speakes very obscurelie and sometymes placeth his words so that it is hard to discerne amongst them which to which is referd In the place alleadged he doth not referre those words id est figura Corporis mei to Corpus meum but to Hoc And the sence or meaning of them is This which once was an old figure of my bodie is now my bodie And when Master Doctour Smith said he could bring out of Tertullian himselfe in the same place foure reasons prouing this was Tertullians meaning and withall cited other wordes of Tertullian wherein he doth after the same manner disorder the composition of the wordes Master Featlie would not suffer him to bring those reasons neither did he say any thing to the places wherein Tertullian had in like sort inuerted the order of the words but onely said the order of the wordes alleadged was vnusuall and that it followes not they are heere disordered by this Author because he had done the like elsewhere Doctour Smith answeared that this kinde of confusion of wordes and difficultie in expounding himselfe was not vnusuall in a Tertullianus creber est in sentetijs sed difficilis in eloquendo S. Hieron loc cit Tertullian bringing instance thereof said withall that he did not inferre that Tertullian heere did speake so because he had done the like in other places but because he doth affoord in this very place foure seuerall reasons why he must be so vnderstoode whereof one he produced presently out of the words obiected For quoth he since Tertullian sayes that our Sauiour made breade his owne bodie he was not so forgetfull as immediately to adde that the Eucharist is a meere figure of his bodie This he seconded with another as that Tertullian presently after the foresaid wordes saith it had not beene a figure c. figura autem non fuisset by which wordes he shewes that he speakes of the figure which was before our Sauiour said hoc est corpus meum this is my bodie And the booke of Tertullian being brought he shewed a third reason out of other wordes ensuing Vt autem sanguinis veterem figuram in vino recognoscas aderit Esaias c. and that thou mayest acknowledge in the wine an old figure of blood Esaie c. Out of which wordes he proued that when Tertullian spake of breade he spake of an old figure because he saith of the wine plainely that it was an old figure of blood and connecting this his proofe videlicet that wine had beene an old figure of blood with the former of breade he saith vt autem sanguinis veterem c. VVhere the particles autem and show that in both he speakes of a like that is to say an old legall figure and that he meāt that both wine was an old figure of our Sauiours bloode and breade an old figure of his bodie Now if Tertullian speake as hath beene proued of an old legall figure it is certaine he could not referre the word figure to the attribute or praedicatum Corpus meum my bodie for our Sauiour did not say that the Eucharisticall breade was an old and legall figure of his bodie but onlie to the subiect He was readie to vrge also had D. Feat permitted that which immediately followes in the same place Cur autem panem Corpus suum appellat non magis peponem quem Marcion cordis loco habuit non intelligens veterem fuisse istam figuram Corporis Christi dicentis per Hieremiam aduersum me cogitauerunt cogitatum dicentes venite conijciamus lignum in panem eius scilicet crucem in corpus eius Itaque illuminator antiquitatum quid tunc voluerit significasse panem satis declarauit corpus suum vocans panem But why he calleth bread his bodie and not a pōpiō rather which Marcion had in place of a heart not vnderstanding that it was an old figure of the bodie of Christ saying by Ieremy they haue conspired against me saying come let vs cast wood on his bread to wit the crosse on his body The Illuminator therefore of antiquities hath declared sufficientlie what he would haue bread thē to haue signified calling his bodie bread In which wordes Tertullian speakes plainely of an old figure as appeares by veterem and tunc Moreouer Tertullian in all that booke proues that our Sauiour did fulfill diuers figures of the old Testament amongst others these of breade and wine which in the old lawe were figures of his bodie bloode Therefore whē he speakes of them of breade and wine as figures he speakes of old figures and so would not say that our Sauiour made breade to be a figure of his bodie for it is certaine that he did not make bread an old legall figure but that he made breade which was an old legall figure his bodie as Tertullian himselfe there speaketh In fine Master D. Smith tould Master Featley that of curtesie he would admitt the word figura figure to be referd to the word Corpus bodie that his argument might runne on and he make the best he could of it but the minister would not make vse of this his free offer And this was the issue of the first argumēt THE NOTES OF S. E. BY this discourse it doth appeare manifestly that Tertullian in the words obiected doth not oppose but approue our doctrine auouching a change in that which of old was a figure of our Sauiours bodie to wit bread into the same bodie our Sauiour by this meanes making it present in the shape of the figure which it doth fulfill and euen to the mouth and * Caro Corpore Christi vescitur De Resur carnis flesh according to the same author in another place Master Featleyes discourse of S. Cyprian calling Tertullian Master putts me in minde of some wordes after cited by my Lord in his answer to the 5. argument which the reader may take from one of the same age to let Antiquitie interprete Antiquitie as a further Comment vppon the meaning of Tertullian Serm. de Coena apud Cyp. Panis iste non effigie sed natura mutatus omnipotentia verbi factus est caro sicut in persona Christi humanitas apparebat latebat diuinitas ita Sacramento visibili ineffabiliter diuina se infundit essentia That bread being changed not in shape but in nature is by the omnipotence of the Word made flesh and as in the Person of Christ the humanitie did appeare and the diuinitie lie hid so heere a diuine essence doth vnspeakeablie poure it self into a visible Sacrament Behold a presence brought about by change of the Substance or nature of that which was before according to Scripture a figure into the flesh or bodie the exteriour shape of the figure breade remayning and containing in it the foresaid holy substance as in our Sauiour God who is inuisible is really in the shape of man Neither is our cause any thing hurt by the placing of
those words id est figura Corporis mei whether they be ioyned in construction to the subiect hoc or to Corpus the praedicatum since he whose words they be doth admitt and teach a change whereby the figure is fulfild and therefore is no more an emptie figure according to that which was answered in the beginning of this argument Now to come to D. Featleyes relation first he demaundes a place for the figuratiue Protestant exposition out of any Protestant more pregnant then is this of Tertullian vpon the sight thereof he will if you take a Ministers word yeeld the better Answ Tertullian doth not exclude the presence of the bodie to the mouth or to the signes but doth teach it euen heere in this place which you thinke is against it as hath beene shewed already But your men exclude it as you may remember by that which you were tould in the beginning Confessio Czingerina Signa nō sunt substantia signatorum sed tantùm accipiunt nomina The signes Eucharisticall bread and wine are not the substance of the things signed bodie and blood but take their names onely The Heluetians Panis non est ipsummet Corpus Christi sed eius signum dumtaxat The Eucharisticall bread is not the verie bodie of Christ but a signe of it onely Zuinglius Panis figura tantummodo est the Eucharisticall bread is a figure onely And Praeter panem non est quicquam ampliùs There is not any thing besides bread These and many other of this kind and out of English authours too be cited by my Lord of Chalcedon Collat. Doct. Cath. li. 1. c. 10. ar 1. Secondly he saies the Words id est figura are to be referd to the praedicatum as all men doe in the like It was answered that Tertullian himselfe did not alwaies referre to the praedicatum what followes in that manner much lesse could it be truely said Mar. 9.17 Dicendo denique Christus mortuus est id est vnctus id quod vnctum est mortuum ostendit id est carnem Aduersus Praxean c. 29. that all without exception doe And to giue you an example in Tertullian he in his booke Aduersus Praxean speakes in the same forme saying Christus mortuus est id est vnctus Where that part of the speach id est vnctus is an explication of the subiect Christus And that the words id est figura in the other speach are so to be referd it was then proued out of Tertullian himselfe who questionles is a good interpretor of his owne minde and out of this verie place by diuers reasons Which reasons D. Featley was not able to disproue But the reader will say be it so let the wordes be ordered as you say hoc id est figura corporis mei est corpus meum what reason haue you to adde more words in the proposition as quae fuit vetus making the sence to be This which was an old figure of my bodie is my bodie Answer In the proposition no words are added but in the explication of the proposition the word figure is determined according to the minde of Tertullian by the words vetus and quae fuit that you may know of what figure he speakes veterem istam fuisse figuram It is Tertullian doth tell the sence of Tertullian Thirdly Tertullian saies D. Featly could not be so dull as to thinke our Sauiour meant the bread Which Was in the old laWe a figure of his bodie is noW his bodie Answer He saies expresly that he our Sauiour made it his bodie Wherefore now bread according to Tertullian not remaining breade but changed is his bodie This Tertullian did beleeue and teach there in that place telling vs that breade was of old a figure of our Sauiours bodie non intelligens veterem fuisse istam figuram corporis c. which he proues out of Ieremie and that this old figure bread was by our Sauiour made his bodie acceptum panem Corpus suum illum fecit The bread taken he made it his body So now it was no more bread in substance but another thing It was a Serm. de Coen changed in nature b Greg. Nyss orat Catech transelemented c Cyrill Hier. Catech. myst 4. Itaque illuminator Antiquitatum c. Cited p. 20. not bread in substance but the bodie To shewe that our Sauiour in assuming those elements breade and wine to consecrate therein his bodie and blood did intend to fulfill two old figures is the very scope and drift of Tertullian in that place and the partiall Scope of his booke as all may knowe that can reade and vnderstand latine and this according to Tertullian is the sence of our Sauiours words this thing in my hand made of breade an a Ierem. 11.19 old figure of my bodie is my bodie Out of this D. Featley in his relation striues to proue that the words of institution be figuratiue for saith he this proposition this figure is my bodie cannot be true but by a figure sith neither the substance of breade nor the accidents are properly the bodie of our Sauiour Answer The question is not whether there be any figure or no but whether heere be a figure excluding the veritie as you were tould in the beginning and your selfe vndertooke to proue Neither are those wordes you speake of this figure in my bodie the words of institution wherefore if there were a figure in them it would not follow there is a figure in the words of institution And if there were a figure in the words of institution it would not yet follow that it is a meere figure such a one as doth a Vide Tertull. l. 5. cōtr Marc. c. 20. Plane de substantia c. exclude the veritie for which kind of figure you dispute This the reader may conceaue if he call to minde those other wordes hic est calix c. Where Catholikes doe graunt a figure indeed but such a one as doth consist with the verity of the bloode To that expounding proposition made out of Tertullians comment vpon the word hoc which comment is this id est figura I answer that the word figure is there extended to signifie the thing made of a figure as in scripture the word a Gen. 3. dust is sometimes vsed to signifie the thing made of dust b Ioh. 2. water to signifie the thinge made of water and c Exod. 7. rod to signifie the thing made of a rod. Puluis es Virga deuorauit Gustauit aquam c. And in this sence the proposition is true for the thing made of bread an old figure is our Sauiours bodie and properly too for substance To the proofe videlicet neither the accidents of bread nor the substance of bread is properly called the bodie I answer that it is true withall it is true that the thing made of bread is properly the bodie d Tertul l. 4. contr Marc.
as if wee were to eate the flesh of Christ after the same manner as we doe eate the flesh of beasts boiled or rosted cut and mangled In which sence if the letter be vnderstood it doth kill as Origen saith and as S. Augustine in the place aboue cited it imports a crime But seeing our Sauiour saith his flesh is truelie meate Ioan. 6. and that his words are Spirit and life they are to be vnderstood so that they be expounded both properlie and also Spirituallie or mysticallie VVhich thing wee rightlie doe when we say they are to be expounded properlie according to the substance of the thing eaten because that substance which in the Eucharist wee eate is the verie substance of the bodie of Christ and also spirituallie according to the manner because wee do not eate cutting and mangling it but without hurting it at all no otherwise then if it were a Spirit THE NOTES OF S. E. HEere D. Featly without taking notice of what was tould him out of S. Augustine and S. Cyprian repeates againe that the Capharnaiticall manner of eating was the same with our eating of the flesh in the Sacrament whereas the difference is most cleere (a) S. Au. enar in Psal 98. They thought our Sauiour would cut of some peeces from his bodie and giue them to eate (b) Ser. de coena Cyp. They imagined they were taught to eate it boild or rosted and cut in peeces Wee beleeue teach that it is receaued c work entire vnder the forme of bread And that Origen did admit and beleeue this our manner of receauing it these his words declare plainely When thou takest that holie and vncorrupted banquet Origen Hom. 5. in diuersa loca Euang. See D. Andr. Serm p. 476. Euerie MaÌ„ carries one of these houses about with him and the Mâ—ster of it is his soule when thou doest enioy the bread and cup of life eatest and drinkest the body and blood of our Lord then our Lord doth enter vnder they roofe wherefore humbling thy selfe imitate the Centurion and say Lord I am not worthey that thou come vnder my roofe For where he enters vnworthily there he goes in to iudgment to the receauer Here Origen declares that he beleeued our Sauiour all to be in the blessed Sacrament and will haue vs speake vnto him there as the Church doth in the Masse Domine non sum dignus c. Lord I am not worthy thou enter vnder my roofe He doth not call bread Lord acknowledging himselfe vnworthy it enter but Him that is in the exteriour forme of breade And herein he doth consent with S. Augustine before alledged who saith that wee receaue the Mediatour with our month and whith Tertullian Supra p. 78. Caro vescitur Christi corpore Flesh eateth the Bodie of Christ Moreouer suppose the soule be wicked notwistanding He Christ goes in this Authour saith but in whither not into the soule by meanes of faith that way you haue shut vp therefore you must confesse he goes in to the bodie at the mouth as S. Augustine tould you Who said also that Iudas receaued the price of our Redemption not with the minde sure Supr ap 79. he was then a Traitour but with the mouth D. Featly Should we eate with the mouth the flesh of man we should runne vpon the point of S. Cyrills reproofe In expos anath 11. Doest thou pronunce this Sacrament to be man-eating and doest thou irreligiousty vrge the mindes of the faithfull with grosse and carnall imaginations Answer The grosse and carnall conceit of eating mans flesh he reiects the Sacramentall manner we speake of he did beleeue EueÌ„ in that anathematisme which you mentioÌ„ A 〈◊〉 1â— and which he there defeÌ„ds he saith the thing proposed on the altar 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that which is before the Preist is our Sauiours 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 his owne body So neere he tnought our Sauiours body was to the communicant Againe he saith that by meanes of the benediction coÌ„secration the Sonne of God as man is vnited to v◠〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 corporally Li. 11. in Ioan. c. 27. Ibid. Li. 10. c. 13. And that We doe receaue the Sonne of God corporally and substantially In an other place he saith the power of benediction doth bringe to passe that Iesus Christ dwelleth in vs corporallie with the coÌ„munication of the flesh of Christ. And the manner of compassing it is as he doth also teach (a) Epist ad Calo. In Answer to your marginall note about Bereng See the Answer to Bels challeÌ„g ar 2. c. 5. by conuerting breade and wine into the verity of flesh and blood D. Featly Doe those words nisi manducaueritis carnem vnlesse you eate the flesh sound after the Capharnaiticall straine Answer To flesh and blood they did and doe but the holy Ghost hath taught the Church an other way of eating flesh not in the proper but in another shape Mat. 26. Doe but harken and you shall heare the Ghospell mention eating a mans bodie in the forme of breade Take and eate this in my hand is my body THE FOVRTH ARGVMENT D. Featlie S. Augustine in Gratian dist 2. can hoc est saith As the heauenlie bread which is Christs flesh is after a sort called the bodie of Christ when as in truth it is the Sacrament of the bodie of Christ the Glosse addeth The heauenlie Sacrament which truelie doth represent the flesh of Christ is called the bodie of Christ but improperlie wherefore it is said in a sort but not in the truth of the thing but in a signifying mysterie D. Smith Gratian first See Bellar Descriptor Eccles is not an authenticall Authour amongst vs much lesse the Glosse Secondlie I oppose other words of S. Augustine in the same place of Gratian where he saith that the Sacrifice of the Church doth consist of two things the visible forme of elements and the inuisible flesh and blood of Christ both of a Sacrament and re Sacramenti that is to saie the bodie of Christ as the person of Christ doth consist and is made of God and man Thirdlie I answer that S. Augustine in those words vnderstood that which is Sacramentum tantùm a Sacrament only D. Featlie S. Augustine speakes of that breade which he saith is the flesh of Christ but that which is Sacramentum tantùm is not the flesh of Christ therefore he doth not speake of that which is Sacramentum tantùm D. Smith The words of S. Augustine are not cited entirelie for epist 23. if that be the place Gratian meanes This place is quoted in the margine of Gratian he saith that the Sacrament of the bodie of Christ is the bodie of Christ after a certaine manner and it is not inconuenient to say that that which is Sacramentum tantùm is the bodie of Christ after a certaine manner according to which manner he saith baptisme is faith D. Featley Indeed Gratian
