it be said, that S. Paul by Bread, doth not here understand that which is properly Bread, but that which lately was bread (but now is become the body of Christ:) we must remember, that S. Paul doth not only say The bread, but The bread which we break. which breaking, being an accident properly belonging to the bread it self, and not to the body of Christ (which being in glory, cannot be subject to any more breaking) doth evidently show, that the Apostle by Bread understandeth Bread indeed. Neither can the Romanists well deny this, unless they will deny themselves, and confess that they did but dream all this while they have imagined that the change of the bread into the body of Christ, is made by virtue of the sacramental words alone, which have not their effect until they have all been fully uttered. For the Pronoun THIS, which is the first of these words, doth point to something wch was then present. But no substance was then present but bread: seeing by their own grounds, the body of Christ cometh not in, until the last word of that sentence, yea and the last syllable of that word, be completely pronounced. What other substance therefore can they make this to signify, but this bread only?

If these words be not of themselves cleare enough, but have need of further exposition: can we looke for a better, then that which S. Paul giveth of them, 1. Cor. 10.16. The bread which we breake, is it not the communion ⟨p. 57⟩of the bodie of Christ? Did not S. Paul therefore so understand Christ, as if he had said; This bread is my body? And if Christ had said so; doth not Kellison confesse, and right reason evince, that hee must have beene understood figuratively? considering that it is simply impossible, that Bread should really be the Bodie of Christ. If it be said, that S. Paul by Bread, doth not here understand that which is properly Bread, but that which lately was bread (but now is become the bodie of Christ:) we must remember, that S. Paul doth not onely say The bread, but The bread which vvee breake. which breaking, being an accident properly belonging to the bread it selfe, and not to the bodie of Christ (which being in glorie, cannot be subject to anie more breaking) doth evidently shew, that the Apostle by Bread understandeth Bread indeed. Neither can the Romanists well denie this, unlesse they wil denie themselves, and confesse that they did but dreame all this while they have imagined that the change of the bread into the bodie of Christ, is made by vertue of the sacramentall words alone, which have not their effect untill they have all beene fully uttered. For the Pronoune THIS, which is the first of these words, doth point to somthing wch was then present. But no substance was then present but bread: seeing by their owne grounds, the bodie of Christ commeth not in, untill the last word of that sentence, yea and the last syllable of that word, be completely pronounced. What other substance therefore can they make this to signifie, but this bread only?