R. Why then do you call for express texts of Scripture as our proof, when that expressness signifieth nothing with you; but you can say, It is a metonymy or a metaphor at your pleasure. But you say so against notorious Evidence: The Apostle calleth it Bread so ⟨p. 118⟩often over and over, as if he had foreseen your inhumane heresy: He calleth it The Bread which is to be Eaten, joined with Drinking the Cup; never once calling either of them the Flesh or Blood of Christ, but as he reciteth Christs words which he expoundeth. Yea he telleth us that eating this bread, and drinking this cup, is to show the Lords death till he come; where he calleth us to look back at Christs death as past, in our Commemoration, and to look forward to his personal coming as future; but never telleth us that we must kill Christ and eat him our selves (when we have made him), nor that his body is there present under the accidents of Bread and Wine.
But the rest of the Scriptures as expressly justify our doctrine. 1 Cor. 10.15. The Cup of blessing which we bless, is it not the Communion (or Communication) of the blood of Christ: And the Bread which we break, is it not the communion (or participation) of the body of Christ?] Here it is the Cup and the Bread after Consecration, if the Holy Ghost may be believed.
And in the next words the Apostle repeateth it in his reason [For we being Many are One Bread, and One Body▪ For we all partake of one Bread (or Loaf).] Is not here express proof?
So Act. 20.7. When we came together to break Bread — And v. 11. He ascending, and breaking bread, and eating &c. Here it is twice more called Bread after the Consecration (which ever went before the Breaking).
So Act. 2.42, 46. It is twice more called Breaking of Bread.
And what else can the recitation of Christs institution mean, 1 Cor. 11.23, 24. Panem accepisse, fregisse; to have taken Bread, and having given thanks, to have broken? What is it that he brake? Its non-sence if it ⟨p. 119⟩have no accusative case that it respects? And plain Grammatical construction tells us then, that it must be that before mentioned, What he Took he blessed, and brake and gave: But he took Bread and the Cup —. The same is in Mat. 26, 26, 27. and the other Evangelists.
II. The Scriptures expressly (Act. 2, &c.)
R. Why then do you call for express texts of Scripture as our proof, when that expresness signifieth nothing with you; but you can say, It is a metonymie or a metaphor at your pleasure. But you say so against notorious Evidence: The Apostle calleth it Bread so ⟨p. 118⟩often over and over, as if he had foreseen your inhumane heresie: He calleth it The Bread which is to be Eaten, joyned with Drinking the Cup; never once calling either of them the Flesh or Blood of Christ, but as he reciteth Christs words which he expoundeth. Yea he telleth us that eating this bread, and drinking this cup, is to shew the Lords death till he come; where he calleth us to look back at Christs death as past, in our Commemoration, and to look forward to his personal coming as future; but never telleth us that we must kill Christ and eat him our selves (when we have made him), nor that his body is there present under the accidents of Bread and Wine.
But the rest of the Scriptures as expresly justifie our doctrine. 1 Cor. 10.15. The Cup of blessing which we bless, is it not the Communion (or Communication) of the blood of Christ: And the Bread which we break, is it not the communion (or participation) of the body of Christ?] Here it is the Cup and the Bread after Consecration, if the Holy Ghost may be believed.
And in the next words the Apostle repeateth it in his reason [For we being Many are One Bread, and One Body▪ For we all partake of one Bread (or Loaf).] Is not here express proof?
So Act. 20.7. When we came together to break Bread — And v. 11. He ascending, and breaking bread, and eating &c. Here it is twice more called Bread after the Consecration (which ever went before the Breaking).
So Act. 2.42, 46. It is twice more called Breaking of Bread.
And what else can the recitation of Christs institution mean, 1 Cor. 11.23, 24. Panem accepisse, fregisse; to have taken Bread, and having given thanks, to have broken? What is it that he brake? Its non-sence if it ⟨p. 119⟩have no accusative case that it respects? And plain Grammatical construction tells us then, that it must be that before mentioned, What he Took he blessed, and brake and gave: But he took Bread and the Cup —. The same is in