I confesse contradicts himselfe D. Smith VVhy then doe you reliè on such authoritie let vs on to sure testimonies THE NOTES OF S. E. TO cleere this discourse wherein D. Featlie hath vrged two Authorities togeather I will speake of each apart That Gratian held the reall presence it is out of question In that Distinction which you cite he brings diuers places out of the Fathers to shewe the manner of it as that the body is there indiuisiblie by chang of bread into it citing to this purpose S. Ambrose S. Augustine S. Ierom S. Hilarie and others See can 35 41. 55. 69. 74. 77. 79. 82. 87. and not six lines before the place obiected he hath these words out of Prosper and S. Augustine directlie opposite to your tenet as p. 3 you put it downe Caro eius Christi est quaÌ„ forma panis opertaÌ„ in SacrameÌ„mento accipimus It is the flesh of Christ which wee receaue in the Sacrament couered with the forme of breade The words obiected were imperfectlie cited and them selues being read at large expound their authours meaning They be these As the heauenlie bread which is the flesh of Christ is after a sort called the bodie of Christ whereas indeed it is the Sacrament of the bodie of Christ I meane of that which being visible palpable mortall was put vpon the Crosse and as that immolation of the flesh which is done by the hands of the Preist is called the passion death and crucifixion not rei veritate in veritie of the thing but significante mysterio in signifâ—ing mysterie So the Sacrament of faith Baptisme I meane is faith The summe of Which analogie or coÌ„parisoÌ„ is this As the Eucharist is after a manner to wit mystice significatiue mysticallie significantlie the bodie crucifyed as crucifyed so Baptisme is faith after a maÌ„ner that is mystice significatiuè mystically significantlie Also as the actioÌ„ of vnbloodie immolation S Ambr. de Sacr. l. 4 c. 4. 5. videlicet consecration is the passion mysticè significatiue so the Sacramentall actioÌ„ Baptizing is faith mystice significatiuè He might haue added too S. Chry. HoÌ„ de prod Iud. Hom. 2. in 2 Ep. ad Tim. S. Hier. Ep. ad Heliod Conc. Trid. sess 6. c. 7. sess 7. can 6. that as the coÌ„secratorie action is signum practicum corporis sub aliena specie praesentis a practicall signe of the bodie present vnder another forme as making it so to be so the baptizing actioÌ„ is signum practicum fidei praesentis in baptizato a practicall signe of faith present in the baptized as making it so to be according to the fathers doctrine and beleefe of the Catholike Church Against this discourse it might be obiected that one and the same thing cannot represent it a The Manna as kept in the arke was a signe of it self as it fell in the desert selfe wherefore the bodie in the Eucharist cannot represent it selfe vpon the Crosse But this supposing the doctrine of the Gospell is not hard to be conceaued It being not hard to vnderstand how one the same thing being within two seuerall formes by the one may represent it selfe as in the other these references being not founded in the substance immediatelie but in the exteriour formes subiect to the eie which formes are distinct And in this case the forme wherein the reference of representation is founded is one with the other forme representatiuè in representation but the substance vnder the two formes is one and the same entitatiue in entitie or being The same indiuiduall bodie being reallie vnder both According to this discourse the sence of Gratians words as they are in him at leingth is this the heauenlie breade videlicet the flesh of Christ in the Eucharist is after a certaine manner videlicet representatiue the body of Christ as visible and it is also the same flesh identice couered with the forme of breade And if against this you should obiect that he denies the heaueÌ„ly bread to be the body of Christ in truth rei veritate I would tell you that you mistake him for his words are the immolation of the flesh by the haÌ„ds of the Preist that is to say Consecration and the rest which the Preist doth at Masse vnto the hoast as breaking of it is called the passion non rei veritate sed significante mysterio not indeed but in signifying mystery And certainely Consecration is not the passion of Christ rei veritate indeede and truely Neither was the Authour of the Glosse of your opinion but contrary for he held also the reall presence to the signes effected by transubstantiation In proofe whereof take these places out of him Ad prolationem istius hoc est corpus meum transubstantiatur panis in corpus Glossa de Consec dist 2. in can 35. Vpon the vtterance of these words This is my body the bread is transsubstaÌ„tiated into the body Vbi erat verus panis antè verum vinum modò sunt tantùm accidendia Ad can 41. where there was before true bread and true wine now there are onely accidents of bread and wine Ad prolationem verborum panis fit Corpus Christi vinum sanguis remanent tamen species panis vini sub quibus latent operiuntur caro sanguis ne in sumendo esset horror si species crudae viuae carnis crudi sanguinis appareret Ad can 55. At the vttering of the words the bread is made the bodie of Christ and wine the blood but the species of bread and wine do remaine vnder which species the flesh and blood do lie hid and are couered least there might be horrour in receauing if the species or shape of raw and liue flesh and of raw blood should appeare All these are the words of the Glosse whose authority you cited for your opinion with what conscience let the reader iudge In the words which are obiected he meant as the text which I haue expounded allreadie a CommeÌ„tatours aime is the meaning of his Authour though there be some thing therein also as appeareth by what I haue said in this place which he a Canonist did not accuratlie obserue My Lord Bishop in his answer to the words of S. Augustine whereunto Gratian pointed Epist 23. secundum quemdam modum Sacramentum Corporis Christi Corpus Christi est the Sacrament of the body of Christ is the bodie of Christ after a certaine manner said the Saint vnderstood them of that which is sacramentum tantùm a sacrament or signe onlie Against this Answer the Minister replied againe He had yet another explicatioÌ„ ready out of S Augustine too which the reader by this time doth reflecton grounding his argument on the words as he finds them in Gratian And it was answered and by comparing you shall find it true that Saint Augustines words are not in Gratian cited entirelie But suppose they were what then wherein do those Authours whom
Eucharist being and by our Sauiours institution a Sacrament and a Sacrifice commemoratiue it is also a signe and a representation of his bodie as existent in propria specie in it owne shape as aboue you were tould But of the cup he said This chalice is the new testament And since wee may we must also take the word properlie not for his inner Will or decree it is that onlie significatiue significantlie but for an authentike signe of it as hath beene said before THE SEVENTH ARGVMENT D. Featlie Christ Math. 26. said the chalice is the fruite of the vine euen after consecration therefore the consecrated chalice is wine indeed D. Smith Those words were spoken by our Sauiour of the legall cup which he and his disciples dranke before consecration as S. Luke doth teach cleerelie cap. 22. And since it doth not appeare that our Sauiour repeated the same words of the Eucharisticall cup which he had said before of the Legall though S. Mathew relates them after he had related the consecration of the Eucharisticall cup there is more reason to saie that S. Matthew did not obserue order in relating our Sauiours words then to vnderstand those of the Eucharisticall cup which S. Luke doth teach plainelie to haue beene spoken of the Legall or common cup and S. Matthew telleth not expressie of which they were spoken but only relates them as I said after he had related the consecration of the Eucharisticall cup. Compare these Euangelists together and you wâ—ll see that one of the two in diuers other things doth not obserue the order in the relation Since therefore as I did insinuate before it is not verie likelie that the same words were spoken of both cups since that S. Luke teacheth plainelie that they were spoken of the common cup whereof S. Mathew makes no mention it is more likelie they were spoken of the common cup onelie and related by S. Mathew out of order D. Featlie Innocentius the Councell of VVormes and others expound the words of the Eucharisticall cup. D. Smith I answer that for the authoritie of some Fathers that opinion is probable and according to their exposition those words are to be vnderstood in the same manner as aboue wee haue expounded some Fathers that saie In the answer to the 5. arg bread is the bodie to wit bread changed in nature c. and so wee saie the fruite of the vine is the blood of Christ but the fruite changed not in shape but in nature the supersubstantiall fruite c. Moreouer many Fathers expound it of the common cup as S. Ierom S. Hier. in c. 26. Mat. Beda Theophil in c. 22. Luc. S. Bede and Theophilact He added afterwards that it was much to be admired why wee should gather what the Eucharist is out of words which it is vncertaine whether our Sauiour spake of the Eucharist or no rather theÌ„ out of those words which it is most certaine he did speake of the Eucharist as these This is my bodie this the cup c. As also out of those words which he did not vtter to tell vs what the Eucharist was but that he would not drinke any more either of that or of the common cup rather then out of those which he spake to no other end but to a Practicè simul efficieÌ„do neither did they or could they signifie the Eucharist is the bodie but making it withall for before the bodie was not in that forme or species signifie what the Eucharist is How much better doe Catholikes who out of words which it is certaine Christ spake of the Eucharist and spake them to the end onelie to signifie practice what the Eucharist is rather then out of other words which he spake to another end and which it is not altogether certaine he spake of the Eucharist doe gather what the Eucharist is and make these words the rule of expounding all others about the Question of the Eucharist THE NOTES OF S. E. HEre are two cleere solutions of D. Featlies argument according to the two seuerall opinions about the cup our Sauiour spake of Against the later he doth not make any new reply but amplifies onely what he had obiected The former he saith he did that is he thinkes he can in fringe as followeth D. Featly In those words in S. Mathew this fruite of the vine the demonstratiue this must haue relation to the cup of which S. Mathew spake before Answer It cannot if the fruite of the vine be taken for wine properly the reason whereof is euident by the words spoken of the Eucharisticall cup which immediatly goe before this is my blood of the new testament which is shed for many vnto remission of sinnes wine properly was not shed to remisssion of sinnes the eucharisticall cup was as the Euangelist after our blessed Sauiour doth here affirme Quotidie in Sacrificits eius Christi Domini de genimine verae vitis vinea Sorec quae interpretatur electa rubentia musta calcamus S. Hierom Epist ad Hedib q. 2. and another yet more expressely 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 This the chalice which is shed FOR you Therefore the Eucharisticall cup was not wine properly D. Featly Should I take a cup and after I had drunke of it say I would drinke no more of this you would vnderstand me of that which I dranke of last Answer Did I see the whole action I should iudge according to that I saw no doubt and S. Matthew seeing our Sauiours action did conceaue it well enough But should one or two tell me that D. Featly at the table hauing drunke beere and wine said he would drinke no more of this beere I had no reason to thinke he meant wine though wine were mentioned last before Now by the relation of S. Mathew and S. Luke if you attend vnto it well and remember all which they as the Organs of one infallible speaker the Holy Ghost deliuer it appeares that our blessed Sauiour dranke of two seuerall cups and that he called the one of them the fruite of the vine the other his blood and his testament auouching it to be shed for men Both were on the table before him and he did in one speach demonstrate the one telling what it was a strange cup for the contents S. Chrysostome cals it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the twice dreadfull chalice THIS the chalice the new testament in my blood c. in the other speach he demonstrated the other telling what that also was and distinguishing it by a short description from the other which was his testament his blood saying I will not drinke from hence foorth of THIS fruite of the vine D. Featly Will you make S. Mathew to write non sence to relate Christs words I will drinke no more of this and no where to expresse of what he spake or to what this this is to be referd Answer It is to be referd to the fruite of the
bread is my bodie Whether in the holie Eucharist there be reallie our Sauiours bodie according to the veritie and substaÌ„ce The Catholik Church takes his words as being dogmaticall properlie submitting her vnderstanding to the omnipotent veritie that spake them and affirmeth what he her God and Sauiour did affirme Master Featlie on the other side laboured to proue that the wordes were not to be construed and vnderstood properlie that the speach was meerelie figuratiue and that Christ is not there in the Eucharist according to the substance of his bodie or shrowded vnder the accidents of bread In which tenet you Master Waferer ioyne with him telling vs pag. 9. VVee these are your wordes denie such corporall presence of the body and blood as if the thing signified and represented were according to the naturall substance thereof contained vnder the shapes of the outward signes A figure you know was graunted the question was whether this figure had the veritie the bodie and blood of Christ in it or whether it were emptie of it Whether that which the Apostles receaued into their mouthes were a meere emptie figure of the bodie and blood of Christ or whether the thing within that Sacramentall signe or figure were as our Sauiours wordes in their proprietie import his bodie and his blood The Protestants that speak their minds plainelie preteÌ„d no more then a meere figure Their words are set downe in the Collation whither S. E. directed you See the Conference of the Catholiâ—k and Protestant Doctrine with the expresse wordâ— of Scripture extant in English pag. 266. seqq where they your Masters and the best learned on your side speake of the Eucharist your owne thus It is not the bodie of Christ not his very bodie not his bodie it self not his true bodie not his substantiall bodie not flesh not Christs true flesh but another thing and much different from Christs flesh not the thing it selfe of this mysterie not our spirituall foode It is nothing els but bread nothing but common bread nothing but a bare creature nothing but a bare signe or figure nothing but meere bread and wine Only a signe only a seale only a token only a testification only a symbol only a type of Christs bodie It only hath the name of Christs bodie it is only a simple ceremonie It is so the bodie of Christ as the Paschal lambe was Christ as the doue was the Holie Ghost as the water of baptisme was the blood of Christ It is the bodie of Christ only figuratiuelie by resemblance and no otherwise symbolicallie metonymicallie tropicallie significantlie no otherwise then a keie deliuered is a house the body It is present onlie by speculation meere imagination as our bodies are now present in heaueÌ„ Christ is no more coÌ„municated there in the supper then in the Gospell no more receaued in the Sacrament then in the word nothing more giueÌ„ in the supper then at preaching no more offersd by the Sacrament then by the word yea the Sacrament is inferiour to the word and the memorie of Christ bodie is more fullie refreshed by the word then by the Sacrament All this and more hath beene told you out of the mouthes of your greatest Deuines and pillars of Protestancie The words and places are citeâ— in the ConfereÌ„ce l. 1. c. 10. a. 1. Where there is a clowd of domesticall Protestant witnesses against your Oracle and you whose very names would shadow this leafe of paper Among them you shall find your Caluin Beza Peter Martyr and Swinglius who learned it of a Spirit the Deuil it was Luther saies with your English Iuel Perkins Whittaker Cartwright c. each as learned as your Featlie Hereunto you replye nothing but insteed of a Replye haue calumniated my Lord and contradicted your self withall Saying Doctor Smith would faine father a false opinion vpon vs and goes away currant with it that wee hold as he hath proued signatis tabulis pag. 159. and your owne confession aboue cited may be added thereunto that there is in the wordes This is my bodie a meere figure But now forsooth you most plainelie affirme they be the rest of your wordes that the Sacramentall elements are not meere emptie signes wil you strike your owne fellowes in your choller of the bodie and blood of Christ but a true and liuelie figure of them As if a picture can not be a true picture and a liuelie picture and yet a meere picture or a figure be a true figure and a liuelie figure and yet a meere figure The legall figures which were according to the Apostle but egena elementa were meere figures yet some of them as liuelie yea more liuelie then your bread and wine The blood of the Testament and the Manna in the desert did signifie our Sauiours flesh and blood in as perfect a manner if you consider all the analogie to the full and the Agnus Paschalis dicitur esse Christus eadeÌ„ prorsus ratione qua panis ille dicitur esse corpus Christi pro nobis tradituÌ„ Beza your admired patterne of Christianitie so you call him pag. 98. in 1. Corin. 5. Pascall lambe eaten at supper was a more liuelie figure flesh of flesh blood of blood killing of killing that laÌ„be without spot of our innocent Sauiour then bread and wyne there distributed if they were meere elementes with a reference to the thing represented the PassioÌ„ which was theÌ„ future respectiuelie to theÌ„ both vizt to the legall to the Sacramentall supper wherefore since you are forced by the authoritie of holie Scripture to graunt that the legall figure was not withstanding the the liuelines a meere figure it remaines that an other signe or figure though liuelie may be but a meere figure The liuelines of a picture is to represent ad viuum to the life and a picture the picture of the King may do so though it be nothing els but a meere picture which your owne fellowes acknowledg whilst they graunte as before hath beene told you that in the supper there is meere bread and wine a signe and seale onlie nothing els but bread and wyne which tenet you likewise hold in your mind as appeares in your whole pamphlet throughout but it is in is self so poore a thing so short of precedent figures (b) Caluin cited aboue pag. 156. yet the same Caluin saiâ—h cuÌ„ signa hic in mundo sint oculis cernaÌ„tur palpentur manibut Christus quatenus homo est non alibi quam in câ—â—lo quaerendus est Calu. in Confess de re Sacram art 21. so vnworthie of the chiefest place amongst Sacraments in the new Testament so contrarie to the proper sense of our Sauiours words and so vncapable of those high encomium's which the Fathers giue or attributes which they do predicatâ—on the blessed Sacrament that you are ashamed openlie to professe it still iugling with vs and in steed of answers which you pretend giuing vs words
for this flesh is not diuided in the eating in it self as other flesh but not figuratiue according to the thing the flesh In the margine of the relation S. E. put these words which Waferer though he dispute oft against marginall notes In relat supra pag. 35. takes no notice of Were it denied that Saint Augustine speakes there li. 3. de Doct. Christia c. 16. of Sacramentall eating the Minister could not proue it recondendum in memoria c. This is another solution of this second Argument for the same may be answered diuers waies as the former also might But to insist vpon that which was giuen what hath Waferer brought against it Apologist I will maintane that the verie bodie of Christ is not corporallie present vnder the shapes of bread and wine And first I may deale with Doctor Smith as c. Censure Hauing donne with the first argument you come now to the place of the second where forgetting that you came into the field as a second onlie to make good your Doctors obiections nothing els you beginne others and will fight against some bodie if any bodie please to loose time and fight with you with argumentes out of your owne learned head and maintaine that the bodie of Christ is not corporallie present vnder the shape of bread and wine Where by the word corporallie if you meane the naturall manner of being which bodies coÌ„monlie haue consisting in the extraposition of partes in order to place all being not in the same part of the place but one part of the bodie in one part of the place and an other part of the bodie in another part of the place as your partes are your eies your nose your eares your handes your leggs your feete if you take the word corporallie to signifie this manner of being I know not who doth hold or auouch it in the Sacrament Catholikes doe not If by corporallie you meane substantiallie or according to the substance of the bodie and in this sence vnderstand 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 you do vndertake more then all your masters caÌ„ proue And you ouermach your self in singling out a Doctor some Logician that knowes his Catechisme and hath heard that the Eucharist is such a signe or image as hath in it the bodie and bloud according to a supernaturall spirituall manner and that the Fathers do speake sometimes of sacramentall sometimes of spirituall receauing onlie might serue to combat with you if perchance he did not esteeme it vnworthie of him to meete one who comes tilting at him with a You are prouided no doubt of a goodlie sheffe of speares had euerie one of them beene headed with an Ergo they would haue penetrated a braine that had beene armed double-coxcomb And had you thought on it you might haue added in your dedicatorie to the great (a) Challenge ChalleÌ„ge Challenger your Father in God Et nos tela Pater ferrumque haud debilé dextra Spargimus nostro sequitur de vulnere sanguis Or vinum wine that rather for if your launces wound there is no blood if they pierce there is no bodie but suddainly insteed of a mans bodie bakers bread and wine insteed of blood Pectora percussit pectus quoque You looke perchance that some bodie meete you in this new field of your owne pitching that with your fearfull engines you may do what Featlie could not with his argumentes alas poore man faine he would and can not find an aduersarie to proue himself vpon How The Church o no. that is to great a task for you It hath beene to hard for whole Legions of furious Heretickes it hath stood against all Errours that euer were There are in it millions of great schollers and you but in your ABC yet It is an armie castrorum acies ordinata What you you fight against the church as you loue Mirth Waferer talke no more of that if you do men will thinke you be madd The compasse Master Waferer wherein the battle was to be was drawne with your Champions owne sword the Arguments to be answered the Scriptures to be expouÌ„ded the Fathers to be looked into were those those onlie which he brought The subiect of the writing which you will needs stickle in was a Conference wherein Doctor Smith now Bishop of Chalcedon defended against D. Featlie The Controuersie was about the reall presence Some twentie yeeres after it was past your Doctour set forth a Reâ—ation of that he said had passed in it which Relation being partiall S. E. set out an other That which the Reader did expect to learne here by was to know how the matter weÌ„t what were the Arguments what the Answers and which of the two Combatants had the honour of the daye In which case it is impertinent to alleadge other Argumentes or to heare you dispute four and twentie waies more against that and other tenets When S. E. came to represent againe what had beene donne before he kept himself within the compasse which your Doctor had prescribed He made no discourse to shew how in all ages our doctrine had been held by the Fathers and Deuines the Christian Churches generallie Which thing it had beene easie foâ— him to do after Garetius Sainctes and Gualterius and Bellarmine Peroâ— and others he did not gather together and vrge the texts of Scripturâ— with all their circumstances euer hetherto vnderstood and necessarily to be vnderstood properlie he did not cite any Fathers at all but such onlie as your Doctour had obiected whose meaning he was to declare by their owne writing euerie one knowing best his owne minde and being the best interpreter of his owne wordes He did forbeare to make Arguments and kept himself vnto the matter obiected by Doctour Featlie who otherwise would haue cried out againe that the lawes of answering were violated If you would needs vndertake to represent the tother part you should haue donne the like in that kind not haue gonne out of the compasse to florish there where no man was but haue set vpon the Solution where you found it and this â—oo not by way of answer to distinctions as elswhere you do for the most part repeating still Doctor Smith â—oth not proue which if he had vndertook your Champion would haue runne out of the roome but by further discouering the force of Arguments there proposed and the Answers insufficiencie If you think your self better able to make choise of Arguments for your Doctours tenet â—hen he himself was he is not much beholding to you for your opinion of his art or iudgment And vnles you â—hought his to be of themselues to weake what neede had your witt â—o send a new supplie This officiousnes of yours makes litle for his honour Hauing giuen a sight of your forces to those who please to looke on â—hem you displaie in the the rereward our Opinion which is it seemes so â—asie as any child may conceaue it and â—er so hard as
doth represent which is not exactlie true you will sweare in the example of your mother if the forsaid exteriour forme be wanting Apolog. pag. 44. Heere was you see little cause for you to come in with your let me tell you that a proposition is not said to be true c. Did wee suppose a vocall proposition had formallie in it self veritie in comparison to the thing or obiect still the discourse of S. E. doth stand good for euen in that case you must saie that words had their significations giuen them by men that vnderstand who appointed them to be signes not of what thinges soeuer but of those which they conceaued whence it will follow that the word or name cannot be exactlie verified in the thing if in the same thing be not all imported by the name But formall veritie if Aristotle may be iudge is in the vnderstanding non enim est falsum verum in rebus sed in mente 6. Mâ—t. tex 8. And vocall propositions are said true inasmuch as they be signes of true mentall propositions Sunt ergo ea quae in voce earum quae sunt in mente passionum notae ea quae scribuntur earum quae sunt in voce lib. 1. de Interp. tex 1. For the interpretation of which words we will not be beholding to Smiglecius as you would haue vs. many write Philosophie that vnderstand not the Philosoper and whether he be one of those or not I neither know nor meane to looke the words are cleere without a Comment Wherein formall veritie doth consist wherein transcendentall veritie and how the vnderstanding whilst it doth attribute the predicate to the subiect doth in actu exercito know truth are things not appertaining to this place nor if one may iudge of your skill in this by the rest which you haue vttered within the sphere of your knowledge I had almost forgot to take notice of two other passages in this your Examen of the Digression the one is how easilie in the heate of your passion you bring a man had it beene your Aduersarie you might haue begd a solemne Triumph to almost nothing Hauing defined him you say out of S. E. a thing not in his pure essence and quidditie but extended and coloured c. first your a. Heare what your owne words say this word man signifies a thing so then we will be beholding to you for perfecting the definition of a man thus homo est animal quantum coloratum as good as that of Plato Homo est animal bipes inplume and as the Philosopher put a cock with his feathers pluckt of into Plato his schoole cryed Ecce homo Platonicus so might wee put a picture of a man into yours and crie Ecce homo Iesuiticus because you will be content with this definition Homo est quid quantum coloratum VVaferer pag. 42.43 words are in the margine you laugh at this man belike your Father was not such a thing but one of the naked abstracted substances which otherwhile conuerse with women you first I say laugh at the man and then begin to dispoile him of his definition the difference rationale you cut of and define him animal quantum coloratum then you laugh at him againe and bring in Diogenes ghost to keepe you companie After this you take out animal and so make him sensles thus homo est quid quantum coloratum He is mangled enough now one would think hauing neither eies nor hands nor eares you haue made of him a lump of earth quid quantum coloratum one blow more and you may beat him into dust but that will not satisfie your rage you turne him thus diffigured this quantum coloratum into a meere shape or picture that he may be without substance and then you stab him through with an Ecce homo Iesuiticus wherewith you fixe him to the paper where he hanges Pag. 43. till he be torne out to light tobacco and so turned into smoke The other passage is about sucking (a) will you saie that an Ivie bush is not a signe that wine is to be sold there because you caÌ„not suck sack claret white wine out of an Ivy leafe VVafer pag. 44. wine out of an Iuie bush you do but bungle in the application I will help you to do it better It is an Embleme of your communion wherein you suck blood out of wine your opinion is that it is nothing indeede but wine standing for the signe of blood as an Iuie bush before the tauerne dore is nothing but Iuie standing for a signe of wine You saie alsoe that it doth exhibite to you reallie the blood of Iesus Christ euen that which was shed vpon the crosse Is not this like sucking wine out of a signe wherein it is not out of a bush of Iuie It is as fit an exposition as apt a simile as one would haue desired onlie we must recite some of your doctrine which it doth illustrate Pag. 10. you saie Though the verie bodie and blood of Christ be not substantiallie contained vnder the shapes of bread and wyne yet they are reallie communicated by the holie Ghost vnto vs at by marke that by the faithfull worthie receauing of those mysteries Pag. 13. bread is more then a bare figure of the bodie for it hath the effectuall presence of the bodie ioyned with it though substantiallie it be not become the same And though the bread be not in substaÌ„ce Christ yet the faithfull receauer hath since to giue him effectuallie and in substance is the same the substance communicated to his soule as veritie as the bread enters his mouth Pag. 62. I le graunt you that the out ward signes are signes of Christs bodie present after consecration but I denie that the bodie is there present after the manner you define T is not there corporallie but mysticallie and sacramentallie and yet so as besides the intellectuall presence there is also a reall exhibitiue presence in respect of donation on Gods part and reception on mans part Heere besides the intellectuall presence by faith is a reall exhibition and a reall reception of the bodie the verie substance of it is as reallie communicated to the soule and as verilie as the bread deliuered by the Minister is receaued in the mouth and all this is donne by meanes of the signes exhibiting those thinges vnto vs. Is not this sucking blood out of wine and wine out of an Iuie bush To our tenet which is the Catholick that embleme doth not agree for in our Sacrament there is vnder the exteriour signes flesh and blood according to the substance and veritie the whole bodie the whole humanitie of our Sauiour the Mediatour he himself with all the ornaments of his humanitie and all the infinite perfections of his Diuinitie is there and receauing the blessed Sacrament into our mouthes wee do receaue in it all this The vintners wine be not
thus in his Iuie bush that you may sucke sacke from thence After this M. Waferer enters into the matter of transubstantiation which matter was not handled in the Conference He might haue saued himself the labour he takes and looseth in talking of it had he as he might and should haue obserued but that he was willing to confound Questions and runne out of one into another that which my Lord in the beginniâ—â— gaue the auditorie then present to vnderstand Confer pag. 7. See also Featli Pag. 288 That the Conference was to be not of Transubstantiation but of the reall presence onlie which by order of disputatioÌ„ ought to be first and so it was agreed and nothing said of that matter What he brings against it is ordinarie stuffe and the manner of deliuering it worse then ordinarie The authors which he cites are Caietan Scotus who notwithstanding as is well knowne to Schollers that are able to read their books do maintaine and defend and that Caiet 3. p. q 75. Scotus in 4. d. 10. 11. The words obiected against vs out of him to proue the doctrine of transsubstantiation to be new be these d. 11. qu. 3. where he speakes of the Lateran Councell Quicquid ibi in Concilio Lateranensi dicitur esse eredendum tenendum est esse de substantia fidei hoc post illam declarationem factam ab Ecclesia Et si quaeras quare voluit Ecclesia eligeâ—e istum intellectum ita difficilem huius articuli cum verba scripturae possent saluati secundum intellectum facilem veriorem secundum apparentiam de hoc articulo Dico quod eo Spiritu expositae sunt Scripturae quo conditae Et ita supponendum est quod Ecclesia Catholica eo Spiritu exposuit quo tradita est nobis fides spiritu scilicet veritatis edocta ideo hunc intellectum elegit quia verus est Non enim in potestate Ecclesiae fuit facere istud verum vel non verum sed Dei instituentis sed intellectum a Deo traditum Ecclesia explicauit directa in hoc vt creditur Spiritu veritatis He that well considers these words will easilie perceaue there is in them no occasion giueÌ„ to pretend that he denies the doctrine to be auncient since he affirmes it to be contained in the Scripture that the Church by directioÌ„ of the Holy Ghost whose assistance the Catholicks beleeue found it there Eo Spiritu expositae sunt Scripturae c ideo hunc sensum elegit quia you will not I hope accuse the Scripture of noueltie See Saint Augustine Contra Epist fundam c. 4. Epist 118. de bapt l. 2. c. 4. 9. l. 5. c. 17. Contra Crescon Gram. l 1. c. 33 Scripturarum in hac re tenetur veritas cum hoc facimus quod vniuersae iam placuit Ecclesie c. It is the Church that is to teach vs the meaning of the Scripture docete and the holy Ghost directs her in it docebit vos larglie and professedlie both the Realâ— preseÌ„ce which was the matter of the Conference 〈◊〉 transubstantiatioÌ„ which matter he would faine runne into to make a further demonstration of his ignorance and vnsufficiencie Next he saies the churches of Asia and the Greeke churches dissented that is denied transubstantiation He might aswell haue tould his Reader that wee do they hauing as fullie declared them selues in their Profession bookes and Councels And that verie Councell of Florence wheÌ„ce he would against the whole streame of authoritie make good his rash assertion in the Instruction of faith giuen to the Armenians which was made in publick session sacro approbante concilio that verie yeere he speakes of 1439. doth ackowledge it in these wordes Ipsorum verborum virtute substantia panis in corpus Christi substantia vini in sanguinem conuertitur ita tamen vt totus Christus continetur sub specie panis totus sub specie vini sub qualibet quoque parte hostiae consecratae vini consecrati separatione facta totus est Christus by vertue of those verie words of consecration the substance of bread is turned into the bodie and the substance of wine into the blood yet so that whole Christ is contained vnder the species of bread and whole vnder the species of wine and also whole Christ is vnder euery part of the consecrated hoast and consecrated wine when there is a separation or diuision made See Cardinall Peron his booke against P. Mornay pag. 812. sâ—qq and Censu Eccles Orient Respons 1. ad German c. 13. Responso 2. c. 4. He saies pag. 47. and most ignorantlie that the Churches tenet of a substantiall change vnder the species which change wee call transubstantiation was a thing not knowne or taught for 1215. yeeres after Christ which is a lie many times confuted by our Deuines Bellarmine Peron Allen Gualterius and others yea and by your owne too Master Mirth your owne men Protestants confesse that Damascen taught it that Gregorie and Austine brought it into England that it entred early into the Church Cited in the Protest Ap. tract r. sect 7. subd 4. See also sect 2. subd 2. Reade the discourse of M. Brierley p. 184. Least you should outface such as want bookes some few of those which held the change shall for their sakes be represented on the by I told you that Protestants coÌ„tradict your assertion and your frind Crakâ—â—thorps also Birkberks learned kinsman whoÌ„ you cite in your margine But I come neerer pag. 232. this your Doctors frind Birckbeck will admit and with his aduise that it was publiklie taught in England by Lancfranc long before the time you speake of So will I come neerer yet Master Waferer of Alban-Hall and with the same Doctors approbat Who saith pag. 48. so soone he forgot himself your transubstantiation is no better then the coynage of the monk Damascen who liued anno 730. This I note by the way only to shew your ignorance and temeritie in your assertions and how little your word is to be regarded The point it self I do not heare examine because I will not leaue the matter of the Conference as you striue to do Non de nomine Quaestio est sed de re substantiarum nempe distinctarum ordine sub iisdem accidentibus sub quibus ante consecrationem sit natura vel substantia panis post consecrationem verum D. N. corpus Celebratum est Lateran ense Concilium saeculo 13. In ore duoâ—um vel trium testium stabit omne verbum Matth. 18. Seculo 12. Petrus Blesensis Epist 140. Pane vino transubstantiatis virtute verborum coelestrum in corpus sanguinem Christi accidentia quae priús ibi fuerant fine subiecto remanent apparent Petrus Lombard 4. d. 11 Post consecrationem non est ibi substanitia panis vel vini licet species remaneant est enim ibi species panis
vpon it as it is in it self altogether The first part of the sense is this Profiteor panem vinum post consecrationem non solùm Sacramentum sed etiam verum corpus sanguinem D.N.I.C. esse I professe that the bread and wine be after consecration not a sacrament only but also the true bodie and blood of our Lord Iesus Christ Heere is I do not say all the wordes but one part of the seÌ„ce importiÌ„g that the coÌ„secrated bread wine be a Sacrament not onlie a Sacrament but also the true bodie and bloud of our Lord Iesus Christ so that vnder the name of consecrated bread it is the like of consecrated wyne Berengarius in this Confession comprehendeth two thinges the visible Sacrament by which he meanes the species and the bodie which is inuisible Non solùm Sacramentum sed etiam corpus you know the force of the particles and can resolue the proposition I suppose according to the rules of Logick The like you haue in the Canon Hoc est which afterwards the Doctor obiecteth Contendimus Sacrificium Ecclesiae duobus confici duobus constare visibili elementorum specie inuisibili D. N.I. C. carne Wee contend that the Sacrifice of the Church doth consist of two things the visible species of the elements and the inuisible bodie of our Lord Iesus Christ And in ould Irenaeus Qui est à terra panis percipiens vocationem Dei 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 iam non communis panis est sed Eucharistia ex duabus rebus constans terrena coelesti The bread which hath being from the earth receauing the inuocation of God being consecrated is now not common bread but Eucharist consisting of two things the eartlie the species and the heauenlie the bodie And another ould Father before cited Panis iste non effigie sed natura mutatus omnipotentia Verbi factus est caro That bread being changed not in shape there is the species remaining but in nature is by the omnipotencie of the word made flesh there is the inuisible substance the flesh or bodie of our Sauiour Iesus Christ If you finde in authors teritur with corpus otherwhile you finde a caution with it Sub vtraque specie sub vtriusque speciei particula singula totus est Christus Iesus sumitur residens in coelo sedens ad dextram Patris ipse verè est in hoc Sacramento deÌ„tibus teritur secundum species integer manet Manducatur non corrumpitur Immolatur non motitur Stephan Eduen lo. de Saciam Altar c. 15. vixit circa annuÌ„ 950. Credimus terrenas substantias quae in mensa Dominica per sacerdotale ministerium diuinitus sanctificantur ineffabiliter incomprehensibiliter mirabiliter operante superna potentia conuerti in essentiam Dominici Corporis reseruatis ipsatum rerum speciebus quibusdam aliis qualitatibus ne percipientes cruda cruenta horrerent vt credentes fidei proemia ampliora perciperent ipso tamen Dominico corpore existente in coelestibus ad dextram Patris immortali inuiolato integro incontaminato illaeso vt verè dici possit ipsum corpus quod de Virgine sumptum est nos sumere tamen non ipsum ipsum quidem quantum ad essentiam veraeque naturae proptietatem atque virtutem non ipsum si spectes panis vinique speciem caeteraque superius comprehensa Hanc fidem tenuit à priscis temporibus nunc tenet Ecclesia quae per totum diffusa orbem Catholica denominatur Lanfrancus Archiepiscopus Cantuar. li. de Eucharist Vixâ— circa annum 1059. cum Bérengario disputauit I proceede vnto The second part of the sence Profiteor panem eundem sensualiter non solùm Sacramento sed in veritate manibus sacerdotum tractari frangi fidelium dentibus atteri I professe that the consecrated bread is sensiblie touched with the bands of Priests broken and by the faithfull chewed not in sacrament onlie but in verie deed This is the second part of I do not saie the words but the sence wherin you will haue more adoe to finde a difficultie then I shall haue to finde the solution The QuestioÌ„ is not what other men say of them but what is contained manifestlie in them which the wordes if they be supposed to stand thus offer of themselues That the Preist doth touch the consecrated bread with his hand and his mouth and his tongue euerie one knowes and our Sauiours bodie being therein reallie in rei veritate not in signo tantuÌ„ he doth also touch it more then the woman touched it who toucht immediatlie but his garment yet you can not denie but that indeede and trulie she did touch it Some denied then that any had donne it and our Sauiour himself confuted them and affirmed and proued it The historie is in the Ghospell A woman that had a bloodie flux came behinde our Sauiour and touched his garment the border of it he demaunded who it was that had touched him they denied that anie had done it Negantibus omnibus c. he stood in it still that it was so And a woman came behind him and touched the border of his garment and immediatly her isâ—ue of blood stanched And Iesus 〈◊〉 who touched me When all denied Peter and they that were with him said Master the multitude throng thee And Iesus said somebodie hath touched me for I perceaue that vertue is gonne out of me And when the woman sawe that the was not hid she came trembling and falling downe before him she declared vnto him before all the people for what cause 〈◊〉 had touched him Luc 8. tetigit me aliquis and proued it nam ego noui virtutem de me exijsse where vpon the woman fell vpon her knees at his feete and confest it It is not necessarie when wee saie wee touch or see a thing that euerie thing in it euerie essentiall part be according to it self an obiect of the sense or that the sense perceaue euerie part of it that is sensible He who lookes you in the face saith he sees you though the rest of your bodie be within your cloathes and if you being an 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 cataphract in your protestantish 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 should for feare pull downe your beuer before you come into the list your Aduersarie for all that might light vpon your vnlesse you bring with you Giges his ring so to make your self inuisible as other of your Champions it seemes did manie hundred yeares together for none of them appeared vnles it were to Swinglius one Ater an albus he knew not and an other to Luther With a great voice I see a man yet my eie doth not discerne the substance of his soule or his matter or his sauour and by touching him I doe not feele his colour or discerne his forme from his matter Wee should end manie controuersies in Philosophie soone if soules could be seene
quod Christus fecit vt maiori Charitate nos astringeret vt suum in nos ostenderet desiderium non se tantum videri permittens desiderantibus sed tangi manducar f Idem in eadeÌ„ Hom. Why doth he adde which we break this in the Eucharist wee may see not vpoÌ„ the Crosse but quite otherwise you shall not bruise a bone of him But what he suffered not vpon the Crosse that he suffers in the oblation the Masse g Idem Hom. 26. in Matth. Then what sun-beames had not that hand need to be more pure that breaketh vp this flesh that mouth which is filled with this spirituall fier that tongue which is embrued or sprinkled with this wonderfull blood h Idem de Sacerdotio l 3. O the miracle o the benignitie of God! he that sitteth aboue with the Father is touched at the same time with euerie ones hands i Idem de Sa. cerd l. 6 Dare you Mirch Featlie Morton publiklie call your coÌ„munion bread so when he the Priest hath inuocated the holy Ghost and celebrated the most reuerend and dreadfull Sacrifice touching dailie with his hands the Lord of all I demaund of thee in what rank or order wee shall place him k Idem Hom 46 in Ioa. Who would grauÌ„t to vs to be filled with his flesh this Christ hath donne to oblige vs vnto him with more loue and to demonstrate his affectioÌ„ to vs suffering himself not onlie to be seene of such as desire it but to be touched also and eaten Reflect on this Christ himself the Lord of all he that sitteth aboue with the Father this is not bakers bread is touched with hands and * Et dentibus carni suae infigi Ibidem teeth also l Cyrill Hier. Catech. myst 5. Accedens ad communionem non expansis manuum volis accede neque cum disiunctis digitis sed sinistram veluti sedem quandam subijcias dextrae quae tantum regem susceptura est concaua manu suscipe corpus Domini Approaching to the communion come not with the palmes of thy hands spred out nor with thy fingars parted but holding thy left hand as it were a resting place vnder thy right haÌ„d which is to receaue so great a king that with the hollownes of thy hand thou maiest receaue the bodie of our Lord. Before you heaâ—d Saint Augustine saie that wee receaue the Meditatour Supra pag. 45. God and man with our mouth If against these Fathers you should obiect that the flesh of Christ is impassible in it self and that our Sauiour vnder the consecrated species doth not appeare in his owne forme to our eies they would Answer that yet notwithstanding he may be seene and touched with hands and mouth according to the Sacramentall forme wherein he is God in himself is impassible but because he was in the forme of man he might suffer and be nailed vppon the Crosse and this without driuing the nailes as you seeme to conceaue through the Diuinitie And according to the same humane forme he was trulie seene though the mens eies discouered him not according to the diuine forme within For had they knowne it they would hot haue crucified the Lord of glorie If secondlie you obiect the Capharnaites interpretation the Reader by that which hath beene said before out of S. Augustine will take notice of your willfull errour in that behalf and acquit these great Schollers heere cited from so foule an imputation Wee neither eate not touch with mouth or hands the flesh of our Sauiour according to it's proper forme which was the Caphernaietes errour but in the forme of bread we touch and eate it The bread which I will giue is my flesh Ioan. 6. Mat. 26. 1. Cor. 11. My flesh is meate indeede take with your hand and eate with your mouth this in forme of bread is what my bodie 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 this is my bodie which is broken for you Apologist To that part of the section where he mistakes S. Augustine to maintaine a corporall eating when he affirmes that Iudas receaued the price of our Redemption not by his faith for that was shut he being reprobated therefore into his bodie I answer that there are two kinds of eating in the Sacrament one both corporall and spirituall wherein the bodie feeds on the outward elements corporallie whilst the soule receaueth the true bodie and blood of Christ by faith the other onlie corporall wherein the receauer partakes onlie the outward signe and not the bodie signified So I say Iudas receaued the last waie onlie and not the first though his faith had shut out Christs bodie yet his mouth was open to let downe the Sacrament of his bodie He as all the wicked receaued paneÌ„ Domini the bread of the Lord Sacramento tenus according to the visible signe the other eleuen as all the faithfull did also reuera indeed partake panem Dominum of bread which was the Lord. Censure It is well you confesse that your Answer is but to part of the discourse it hath hetherto beene your manner the rest is such as you know not how to cauill at it The words of S. E. which you pick out be these Iudas according to S. Augustine receaued the price of our Redemption not with the mind sure he was then a traitor but with the mouth The substance of your Answere is that he receaued bread and wine the signes or elementes but not the bodie and blood which answer is so farre from satisfying the place of S. Augustine that it is directlie coÌ„tradictorie S. Aug. Epist 162. his words are Tolerat ipse Dominus Iudam Diabolum furem venditorem suum sinit accipere inter innocentes Discipulos quod fideles nouerunt precium nostrum Our Lord himself suffers Iudas a deuill a thiefe who sould him he lets him receaue amoÌ„gst the innocent Disciples that which the faithfull know our price That which the faithfull the Apostles knew to be the price of our redemption that he Iudas tooke what was that wine or blood non corruptibilibus auro vel argento redempti estis saith our Pastor sed pretioso sanguine quasi agni immaculati Christi 1. Pet. 1. You were not redeemed with corruptible things gold and siluer but with the precious blood of Christ as of a lambe without spot or blemish And the Saints in the Reuelation Apoc. 5. Redemisti nos in sanguine tuo thou hast redeemed vs in thy blood This is the price of our Redemption as the faithfull know and this Iudas though he was a traitor did receaue amongst the rest of the Disciples not with deuotion nor with faith neither not corde no he was one of those qui non crediderunt but ore tantum with his mouth onlie whereas the other both with heart Aug. l. 2. con Aduers leg c. 9. and mouth into themselues did receaue it And so did the Church in S. Augustines time Wee
receaue with faithfull heart and mouth the mediatour of God and man man Christ Iesus this is not bakers bread giuing vs his bodie to be eaten and his blood to be drunck though it seeme to such as Waferer is more horrible euen thus with the mouth to eate mâ—s flesh then to kill and to drinck mans blood then to shed it In Baptisme wee were incorporated into Christ made one flesh and this vnion he doth consummate as S. Augustine doth insinuate by the reall exhibition of his bodie in the Sacrament But this matter is to high for M. Waferer who at least should haue regarded the words of Origen before his eies who saies of our Lord in the Sacrament Suprà Conf. pag. 65. Where he enters vnworthilie there he goes in to iudgment to the receauer Mark well there He He to whom Origen will haue the communicant saie Vt ad perficiendum mysterium vnitatis accipâ—amus ipsi d. sâ—o quod accepit ipse de nostro Cap. firmiter ex Conc. Lateran as the Church doth at Masse Domine non sum dignus vt intres sub tectum meum Lord I am not worthie that thou enter vnder my roofe this is not bread he would not haue you call bread Lord as S. E. told you in his Notes Where He enters vnworthâ—lie there He goes in to Iudgment to the receauer The like of inuocating our Lord there in the forme of bread on the Alter wee haue in a. RogaÌ„tes Agnum propositum S Chry. Hom. 41. in 1. Cor. S. Chrysostome b, Obsecratio sancti illius tremendi quod in altari positum est Sacrificij Saint Cyrill Hier. Cathec Myst 5. S. Cyrill and others the thing which heere I vrge is that the Church did in S. Augustines time receaue that which he calles the Mediatour not with heart onlie but also hoeuer to infidels the thing might appeare horrible with the mouth that the Apostles did eate panem Dominum bread the Lord which bread vnderstood well what they did and that Iudas notwithstanding his malicious infidelitie receaued he doth nor saie the outward signes onlie as you do but the price of our Redemption adding that the faithfull know it so to be Those know it that haue learned the difference betwixt blood and wine betwixt panis Dominus the Mediatour and bakers bread He knowes it c. S. August tract 62. in Ioan. qui diiudicat hoc est discernit à caeteris cibis Dominicum corpus with the eie of faith who perceaues that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 d. S Cyrill Hier. Catech. t. 4. that which appeare bread is not bread in substance what then 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 but the bodie the bodie how did not our Sauiour take bread yes he did but that e, Serin de Caena Cypr. bread being changed not in shape but in nature is by the omnipotencie of the word made flesh as you were told from Antiquitie You will replie that the rest of the Apostles hauing faith did receaue two thinges one with the bodie by the mouth to wit the outward elementes or signes the other With the soule by faith to wit the bodie and blood which later Iudas wanting faith could not do and therefore onlie with his bodie by the mouth receaued the signes this S. Augustine you think insinuates when he saith of him that he receaued panem Domini hauing said of the rest that they receaued panem Dominum Answer of panis Dominus bread the Lord the Mediatour you heard before from S. Augustine that the Church in his time it is the same of the Apostles receaued it not onlie with their heart or soule but also with their mouth that mouth which in his words is distinguished from the soule or heart Of the bread of our Lord panis Domini which S. Augustine expounding the 40. Psalme qui edebat panes meos c. saith Iudas did eate contra Dominum against our Lord according as it was before prophecied I will speake afterwards Per buccellam illum designauit vt appareret de illo dictum qui edebat panes meos S. Aug. Enar. Psal 40. he designed him by the morsell to make it appeare that it was said of him He that eateth my bread Let that bread alone a while and let vs consider whether Iudas who did not receaue spirituallie tooke anie more according to S. Augustine then onlie the outward signe Sure our Sauiours blood the price of our Redemption is more then your outward signe which you speake of and Iudas according to S. Augustine receaued he doth not saie the signe of the price but that which the faithfull know to be the price of our Redemption such indeed as had not faith Iudas himself thought it bread and wine but the faithfull the rest of the Disciples they knew that in substance the thing was not bakers bread as before consecration but panis Dominus bread the Lord not wine from the grape but the price of our Redemption Act. 20.28 the verie blood of God Number now the thinges receaued by the rest all that is antecedeÌ„t to the effect which the Sacrament doth giue and the thinges receaued by Iudas and see whether you can find what such thing they receaued more the signes both receaued the bodie and blood the price of our Redemption both receaued what is there els in the Sacrament that is antecedent to the effect which it produceth in the worthie receauer If wee consider the effect of the Sacrament the Apostles by it by the Sacrament receaued increase of grace they receaued it to life but Iudas coÌ„ming vnworthilie with treason in his heart increased by a sacrilegious act the grieuousnes of his sinne A man ought to come with great reuerence and preparation to receaue the benefites of God but peculiarlie to this Sacrament wherein with the benefites he is to receaue God himself he ought to examine himself well and look into euerie corner of his conscience that there be nothing amisse in it when he comes that searcheth Hierusalem with a candle and hates iniquitie with his heart If malice if abomination be not remooued if due preparation be not made the Diuine Iustice will reuenge the contempt or neglect and that also for example of others euen oft in this life which made the Apostle giue a generall warning vnto all that offer to come to this table to trie themselues first 1. Cor. 11 Let a man examine himself and so let him eate of that bread and drink of that cup and the reason For he that eateth and drinketh vnworthilie eateth and drinketh damnation to himself not discerning the Lords bodie not omitting to mention the execution of Gods vindicatiue iustice vpon the transgressors For this cause many are weake and sicklie amongst you and many sleepe There are in S. Cyprian and other auncient Writers S. Cypr. Serm. de lapsis diuers examples of Gods iudgmentes in this behalf vppon such as ante expiata
contained as the Councell speakes in the Sacrament Conc. Trid. Sess 13. Suprà pag 182. seqq Suprà pag. 73. You haue beene tould also that a thing may represent or signifie that which according to the substance is within it and that a substance vnder two seuerall formes may by the one signifie it self as in the other The Doctours Argument out of the Canon doth touch vpoÌ„ these two points wherefore I am to see whether it doth affirme or denie them 1. Whether the bodie be or be not in the Sacrament 2. Whether by the Sacramentall forme be signified the naturall forme or shape as it was vpoÌ„ the Crosse the substance vnder them both being the same In his Minor for his Argument is an ill fauoured kind of Syllogisme he hath imposed for these words this heauenlie bread is but after a sort Christs bodie and not indeed what euer meaning they might haue be not in the text seuerall peices be deceitfullie patcht together for aduantage That the Reader may see and iudge I will represent heere the Canon it self VVafer p. 50. by parts for the Doctors engine may be taken in peices at leingth because the Apologist complaines this Argument was mincinglie produced The first part Hoc est quod dicimus hoc modis omnibus adprobare contendimus Sacrificium scilicet Ecclesiae duobus confici duobus constà re visibili elementorum specie inuisibili D. N. I. C. carne sanguine Sacramento re Sacramëti sicut Christi persona constat conficitur Deo Homine cuÌ„ ipse Christus verus sit Deus verus homo quia omnis res illarum rerum naturam veritatem in se continet ex quibus conficitur conficitur autem Sacrificium Ecclesiae Sacramento re Sacramenti id est corpore Christi Est igitur Sacramentum res Sacramenti id est corpus Christi It is this wee say this it is which wee labour by all meanes to proue namelie that the Sacrifice of the Church is made and doth consist of two things the visible species of the elements and the inuisible and blood of Christ And this is that mincha that cleane oblation as the Fathers tell vs which is offered by the Church euerie where according as the Prophet Malachie did foretell I come now to the second part of the Canon wherein the difficulties that might occurre about this be dissolued our cause more confirmed and yours directlie contradicted Caro eius Christi est quam formá panis opertam in sacramento accipimus sanguis cius quemsub vini specie sapore potamus Caro videlicet carnis sanguis Sacramentum est sanguinis carne sanguine vtroque inuisibili intelligibili spirituali significatur visibile Domini N. I. C. corpus palpabile plenum gratia omnium virtutum Diuina Maiestate His flesh it is which in the Sacrament wee receaue couered with the forme or species of bread and his blood which wee drink vnder the species sauour of wine The flesh indeed is a Sacrament of the flesh and the blood is a Sacrament of the blood By flesh and blood both inuisible intelligible spirituall is signified the visible palpable bodie of our Lord Iesus Christ full of the grace of all vertues of Diuine Maiestie You see how it saith first that our Sauiours flesh is couered in the Sacrament with the exteriour forme of bread the like of his blood which is in the forme of wine Caro eius est quam forma panis opertam c. with what face then could you saie that Gratians words are cleere against the reall presence of Christs bodie vnder the accidentes or exteriour forme of bread or Featlie pag. 61. that this heauenlie bread according to the substance is not indeed Christs bodie but a signe onlie SecoÌ„dlie it saith which ruines vtterlie all Waferers sillie discourse against S.E. vpoÌ„ this occasion that the flesh heere is a Sacrament of flesh and the blood a Sacrament of blood Caro videlicet carnis sanguis Sacramentum est sanguinis in explication whereof it saith Thirdlie that the inuisible and spirituall flesh which is heere couered with the exteriour forme or accidents of bread doth signifie the visible and palpable bodie of our Lord Iesus Christ and the like it is of the inuisible and spirituall blood carne sanguine vtroque inuisibili intelligibili spirituali significatur visible c. Whereby wee are instructed against Featlie when he saith pag. 63. that GratiaÌ„ doth not oppose moduÌ„ modo Featlie pag. 63. the manner to the manner when he compares the consecrated bread to the ble bodie but modum rei verae and veritati rei the manner to the truth of the thing and that therefore in saying it is suo modo there Featlie Ibidem he implieth that it is not there trulie or in the truth of the thing visiblie or inuisiblie for the text of Gratian doth affirme the flesh to be there inuisiblie couered with the forme of bread and that this inuisible spirituall flesh of Christ is a signe of or doth signifie his visible bodie as hath beene obserued from the wordes before cited After which ensue those which Fealie stands vpon being the third part of the Canon in this tenour Sicut ergo Coelèstis panis qui vere Christi caro est the Doctour perchaunce according to the coppie which he did vse leaues out verè suo modo vocatur corpus Christi cùm reuera sit sacramentum corporis Christi how so if it be verè corpus Christi it followes and exactlie according to the doctrine of the former part carne inuisibili significatur visibile corpus illâ—us videlicet quod visibile palpabile mortale in cruce suspensum this Featlie conninglie left out whereas it is indeed the solution of his Argument Hetherto one 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of a comparison now followes another Vocaturque ipsa immolatio carnis quae Sacerdotis manibus fit Christi passio mors crucifixio non rei veritate sed significante mysterio now comes the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 common to them both sic SacrameÌ„tum fidei quod baptismus intelligitur fides est As therefore the heauenlie bread which indeed is the flesh of Christ is after a sort called the bodie of Christ whereas in truth it is the Sacrament of the bodie of Christ I meane of that which being visible palpable mortall was put vpon the Crosse and as that immolation of the flesh which is donne by the hands of the Priest is called the passion death and crucifixion not rei veritate in veritie of the thing but significante mysterio in a signifying mysterie So the Sacrament of faith Baptisme I meane is faith The force and life of which comparison you haue in S.E. pag. 72. Heere breeflie I obserue that this text in the double 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 speakes of two things the one is the flesh of Christ in
cum ista loqueretur videbant tract 101. in Ioan. In the coelestialls no flesh but simple and bright bodies which the Apostle calls spirituall He that conceaues what is said before of the manner of defining which the b. Supra pag 301. seq naturall Philosopher doth vse will vnderstand this easilie and this heere affirmed by these learned Fathers according to the maÌ„ner which the Scripture also doth frequent in speach is a double confirmation of that Philosophie Featlie Gratian opposeth not modum modo but modum rei verae and veritati rei Answer This is answered allreaâ—ie In the first part of this 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 he doth oppose modum modo he doth oppose the inuisible flesh conuâ—red wâ—th the forme of bread to the same flâ—sh as it is visible and saith that the former is a signe of the lather Which I haue plainelie shewne by the text it self and haue produced the words wherein this is euidentlie affirmed In the second part of the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 he doth oppose one action to another or one manner of immolation to another manner of immolation affirming the Consecration or act of vnbloodie immolation to be the bloodie passion not in rei veritate to consecrate is not to crucifie but significante mysterio as hath beene also tould you Moreouer the confounding of these two thereby to conclude the flesh not to be there in the Sacrament according to the truth of the thing visible or inuisiblie so you speake hath beene detected for à grosse corruption repugnant to the text Featlie And now hauing brandished the sword of the text of Gratian let vs see how you can ward a blow with the scabbard the Glosse Answer The lightning of your sword was like the thundring of your Canon Surely Doctor it was a violent Obiection this Belli ferratas portas vectesque refregit Warrs iron gates it hath burst vp and Barrs Featlie ex Glossa Dicitur Corpus Christi impropriè suo modo non rei veritate vt sit sensus vocatur corpus Christi id est significatur Answer If Souldiers wheÌ„ the sword cannot pierce nor the Canon make a breach should giue an onset with their scabbards what Elogium befits them Doctour the scabbard too should be fit for the sword the commentarie should be according to the text or neither is good Who told you that Deuines were to be directed in the vnderstanding of matters purelie Theologicall by a Canon Lawier or that the Author of the Glosse did fullie comprehend the text which as you haue seene and so much he sawe too contradictes the fond Heresie of emptie signes and bakers bread moreouer the Glosse it self in plaine tearmes affirmes as you find cited in S. E that bread is transubstantiated into the bodie Suprà pag 75. that where before was bread and wine there is now after consecration the accidents of them onlie that vnder those accidents the flesh and blood of Christ doe lie hid and are couered and the reason least there might be horrour in receauing if the shape of raw flesh and blood should appeare And yet forsooth if wee beleeue you the words of Gratian and the Glosse heere in the scrappe you cite perchance are so cleare against the Reall presence of Christs bodie vnder the accidentes of bread and wine that neuer any Protestant spake more expreslie Featl pag. 61. as if an Atheist out that place Dixit insipiens in corde suo non est Deus should cite for himself onlie the later part non est Deus and then auouch that neuer Atheist did speake more expreslie Is this your sinceritie is this faire proceeding in the tryall of Religion must the presse groane vnder this the monument of the greate Disputant must it be built vpon these pillars and his Statua be adorned with a garland of these flowers O ConscieÌ„ce ô Religion In the Relation set foorth by S. E. Doctor Featlie is said to haue acknowledged that Gratian did contradict himself Pag. 70. who then can excuse this his vrging of the place againe in a second Disputation and printing of it afterwards twice still pressing the place against the Reall presence once anno 1624. in diuulging one Conference and againe anno 1630. in the publishing of another who caÌ„ saie that in vrging these mens Authoritie he did not impugne a knowne truth or if he did not knowe it if he could not vnderstand their words what mist was there in his vnderstanding what ignorance in so great a Rabbin But heare his Eccho in the Apologie In this Section wherein the place of Gratian and the Glosse are discussed so far as Doctor Smith and his Antagonist argue VVafer pag 50. if you peruse the places you shall find the arguments though so mincinglie heere produced vnsatisfied where you are forced to put a trick on Doctour Featlie and make him confesse against Gratian least his Lordship should be non-plust I can not but pittie such slender pollicie But for satisfaction concerning Gratian if you but please to reade Doctor Featlie on another occasion in his Conference with M. Musket pag. 61. c. you shall finde him insteed of yeilding that Gratian contradicts himself prooue that he oppugnes your transsubstantiation Thus innocentlie the godlie sincere Brother Cui nec Ara nec I now returne to the wordes obiected putting you first in minde which Featlie doth acknowledge was told him in the Conference Featl pag. 29â— that three thinges in a Sacrament are to be considered as Diuines note 1. that which is Sacramentum tantùm 2. that which is res Sacramenti tantùm Vide Suar. 3. p. to 3. disp 1 Sect 3. Tria distingnuÌ„tura Theologis in Sacramentis novae legis res tantum c. Et disp 42. Sect. 1. 3. 4. Magist in 4 d. 8. S. Tho. 3. p. q 73. a. 1. Ibidemque CoÌ„mentatores 3. that which is both res Sacramentum that which is heere Sacramentum tantum be the species of bread wine which are signes but are not reallie either of the thinges by them signified that which is res Sacramenti tantum is grace which is signified by the Sacrament as you may know by the generall definition but it self not being visible is no signe of this S. Bernard speakes in the place cited by Waferer pag. 49. rem Sacramenti nemo percipit nisi dignus that which is both Sacramentum and res Sacramenti as signifying and being also signified is the bodie of our Sauiour in the signe According to this distinction commonlie receaued and knowne when the Glossatour made his exposition it was answered that he spake of that which is Sacramentum tantum to wit the specie which are not reallie and properlie the bodie and blood of Christ but improperlie and significatiue onlie to which meaning his owne words would haue directed you Sacramentum scilicet species visibilis the Sacrament that is the visible species and species panis sub qua
action making immediatlie these râ—ferences were needles Euen in those that are naturall the Philosopher lookes for no other action then that which makes the foundation which he calls the fundamentum where one thing containes another the reference followes of it self That by the consecration the bodie is put within the species the Glossâ— whose Authoritie you are againe scanning told you and by the words of Institution it is manifest Suprà pag. 75 Matth 26. The Canon Caro eius est quam forma panis opertam accipimus But why should you make anie difficultie about the title of sacred and heauenlie drawne vpon the species in a sence equiuocall by reasons of the reference When wee vrge against you the Fathers to proue that our Sauiour in the Eucharist is to be reuerenced and adored then you tell vs that the worship is exhibited to the formes because they be sacred and you can fetch examples from Baptisme how then comes it to passe that whilst you dispute against vs The words Reuerâ—nce Honour AdoratioÌ„ simplie in themselues without the adiunct and additament Diuine cannot conclude the Diuine woship proper to God Vnder the degree of Diuine worship wee our selues yeild as much to the Eucharist as S. Augustine did to baptisme wheÌ„ he said epist. 164 wee reuerence baptisme wheresoeuer it is Morton of the Masse l 7 c 2 sec 3 Diuine Nazianzene teaceth that the Angels are present at baptisme and do magnifie or Honour it with their presence and obseruance Idem Sect 2. VVere the Crucifix as glorious as either art could fashion it is but a meere signe inuented by man and thâ—refore how infinitely more honorable in all Christian estimation must a Sacramentall signe be whâ—ch onlie the God of heauen and earth could insitute Idem li. 4. c. 2. Sect 3 in the Challeng Reuerence is a due respect had vnto things or persons according to the good qualities that is in them this is either inward or outward the inward is our estimation of them according to their conditions and properties the outward is our open expression of our said estimation whether by words or acts their inward c. Idem l. 7. c. 9. See the words of D. Androes cited p. 373. and what both of them say to Theodoret adorantur symbola vt quae illa sint quae creduntur whereof Andr in his Op. posth and Mort l. 7. c. 2 and cease to declaime against vs for the relatiue honour wee giue to reliques and other holy things obseruing withall that they both come short of Theodoret adorantur vt quae illa sint they loose their sanctitie But see your braines turne about and you will bestow the same title vpon bread and wine and that the thing which iust now you disliked in regard of reference to flesh blood Take my opinion say you that meere accidents can neither properlie nor improperlie be called Coeleste Sacramentum in regard of their reference to our Sauiours bodie which they couer VVafer pag 57. but bread and wine may be so called and why in regard of their mysterious vse and signification how so the reference vnto that Coelestiall foode which they are then made instrumentes to conuay vnto vs giues them that denomination So you The seuerall comparisons of the Sacramentall species comes heere too into the Ministers head and troubles him so many relations in one thing to the bodie visible existent on the crosse to the bodie inuisible contained within and to the grace which being a Sacrament it doth also relate vnto Three relations in one thing this makes him sweate with labour to coÌ„ceaue it But there is one thing your owne self Master Waferer wherin there be more then thirtie to your Father to your brothers to the communitie whereof you are a part to your alas poore flocke to your mother Vniuersitie to your masters there to your seruant what spend I time to reckon as many senses and powers partes as manie seuerall accidentes and qualites and habits as you haue as manie seuerall vertues as are in you but I must not found on them least my nuÌ„ber proue to short as manie seuerall comparisons as you haue to bodies I omit all other thinges which would make the number more then double liuing or not liuing celestiall or terrestriall greater or lesse then you so manie relations you Master Waferer haue Number them if you can aâ—d you shall finde for euerie one that I promised a thousand do you sweate vnder the burden You told vs but a while agoe that bread and wine haue a reference to the bodie and blood of Christ VVafer pag. 34. and it is your common tenet and the great mysterie which you do mngnifie and extoll as a thing aboue the capacitie and conceipt of Christian men though neuer so learned yet least you want an Aduersarie you pleade against this also now your owne self There is saie you a relation inter signum and signatum which relation cannot be founded in the colour of bread VVafer pag 58 because no relation is founded in qualitie but relatio similitudininis now the colour of flesh and bread is not a like and so there can be no relation of similitude betweene them and so on you go to conclude that the relation which wee admit is no where but in a Iesuites doting head See your owne kâ—kerm of the institution of signes VVas it not you â—hat obiected out of Tertull. and the Glosse the word representat and are not you the men would haue the Sacrament to be a signe which if it were so his condition were yet better then yours for he hath within the consecrated species that which is indeed heauenlie the best thing to speake with S. Chrysostome that is in all the world whereas your Sacrament is reallie nothing els but bakers bread with the relation of a signe which relation your owne argument comes back vpoÌ„ you is not founded in the colour nor in the substance of bread flesh and bread are not alike but onlie in the supposed institution which kind of relations being not reall giue me leaue to conclude in your Logick yet more ciuillie that it is no where but in the sacred pia mater of a Catharist Waferer I haue four reasons why I dislike your opinion which defends meere accidents to be called a Sacrament Answer you are content that a peece of bread wherein there is no thing els but bread the rest being in your head onlie be called a Sacrament why then may not those species be so called which do couer and infold that great mysterie of pietie which was manifested in the flesh iustified in spirit appeared to Angels and was preached vnto Nations if the price of our Redemption the Mediatour betwixt God and man the holie of holies if Deus absconditus be within those species withdrawne from our sight and they not onlie signifie but exhibite him to the receauer why may they not
taken out of S. Augustine by S. Prosper It is the the flesh of Christ which wee receaue couered with the forme of bread and by the flesh and blood Ibidem both inuisible intelligible spirituall is signified the visible palpable bodie of our Lord Iesus Christ and in Saint Ierome Hieron Comment in 1 ad Ephes ad Paulum Eustoch Idem in Ep. ad Hedib q. 2. The flesh and blood of Christ is vnderstood two waies either that spirituall and Diuine whereof himself saith My flesh is meate indeede c. marke this Comment Master Waferer or the flesh that was crucified and Our Lord Iesus he the guest and the feast he the eater and the thing eaten But staie what is all this a mans bodie our Sauiours in bread shape flesh inuisible vnder the forme of bread an inuisible thing vnder accidēts the signe of a visible thing vpon the Crosse the same bodie at the same time eating and eaten visible and inuisible Apologist O insufferable dotage Censure And this comparison too a. Serm. de Coen in Cypr. As in the person of Christ the humanitie did appeare and the Diuinitie lie bid so heere in the Eucharist a Diuine essence doth vnspeakablie power it self into a visible Sacrament What is your opinion of this Apologist O blasphemous comparison Censure Com. in in Ioan. l. 4. c. 11. The malignant minde S. Cyrill saith presentlie with arrogance reiects all as friuolous and false whateuer it vnderstands not yeilding to none and thinking nothing to be aboue it self Belike some Spirit hath inspired this man and on the suddaine giuen vs a Diuine that can teach without learning the verie same which taught Luther to declaime against the Masse But Master Waferer bethink your self is this language for a Master of Art but of yesterdaie to giue a graue Prelate and a mā of knowne learning and then also when he speakes in the verie words of Antiquitie of holie Fathers of Iesus Christ Is this the modestie such a stripling should haue had the learning which you promised the charitie which you pretend you who do lament the Schismes of the Church and are continuallie in thanksgiuing for the great light you see wherein you haue discouered how the solid and substantiall nature of bread is transelemented into a feigned reference is this the vindicating of your Churches cause and the cleering of your Doctor it's abbetter O the Pedanticall insolencie O most insolent arrogancie of most arrogant Apostacie Of the first apostatizing Spirits it is said in Sripture their pride ascendeth euer They would haue thrones forsooth each one for they are all of one mind in the sides of the North from whence without submitting themselues to any they might controwle all and into the same region high pride hath raised this Apol. making her self this chaire and receauing him in her lap There he sits and controwles Antiquitie This it is when supercilious Pedants come from As in praesenti to print books and giue Diuines lessons in Diuinitie Apologist Not to trouble my self or my Reader with the repetition of all those infinite solecismes which this opinion includes take notice of this that it distroies the definition of an Indiuiduum makes Christs indiuiduall bodie not to be indiuiduall Indiuiduum according to logick is quod est indiuisum in se diuisum ab alijs omnibus as Socrates is distinguished from Plato c. now I saie this your tenet of there all presence against this definition diuide an indiuiduall bodie from it self it diuides Christ ac Paris from Christ in the Sacrament at Rome Censure He hath if you beleeue him an infinite companie of reasons but least he trouble the Reader or himselfe lucidum interuallum with ranging them all against vs he picks out the stoutest his Thersites Achilles I should haue said and thrusting him into the field bids vs take notice of him Sure it is a goodlie reason Limmes it hath some but it wāts sinewes like therefore to be some tough chāpion Hath it the forme and shape of a good Argument no but it hath a head the maior proposition O quale caput sed cerebrum where non habet The maior might haue in it a good sence and hath so when others vse it when it is vnderstood of intrinsecall indiuision but extrinsecall is not that which doth constitute or the want of it that which takes awaye an indiuiduum now the Minister vnderstands it of this later this extrinsecall indiuision as will presentlie appeare by his discourse Thus the Maior The Minor is of no great weight neither for it stands vpon his breath Now a. Mirths words I saie this your tenet against this definition diuides an indiuiduall bodie from it self it it diuides Christ at Paris from Christ in the Sacramēt at Rome You saie so well Your Conclusion let the Reader himself make it if he can Supprimit Orator But is there no proppe for the Minor if you cease to saie it what shall become of it then yes wee shall haue something to supporte it Apologist For there being distance diuersitie of place it cannot be the same numericall bodie Censure Did I not tell before that he meant extrinsecall indiuision Place is extrinsecall to a bodie whether you be in Oxford or Odiham you be the same indiuiduum still though the place be distinct Oxford is not Odiham but M Waferer in Odiham is the same Master Waferer that was at Oxford the Minister is the Master of Art is he not Master Mirth And a Master of Art might haue knowne further that superuenient vbications destroie not that indiuiduation which essentiallie they suppose Your substantiall indiuiduation that whereby you are substantiallie distinct from other men which is no accident of Master Waferer nor can be remooued from him as much as in your mind without taking him away too that substantiall indiuiduation is essentiallie presupposed by euerie particular intrinsecall vbicatiō receaued in you as an accidēt in it's subiect and is not changed by it by the superuenient vbication if it were the same thing could not bee as much as successiuelie in seuerall places as oft as you changed places so oft you should be an other man One borne another be caried to Church to be Christned a third brought home to suck the mother and which yet would trouble you worse another should take the benefice which was giuen you because you tooke the degree which an other by the name of Waferer too a I will not sweare that deserued Apologist I praie what other diuision can there be of materiall substances but by bounds of place Censure Poore man and what If I should come into your place and you into mine should I then be you and you be that indiuiduum which I am this were as easie as it is a strange transubstantiation But I know you will denie it to be possible least by this meanes you be vnawares made a Papist I thought this it
secundum Grammaticos non consignificat tempus sed Verbo id competit quare demonstratio per se pronominis abstrahit à tempore scilicet quo profertur pronomen quo terminatur totius orationis prolatio quare vtramque substantiam significat pro qua item posset supponere At quia verbum vt dictum est consignificat tempus terminatiuum orationis virtute eiusdem verbi trahitur suppositio pronominis ad corpus Ibidem ex Richardo taceo signifies as my Lord said it did Sainct Thomas denies not neither doth he denie that the proposition is to be vnderstood secundum vltimum instans as then to haue it's effect which effect is the thing signified yea he doth affirme it directlie oportet intelligere praedictam locutionem secundum vltimum instans prolationis verborum and in the precedent Article he saith in vltimo instanti prolationis verba consequuntur virtutem coÌ„uersiuam wherby the same is also manifest The proposition Corpus meum est corpus meum was true before and was not made true by vertue of consecration but it was not true before that our Sauiours bodie was in the shape of bread or had Sacramentall existence Per hanc formam fit vt corpus Christi sit in hoc Sacramento secundum â—eritatem S. Thom. Ibidem and though this proposition Corpus meum est corpus meum be identicall according to the manner yet the propositioÌ„ which wee speake of is not as you were told oft enough in the Relation where you may reade still your Doctors Predicament which will stand vntill he graunts the distinction of a two fold identicall proposition one for matter onlie another for manner too wherefore no more of that Apologist Put case I should graunt you such power in those wordes this is my bodie to transubstantiate the bread may I not challeng the same force in them to change the accidents as well as the substance since they were likewise in his hand when he pronounced them Censure No. you cannot as will appear if you consider them well this in the exteriours shape of bread is my boâ—â—â— will you haue is to be in that shape and yet the shape not to be and our Sauiours intention being to institute a Sacrament the exteriour species which immediatlie doth occurre vnto the sense was to remaine The Fathers also note that to take away the b. S. Cyrill Alex Ep. ad Calos Theophilac in Mat. 26.5 Ambros l. 4 de Sacram. c. 4 Haimo in Pass Christi sec Mar. Lanfranc lib. de Corpo S. Bernard Serm. de Coena Dom. horrour of eating mans flesh and drinking blood in their owne shapes they be couered in the formes of bread and wine which vsuallie men receaue you haue S. Thomas in your hands it seemes in him you may find more of this q. 75. a. 5. Moreouer transubstantiation being a succession of substances vnder the same accidentall formes you destroy the notion of it if you take the same formes away they must remaine the same And that it is indeed so that still there is the exteriour shape of bread you knowe by sence but whether vnder them there be bread or flesh the sence is not able to certifie you know that it enters not so farre Some higher power must iudge of it and an vnderstanding well disposed as being readier to beleeue God then to relie on you or on this foolish dotage that God can do no more then man is able of himself to know beleeues it is our Sauiours bodie since God affirmes it But see the Puritan is in his ruffe Apologist Me thinks Master S. E. you close this Section verie saucilie and sillilie For Doctor Featlie vrging you that identicall propositions such as your discourse makes this proue nothing to trie wether they can proue anie thing askes this Question If I point to Christs bodie in Heauen at the right hand of his Father and saie This See aboue pag. 35. or that bodie of Christ is his bodie will it hence follow than bread or any thing els is substantiallie turned into Christs bodie you forsooth answer him thus No but something els it seemes is turned how els could your mouth vtter such an impertinent discourse It would haue argued you of more Schollership iudgment either to haue beene silent or els to haue answered him how meere identicall propositions can proue any thing Censure Quantulacunque adeo est occasio sufficit irae Was it not euident that the proposition was meerelie speculatiue as much as if I pointing at you should saie this is Waferer and this face is Mirths owne face and that it did suppose allreadie in being all that it imported and therefore was impertineÌ„tie paralleled with this other which is not meerelie speculatiue nor supposeth â—n being that which it importes but both inferre it Our Sauiours bodie Master Waferer was not in the forme of bread before consecration by consecration it was there Sainct a. Non erat corpus Christi ante coÌ„secrationem sed post coÌ„secrationem dico tibi quod iam est corpus Christi ipse dixit factum est S. Amb. l. 4. de Sacr. c. 4. ex paâ—e fit corpus Ibidem vides quam operatorius sit sermo Christi c. Ibidem Ambrose he tels you so directlie so â—o b. Suprà pag 480. Should a lay man say ouer a peice of bread Hoc est corpus 〈◊〉 the proposition would be false wherefore it is not like Featlies should a Priest with intention to consecrate pronounce them they would be true others That propositions which for matter are identicall may serue to prooue or inferre you might haue knowne being Master of Art and he Featlie being Doctor in Diuinitie without further teaching which had any beene thought necessarie was not alltogether wanting on the part of S. E. whom you reprehend for not teaching it Did you runne ouer withouâ— reading or reading not vnderstand those words in him pag. 94. For matter a proposition may be identicall and prooue too and such are All those heere are infinite which define the subiect will you haue instaÌ„ce for your easieâ— learning of his mind as this A man is a reasonable creature And he that denies it can proue anie thing shewes himâ—self ignorant in the principles of Science and knowes not what a demonstration is So hee and so I do tell you now againe Your Doctor it is like lookes higher and would haue an instance in a matter more eleuated Be it so God is eternall will you haue a proposition to proue it take this God is immutable you can make the Syllogisme your self I suppose Whatever thing is immutable is eternall c. Will you haue a proposition to proue that God is immutable take this Deus est actus purus dispose it in forme of a Syllogisme Omnis actus purus est immutabilis Deus est actus purus c. will you haue another to proue that God is actus purus
Catholikes that neuer sawe Master of Art in his habit It is onli◠Christs bodie in the Eucharist as it is crucified in the Eucharist But it is onlie sacramentallie meaning in a signe crucified in the Eucharist Ergo it is onlie sacramentallie meaning a signe in the Eucharist For the Solution whereof if you demaund of anie Catholicke i◠our Sauiours bodie crucified in the Eucharist he tels you No. demaund againe is it there indeed reallie he Answers yes so I haue beene taught and I beleeue it And heereby Master Waferer though he knowes not the termes of Art He denies that which is your Maior A Scholler will tell you further of another sence of the word shed whē it is attributed to the Sacramentall cup and of the word broken when it is attributed to the bodie which you did not reflect vpon when you made your Argument The bodie blood of our Sauiour the lambe sacrificed for the world are heere in the species of things inanimate which existence by reason of the exteriour formes giues occasion when wee speake of the sacred actions that are exercised towards or about them to vse that kind of speach which was proper to sacrifices of that kind whereof some were solid and drie others liquid among the solid was bread which was broken to signifie the soueraigne dominion of Almightie God Leuit. 2. among the liquid was wine which to the same end was powred out vpon the Altar hence those words powred out or shed and broken are vsed to signifie the action of sacrifycing when the things offered or sacrificed be in formes inanimate of bread or wine and euen by our Sauiour himself This is my bodie which is broken for you 1 Cor. 11. this is my blood of the new testament which is powred out or shed for many Matt. 26. This breaking for and shedding for is vnbloodie sacrifycing Which Caluin espied also and confessed when he expounded the breaking in S. Paul Calu in Epi pri Cor. panis quem frangimus frangi saies he interpretor immolari But the Apologist obiectes againe out of the word shed Howeuer it be shed saith he it moueth being powred out if it moue it is in a place if in a place then either circumscriptiuelie or definitiuelie Heere it appeares that as before I noted he speakes of shedding according to the ordinarie common acception of the word without reflecting on the other acception according to which neither this nor the former Obiectiō hath any kind of apparēce For a thing may by consecration be put vpō the Altar in the forme of wine without any locall motion of it And this presenting of it on the altar by turning not it into an other thing but wine into it donne to signifie the soueraigne dominion of allmightie God is one part of the sacrification which wee call vnbloody the other part is the putting of the bodie on the altar by consecratiō in the shape of bread and both these make one representation of the bloodie sacrifice and oblation on the Crosse But you are not yet accustomed to consider how words are extended by reason of analogie in the matters to an equiuocall kind of signification whereof in the mysteries of Christianitie yea and in other matters too there are frequent examples wherefore I come neerer to your conceptiō and in answer to your doubt tell you first that as a thing may be in place either per se or per accidens so may it be said locallie to be moued either per se or per accidens your soule in your hand and the blood of our Sauiour heere Supra pag. 471 seqq are in loco per accidens I told you before more of this Secōdlie those two modi which you speake of do not sufficientlie distinguish or expound that which wee call being in a place God is in the world yet neither of these two waies and our Sauiours bodie in the Sacrament though not either of these wayes which you speake of The veritie of Gods word doth inforce a presence distinct from both those and to suppose there is none distinct is in you that are Christned an hereticall begging of the Question Insteed of a third replie you demaund whether wee beleeue that thing in the Sacrament which you describe by transubstantiated bread wine to be the price of our Redemption I answer that I beleeue Iesus Christ who told vs that that thing in his hands in the forme of bread was his bodie deliuered for our sinnes and that thing in the chalice his blood shed for vs. This Master Waferer though you shrink and crie Alas fond faith is part of my Creede That our Sauiour was borne of the Virgine Marie is most certaine I beleeue it And I beleeue him haue I not cause that was so borne I willinglie ioyne with Antiquitie with the Catholike and vniuersall Church of this Prince of peace this Emmanuel this Virgins-Sonne this Heire apparent of all that God hath Ioan. 16. who trulie said Omnia quaecunque habet Pater mea sunt euen his Diuinitie his knowledge his omnipotēcie wherby He Iesus he was able to make good his promise the bread which I will giue is my flesh to verifie what he did affirme this in forme of bread is my bodie Whilst you censured this faith as fond did not your conscience trouble you Master Waferer and whē you named the price of our redemption in the cup did not your memorie suggest vnto you those words of S. Augustine before discussed where he said that Iudas the traitour and a Deuill drank it Iudas that tooke it not by the waie or meanes of faith but onlie with his mouth yet he tooke it he tooke that himself an infidell quod fideles cognouerunt precium nostrum That precium was not in the cup before consecration S. Ambr. lib. 5. de Sacr. c 5. but after it was there Heare another as ancient and his Catechist when he came into the Church Ante verba Christi calix est vini aquae plenus vbi verba Christi operata fuerint ibi sanguis efficitur qui plebem redemit Before the words of Christ the Chalice is full of wine and water but when the words of Christ haue wrought there in the Chalice is made the blood which redeemed the people Apol. pag. 89 So he But Master Waferer wiser then he Alas fond faith if so you beleeue Lord help your vnbeleefe This is all the little he had in this matter to replie he had wearied himself it seemes in the former Section his string was broken too he could not shoote rouing bolts as before he did and therefore is now contented to lie downe Will you see how he lies hauing nothing els to do till he goes into the next Section I will loose a little time in counting how manie lies I finde heere in one page the first of this Section taking in that the sence be cōpleate
both b. Apol. pag 91. cups Vndoubtedlie Master Waferer can you demonstrate the thing by Theologicall arguments vnauoidable and so teach your owne Doctour or point out in Scripture the place or places that affirme it No not that you haue nothing which S.E. hath not allreadie answered what then Apologist What incongruitie is it to determine the matter thus S. Mathew and S. Marke relate them to the consecrated cup S. Luke after to the legall Censure What incongruitie is your vndoubtedlie no better grounded vndoubtedlie your Doctour smiles to see himself so vndoubtedlie confuted The incongruitie in your explication is easilie assigned for our Sauiour said of the Sacramentall cup this is my blood of the new testament which is shed for many vnto remission of sinnes and it cannot without incongruitie and infidelitie be affirmed that this thing is the fruit of the vine properlie We were not redeemed with wine Moreouer the words of consecration were spoken thereby the sacramentall cup consecrated after supper similiter Calicem postquam coenauit c. the other words were spoken in supper time of that cup which was drunck before the consecration of the bodie of our Sauiour and answerablie to the words spoken of the lambe which at supper they did eate Desiderio desideraui hoc pascha manducare vobiscum antequam patiar dic o enim vobis quia ex hoc non manducabo illud pascba donâ—e impleatur in regno Dei With desire I haue desired to eate this Passeouer with you before I suffer for I say vnto you I will not any more eate thereof vntill it be fullfilled in the kingdome of God Lucae 22. reflect vpon the Notes of S. E. and you will easilie conceaue the matter Apologist You cannot saie Christs bodie and blood can be receaued either vnworthilie or to death for to the receipt of them Christ hath annexed the promise of life Censure The Apostle hath taught vs to distinguish two sortes of CommunicaÌ„tes some do proue examine discusse their consciences before and comming with due preparation do receaue worthilie these haue the promise of life supposing they perseuer others approaching vnto the table with their hearts bent on sinne do receaue vnworthilie and these offend greiuouslie in so doing Thus Iudas the traitour did receaue the price of our Redemption which the rest of the Disciples receaued the former waie they to life he to iudgment as hath beene declared els where more at large Pag. 357. And whilst you denie that Christs bodie can be receaued vnworthilie you contradict the Apostle 1. Cor. 11. v. 29. He that eateth and drinketh vnworthilie eateth drinketh damnation to himself not discerning the Lords bodie Eateth vnworthilie what this bread What is it he tels you before v 24. in our Sauiours words take eate this is my bodie which is broken for you is it damnatioÌ„ to eate this vnworthilie yes Why so because it is our Lords bodie and he that eates it vnworthilie discernes it not in the manner of receauing he eates it as if it were commoÌ„ bread requiring of it's nature no spirituall preparation no reuerence wheras it is in it self a most holie thing euen the bodie that suffered for vs and as such with great reuerence to be receaued Apologist Saint Paules meaning is that who so commeth to those holie mysteries without that wherewith to discerne the Lords bodie is guiltie of the bodie and blood of Christ not in that he hath receaued them but in that he hath not receaued them since they onlie can be receaued by the mouth of faith Censure Only by the mouth of faith How then did Iudas receaue that which the faithfull knowe though you do not to be the price of our redemption if that caÌ„ be receaued only by the mouth of faith which mouth the traitour had not And What a peruerse exposition is this whosoeuer shall eate this consecrated bread which our Sauiour v. 24 saith is his bodie broken for vs vnworthilie shall be guiltie of the bodie of our Lord that is he shall be guiltie of the bodie not in that he hath receaued it but in that he hath not receaued it He receaues it the Apostle supposeth and vnworthilie and heerby he saies he shall be guiltie You saie No he shall not be guiltie in that he receaues it vnworthilie is not this later contradictorie to the former Waferers negatiue to S. Paules affirmatiue Againe S. Paul puts the fault in so receauing whosoeuer shall eate c vnworthilie v. 27. and v. 30 For this cause many sleepe c. Waferer in not receauing Not in that he hath receaued but in that he hath not receaued Thirdlie S. Paul saies he eateth drinketh damnation those acts in him are sinfull acts coÌ„mission omissioÌ„ Waferer the damnation is for not eating and not drinking Apologist Let not him therefore who without due preparation and so prophanes the holie ordinance of God vnworthilie eates the sacramentall bread and drinks of the cup think that he dâ—th communicate of the bodie and blood of Christ for so he should receaue to his saluation but let him assure himself howsoeuer he mixe himself with the faithfull at that holie banket yet he receaues barelie the outward food and not the heauenlie which can onlie be discerned and receaued by a liuelie faith Censure This then Master Mirth is the substance of the Catechisme you giue such as will beleeue you The wicked receaue barelie the outward food Out of which you shall giue me leaue to inferre Ergo the bare outward food is the price of our Redemption and Ergo the bare outward food is the bodie that was broken for vs. The sequele S. Paul and S Augustine yea and our Sauiour himself will make good Take a. 1. Cor. 11. v. 24. eate this is my bodie which is broken for you b. v 29. he that eateth vnworthilie the thing giuen when he said take eate this is c eateth damnation to himself not discerning the Lords bodie c. v. 30. For this cause for so eating vnworthilie manie are weake and sicklie amongst you 1 Cor. 11. Our Lord himself tolerateth Iudas a Deuill a thiefe his seller he lets him receaue amongst the innocent Disciples quod fideles nouerunt precium nostrum that which the faithfull knew our price S. Augustine Epist 162. Apologist After S.E. hath so poorelie as not worth the confutation iumbled in false witnesses cunninglie smothered the testimonie of those two who would coÌ„demne him he is so foole hardy as to affirme that though Christ said of the consecrated cup that it was the fruite of the vine yet it destroies not his tenet of transubstantiation Censure Fie Waferer will you neuer leaue your lying if your booke perseuer in the vice vntill the end and it is now verie neere t' will be condemned vnles hypocrisie may saue things otherwise obnoxious to the fier Daré pondus idonea fumo The witnesses your Doctour
Eleutherius told d. See M. Broughtons Eccles Historie of great Brittaine 2. Age c. 14. Lucius that He the king was Gods Vicar in his kingdome Ergo one of the two if not both was a Protestant would haue subscribed to the 39. Articles Policrates and the Easterne Churches contradicted Victor who was in the e. Victoris sententiam probauerunt pp. CoÌ„cilij Nicaeni vt patet ex Euseb l. 3. de Vita Constant Et deinceps Haeretici habiti sunt qui contrarium senserunt vt pater ex Epiphan haer 50. Aug. haeres 29 Bell. li. 2 de Pont c 19. Irenaeus victorem ne tam multas Ecclesias omnino propter traditionis ex antiqua consuetudine inter illas vsurpatae obseruationem à corpore vniuersae Christi Ecclesiae penitus amputet appositè conuenienter admonet Euseb l. 5. Hist c. 24. right about the time of keeping Easter Ergo they were Protestants and would haue subscribed to the 39. Articles Irenaeus held the Apostles Creed and saies too that the Scriptures are in their kind f. Vnum quodque maximè tunc est perfectum cùm propriam virtutem est consecutum maximé secundum naturam sicut circulus tunc maximè secundum naturam est quando maximè circulus est Arist 7. Phys â— 18. Yet is Irenaeus for Tradition verie full l. 3. aduers Haeres c 3 Maximae antiquissimae omnibus cognitae à gloriosissimis duobus Apostolis Petro Paulo Romae fundatae Ecclesiae eam quam habet ab Apostolis traditionem annunciatam hominibus fidem per successiones Episcoporum peruenientem ad nos indicantes confundimus omnes eos qui quoquo modo vel per vanam gloriam vel per coecitatem malam sententiam praeterquam oportet colligunt Ad hanc enim Ecclesiam propter potâ—ntiorem prâ—ncipalitatem necesse est omnem conuenire Ecclesiam hoc est â—os qui sunt vndique fideles in qua semper ab his qui sunt vndique conseruata est ea quae est ab Apostolis traditio And in the next chapter Quid antem si neque Apostoli quidem Scripturas reliquissent nobis nonne oportebat oâ—dâ—nem sequi traditionis quam tradideruntiis quibus committebant Ecclesias cui ordinationi assentiunt multae gentes Barbarorum eorum qui in Christum credunt sine charactere vel atramento scriptam habentes per Spiritum in cordibus salutem veterem traditionem diligenter custodientes c By the way obserue what he thought of the Vniuersalitie of Iurisdiction which the Church of Rome hath Necesse est omnem EcclesiaÌ„ c. and his reason propter potentiorem principalitatem· The words of Eusebius if they be well lookt into import the same ne à corpore Vniuersae Christi Ecclésiae penitus amputet vt supra perfect that our Sauiour taking g. Accipiens panem suum corpus confitebatur how the Euangelist declares Iesus tooke bread and blessed iâ— c and said take eate This is my bodie Mat. 26. temperamentum calicis sui sanguinem confirmauit this is my blood of the new testament which is shed for many vnto remission of sinnes Ibiâ—em â— Iraen li. 4. c. 57. Our Sauiours words the words of consecration were practicall and did inferre what they signifie as you see by Antiquitie confessed Suprà pag. 479 seq where this Father is also amongst the rest And that he did vnto he change require omnipotencie as principall you may know by his owne wordes also li. 4. c. 34. Quomodo constabit â—is he speakes of Hereticks who denied our Sauiour to be omnipotent eum pâ—nem in quo gratiae actae sunt esse corpus Domini sui calicem sanguinis eius si non ipsum Fabricatoris mundi filium dicant id est Verbum eius per quod lignum fructificat c. bread into his hands said Hoc est corpus meum the words of consecratioÌ„ that the Gâ—osticks vsed Heatheriâ—h rights towards h Artes magicas operantur ipsi Carpocratiani incantationes philtra quoque â—hâ—titesiâ— c dicentes se porestatem habere â—d dâ—mâ—â—aÌ„dum iam principibus fabricatoribus mundi huius S. â—ren lib. 1 c. 24 Gnosticos autem se vocant etiam imagines quasdam quidem depictas quasdam autem de reliqua materia fabricatas habent dicentes formam Christi factam à Pilato illo tempore quo fâ—i Iesus cum hominibus has coâ—onant proponunt eas cum imaginibus mundi Philosophorum videlicet cum imaginibus Pythagorae Platonis Aristotelis reliquorum reliquam obseruationem circa eas fimiliter vt Gentes faciunt Ibidem imâ—gâ—s that the Disciples of Basilices vsed inchantments and called on i. Vtuntur qui sunt à Basilide imaginibus incantationibus reliqua vniuersa paâ—erga nomina quoque quaedam affingentes quasi Angelorum annunciant hos quidem esse in primo coelo hos autem in secundo deinceps nituntur 365. ementitorum coelorum nomina principia Angelos virtutes exponere S. Iren l. 1. c. 23. The Church did not thus yet she honoured the good Spirits as by one of the same Age S. Iustine whoÌ„ you cited as a Protestant you may knowe He speakes in the name of Irenaeus and Polycarp and the whole Church of that time Sed illum Deum Patrem eius Filium qui venit nosque haec docuit aliorum sequentium similiumque bonorum Angelorum exercitum Spiritum Propheticum 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 colimus atque adoramus verboque re seu veritate veneramur idque omnibus qui discere volunt vt docti institutique sumus copiosè tradimus Apológ 2. ad Anton. Spirits but the Church not that there is no way to be saued but by beleeuing in Iesus Christ Neither is there saluation in any other for there is no name vnder heauen giuen amongst men whereby wee must be saued Acts 4. v. 12. Ergo he was a Protestant and would haue subscribed to the 39. Articles Melito putting downe the bookes of the old Testament saies l. The Scriptures themselues were not fullie receaued in all places no not in Eusebius his time He saith the Epistles of Iames of Iude the second of Peeter the second and third of Iohn are contradicted The Church of Syria did not receaue the second Epistle of of Peeter nor the second and third of Iohn nor the Epistle of Iude nor the Apocalyps The like might be said of the Churches of Arabia VVill you hence conclude that those parts of Scripture were not Apostolike or that wee need not receaue them because they were formerly doubted of Bilson in his Suruey pag. 664. See Couel against Burg. 87. seqq Tbe Protest Apol tract 2. c. 2 sect 10. subd 2. nothing k Simon dicebat secundum ipsius gratiam saluari homines sed non secundum operas iustas S. Iren. l.
THE RELECTION OF A CONFERENCE TOVCHING THE REALL PRESENCE OR A BACHELOVRS CENSVRE Of a Masters Apologie for Doctour Featlie By L. I. B. of Art of Oxford Psal 67.31 Jncrepa feras arundinis AT DOWAY By LAVRENCE KELLAM M.DC.XXXV THE PREFACE IT was when I liued in Oxford and I think it is still the custome for him who defends in Deuinitie to make first a Supposition wherein such as come to heare that exercise may see the State of the Questiō which is to be disputed By this meanes the Defendant laies his Cause open to a faire tryall and diuers Auditors not yet perfect in the knowledge of such matters are better inabled to vnderstand and vnderstanding to iudge betwixt him and his Opponent that vndertakes to perswade the contrarie I was thinking to conceaue my Preface in that manner like a Supposition it had beene to good purpose considering that some may come to see this Booke or Conference who being catechized by Puritās neuer knew the true State of the Question betwixt vs and them in the point of the Reall Presence But those with whō I am to deale will not permitt such a discourse excepting that it is against I know not what lawe My intention is not to write a Booke of the Blessed Sacrament that Argument deserues a better pen and is excellentlie treated by diuers worthie Catholike Deuines but to maintaine the iust honour of the defenders of it traduced scornefullie jeered by a Precisian on the behalf and by the consent of Doctour Featlie Whose nicenes shall not hinder me from doing that which doth confessedlie appertaine to the Sustentants part And yet I meane withall to keepe my self punctuallie to the matter without running out into new for that were to make the busines infinite or bringing Arguments for our tenet for they with whō I deale would then report that I chang parts and pretending to be a Defendant come a Disputant Doctor Featlie in a Challeng of his In his Challēg to M. Fisher. resembles a Controuertist to a Sawier who till he hath gonne thorough keepes himself to the same line and imputes vnto his Aduersarie that he neuer pierced into the heart of any Controuersie Whereas himself Master Featlie I meane was the man that moued the sawe out of the line and ranne into an other distinct matter when he was not able to giue satisfaction in the former which had beene the Cōtrouersie betwixt thē 2. Their disputation was of a Catalogue of Protestants in all ages and he leauing that challengeth his Aduersarie to dispute of Communion in both kinds Which is a way to runne ouer Controuersies but not to make an end of Controuersies Logicians nūber it amongst the faults of a Disputant It is a tacite yeelding of the cause I haue taken a Ministers imporportunitie made me the Sawe into my hands and am if we regard the Controuersie vpon the vpper side my Aduersaries being still in errour be in the pit The lines Featlie drew they be his Arguments deliberatlie chosen by him for the best these which I am to meddle in If they do not leaue pulling wee shall in time come to the heart of this Controuersie So they keepe themselues to their owne lines The matter of the Conference was not Transubstantiation but the Reall presence onlie So my Lord of Chalcedon did expresse Supra pag. 7. himself and Master Featlie to the same purpose Doctor Smith saith D. Feat in his Relat pag. 288. he distinguishing betwixt the Questions of Reall presence and Transubstantiation determined the point in Question to be this whether the bodie and blood of Christ were trulie and substantiallie in the Sacrament vnder the formes of bread and wine My Lord Defended the affirmatiue videlicet that it is there trulie and substantiallie that is to say according to the substāce of the thing Master Featlie vndertooke the contrarie videlicet that it is not there trulie and substantiallie Feat pag. 289 not according to the substance of our Sauiours naturall bodie and blood The words of Institution which Featlie did obiect be these This is my bodie Matt. 26 this is my blood c. which wordes he saies must needes be taken in a sence that makes against the Reall presence In this proposition or enunciation Hoc est corpus meum this is my bodie It is the like of the other wordes Hic est sanguis meus this is my blood there is to be considered the subiect the predicate or attribute the determination of the predicate and the copula or note of idētitie Four things in the four words The Subiect is Hoc the Predicate is Corpus the determination of it Meum the copula the verbe Est The Subiect or first word Hoc doth not of it self import bread rather then bodie or bodie rather then bread it is indifferent Significat saith the Doctour of the Schooles substantiam in communi sinc qualitate id est forma determinata It signifieth a substance in common without the qualitie that is the determinate forme Suppose a chalice before me and that I point towards it saying This is I may to make vp the proposition say gold or wine or blood without changing the first word This. If I adde blood it contracts and determines the subiect This which before was vncontracted and vndetermined to one particular thing if I saie wine it contracts it to an other if I saie gold it is contracted to a third This is blood this is wine this is gold The word Est is a verbe substantiue that signifies identitie or connexion which connexion or identitie cannot be conceaued without the extreames identified or connected which be the thinges signified by the subiect and the predicate And the references of the subiect to the attribute and the attribute to the subiect be founded it it Whence it comes that it is not possible to know what the Subiect determinatlie relates vnto being of it self indetermined till the predicate or attribute be also knowne because vntill then neither the terminus nor the ratio fundandi the connexion is knowne The same verbe or copula doth also consignifie the time for which the connexion is exercised which time presupposing the connexion for it is the modus of it and may varie the connexion perseuering Petrus est fuit erit albus doth presuppose likewise both the extreames This is manifest to him that lookes well on it because it presupposeth the connexion which connexion doth presuppose the saide extreames as before hath beene obserued Ipsū Est saith the Ipsa igitur secundum se dicta verba nomina sunt significant aliquid constituit enim qui dicit intellectum qui audit quiescit Sed si est vel non est nondum significat neque enim signum est rei esse vel non esse Nec si hoc ipsum Est purum dixeris ipsum enim nihil est Consignificat autem compositionem quandam quam sine compositis non est intelligere Arist.
1. de Interp. c. 3. Vide Commentatorem Ibidem Philosopher consignificat compositionem quandam quam sine compositis non est intelligere the word Est Is doth consignifie a certaine composition which cannot be vnderstood without the things compounded So then by the intention of Art the copula de praesenti doth signifie the coÌ„nexion of the subiect and attribute Infra pag. 484. for that instant wherein both extreames are so vttered that both not one onlie may be conceaued The word Corpus signifies a Vide S. Thom. de Ente Essent c. 3. bodie by the word meum it is determined to the speakers our Sauiours bodie so likewise in the other forme Hic est sanguis meus the word sanguis signifies blood and by meus is determined to signifie our Sauiours Moreouer this â—redicate corpus is heere taken proâ—erlie and sanguis in like manner as â—he text it self preuenting the cauills â—f Heretickes hath declared by adâ—ing to it that whereby it differs froÌ„â—ignes or meere figures or other â—lood or other bodies 1. Cor 1◠〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and Ibidem 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Luc. 22 This is my owne boâ—ie that verie bodie which is giuen broâ—en sacrificed crucificed for you and â—his was doubtles his true reall bodie Mat. 26. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and IbideÌ„ 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and Ibid. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and Luc. 22. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 This is my owne blood the blood of the new testament that blood which is shed for many this thiÌ„g in the cup is the verie thing shed for you Which was blood properlie The thing is so plaine and so cleerelie expressed that Li. 10. c. 2. Chamier the Caluinist comming to the Quaeritur Quid sit corpus meum sanguis meus what is that my bodie my blood answers roundlie Nos candidè liberè ac libenter respondemus 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 interpretandum it is litterallie properlie to be interpreted and vnderstood So farre concerning thâ— parts of the Proposition in seueral Now to reflect vpon it all together vpon the whole Proposition The veritie or falsitie of a propositioÌ„ doth suppose the connexion and entire essence which essence includes thâ— subiect the predicate and the copula Aâ— properties you know do presupposâ— the natures whose properties they be Wherefore you bee not to looke foâ— the veritie of this Proposition when you haue heard only Hoc that is noâ— a proposition nor in Hoc est that is not yet the proposition But when alâ— is vttered Hoc est corpus meum there is a proposition and a true proposition for he speakes it that cannot lie In this proposition the subiect Hoc relates vnto the predicate Corpus and the predicate Corpus relates vnto the subiect Hoc the ground of which reciprocall reference is the copula or verbe Est WheÌ„ your soule came into your boâ—â—e your matter had thereby a relation â—o your forme being of it self accordiÌ„g â—o the substance indifferent to that â—r any other and your forme a relaâ—â—on to your matter which reciprocall â—elation is founded in the vnion or â—onnexion that is inuolued in your â—ubstance and is antecedent to those â—ccidentes which be in alio genere â—ut whilst you were yet in fieri before â—he generation was ended the forsaid â—â—lation of matter to your forme deterâ—inatlie was not it was to earlie to â—â—oke for it before the terminus or the â—â—tio fundandi were in being And as now your matter being aâ—uallie related to your forme a Philoâ—â—pher may consider it by way of abâ—â—raction without that order and seâ—â—ndum se in which consideration it is â—â—determined and indifferent to all â—â—rmes so likewise in the Proposition â—hich wee speake of Hoc est corpus â—eum though that Hoc be there deâ—â—rminatlie related to Corpus in manner aboue specified yet a Deuine maâ— consider it by way of abstractioâ— without that order and secundum sâ— in which consideration it is indifferent to stand for or relate vnto tâ—â— bodie bread or any thing els thâ—â— might by Gods omnipotent powerâ— be in that forme it signifying of 〈◊〉 self onlie contentum sub hac visibili foâ—ma non specificaÌ„do qualitatem veluti substantialem not determining particularlie and in specie what that thing is as before was noted Neither it is anâ— great matter whether this indetermination be declared by vagum as somâ— do or by confusum or commune as others They be but seueral waies of vâ—derstanding the same thing to wiâ—â— the indetermination of that pronounâ—â— conceaued secundum se This is sufficient for the Reader aâ— this present touching the words oâ— Institution in which the Controuersiâ— cheeflie doth consist And by it hâ— will be able to vnderstand those obiections which hereafter are broughâ— against the Supposition and reference of the word Hoc the time consigniâ—â—ed by the Verbe est and the like As â—lso that vaine pretence of Tautologie â—o oft repeated by the Doctor and his Apoâ—ogist The subiect Hoc doth signifie as I said substantiam indeterminaté â—he predicate corpus meum signifies a particular kinde of substance a mans bodie our Sauiours bodie speciem siâ—e qualitatem determinat so that one coÌ„ceit answers in the mind to the subiect an other conceit or apprehension farre more distinct and explicite answers to the predicate and therefore it is not as the Doctor pretends nugatorie to say This is my bodie And had it beene indeed idle tautologie it must of necessitie haue beene true let the Doctor note this whosoeuer had spoken it and said ouer a peece of bread This is my bodie which is farre other wise Our Sauiour being God spake it and it was verified he could not lie A Preist speakes it and it is verified in vertue of the Institution of our Sauiour who hath engaged his omnipotencie for the verification of it in that case But you speake it being no Preist and it is false Whence it appeares further that the proposition of the Preist is practick able in it's kind to inferre what it signifies which is an other point cauilled at by the Apologist and yours which is not able to do so speculatiue onlie Thus farre touching the words in Question I come now to our Aduersaries construction and Interpretation The Pamphlet which I am to refute is written in behalf and Defence of Doctour Featlie and dedicated by Waferer to his Lord of Couentrie who seeme to be in two seuerall Opinions touching the interpretation of the foresaid wordes though both of theÌ„ would haue them figuratiue His Lord D. Morton who comes thundring into the Controuersie as if he would make vs for feare beleeue the Sacrament whateuer God told vs to be for substance nothing els but bakers bread and wine properlie puts the figure in the word est which heere saith he hath the same seÌ„ce as signifieth as if Christ had said expreslie of the bread This signifieth my bodie So he l. 2. cap. 2.
alloquitur haec definitio non placet age praesta te Magistrum nos doce quid aliud vocatio Dei esse possit quando Deus vocat dicit appellat nominat Hoc verbum Dei est cum inquit Hoc est corpus meum sicut in Genesi ait Fiat lux fit lux Deus est qui nominat seu vocat quicquid nominat id illico praesto est vt Psalm 33 testatur dixit facta sunt Ibidem Item Irenaeus ait Quomodo autem rursus dicunt carnem in corruptionem deuenire non percipere vitam quae à corpore sanguine Domini alitur Hic iterum audimus corpus nostrum eo cibari corpore sanguine Domini vt in aeternum viuat non corrumpatur vt Haeretici somniabant Irenaeus loquitur de corporali manducatione cibatione corporis tamen vult cibum illum esse corpus sanguinem Domini Ibidem He brings there also the Sacramentarians Euasions and refutes them out of Irenaeus words cleere plaine in so much that it caÌ„not Si quispiam mihi persuadere potuisset in sacrameÌ„to praeter paneÌ„ verum ego captum me video nulla euadendi via relicta textus enim Euangelij nimis apereus est potens Epist ad Argentin habetur tomo 7. in Epist Farrag be auoided auouching withall that it was the Fathers tenet So likewise doth Melancthon Melancth l. de Ver. Corp. Quid fiet in tentatione cum disputabit conscientia quam habuerit caussam dissentiendi à recepta sententia in Ecclesia Tunc verba ista hoc est corpus meum fulmina erunt Ibidem Sequor saith he veteris ecclesiae sententiam quae affirmat adesse corpus in coena ac iudico hanc habere Scripturae testimonium I follow the sentence of the auncient Church which affirmes the bodie to be preseÌ„t in the supper I iudge it to haue the testimonie of Scripture Those who stood on Featlies side were such as by Apostacie had gonne out of the true Church Archidiaconus Andegauensis anno 1035. Docuit paruulos non esse baptizandos teste Guit mundo eiusdem temporis scriptore Hanc autem Haeresim esse constat vniuersalis ecclesiae testimonio idemque fatentur Angli Protestantes Berengarius who Malmesb. l. 3. recanted Sacerdos Pastor de Lutterworth anno 1371. Wickleff Archidiaconus VVittembergensis Lutheri discipulus Carolstadius Pastor Tigurinus Swinglius Ex monacho Apostata Oecolampadius Nouiodunensis Deus adeo hunc Haereticum percussit vt desperata salute daemonibus inuocatis iurans execrans blasphemans miserrimè animam malignam exhalarit Schlussel in Theol. Calu. fol. 72. idemque testatur Hieron Bolsecus in eius vita That Luther Caluin Swinglius Carolstadius Oecolampadius had beene Papists as they speake before they fell into their Heresies is declared out of their owne authors in the booke de Auth. Prot. eccles l. 2. c. 11. Caluin See the Censure pag. 274. Iudas and that great Apostata the See the Censure pag. 274. Deuil I do not mention Touching this Bertrame reade the Plea for the Reall Presence against Sir Humfrey Linde by I. O. Bertram because he that makes any speach in him Caluinisticallie ProtestaÌ„t in this matter doth withall make him coÌ„tradict himself it is the same of that Concerning this Homilie and the Author see the Prudentiall Balance l. 1. c 19. in Odo and Alfrick c. 22. n. 4. Homilie which is cited as Elfricks and thereby casts him of The Iudge of Controuersies is according to our Aduersaries themselues either the scripture or the Spirit If wee goe with the Controuersie to the Scripture to our Sauiour speaking in it the cause is ours This is my bodie which is broken for you Which words if they be certainlie true in a proper and literall sence then wee are to yeeld the whole cause reall Presence propitiatorie Sacrifice and Adoration saith D. MortoÌ„ the last who wrot in England before Waferer of this subiect I haue said oft and now repeate the same againe that the litterall sence or letter cannot be retained in these words of Christ Cited p. 293. This is my bodie without establishing the Papisticall transubstantiation saith Beza If we go with the Controuersie to the Spirit in the Church we gaine the Cause too for all knowne Churches in Luthers time did beleeue and professe it If to the Spirit in the first Protestantes Luther and his Disciples the Cause is ours If wee consider diligentlie the circumstances of the text 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 my owne bodie that which is deliuered broken crucified for you and of the blood in like manner vt supra pag. 11. wee are more and more confirmed in our tenet If wee reade the Fathers wee finde theÌ„ to be ours the Lord of Plessis Mornay had obiected out of them by the help of his Ministers what he could but he is fullie answered by the worthie Cardinall Peron in a iust tome of this subiect onlie which booke he were to refute that would laie claime to Antiquitie in behalf of the Sacramentarian Heresie Moreouer that our tenet of the Reall presence of our Sauiours bodie vnder the signes was the tenet of Antiquitie the Church tells vs the Church I say in Luthers daies and before a thousand yeers together in which Church there haue beene innumerable great Schollers examining Recordes reading the Fathers comparing and considering the text of Scripture and this Church tells vs the Fathers their predecessors taught them as they teach vs. Why should wee not beleeue them in a matter so plainlie deliuered in the Scripture rather then Daniel Featlie or Oecolampadius or Iohn Caluin If you will moue vs with Authoritie bring greater Authoritie If you will moue vs with Scripture bring plainer Scripture and more worlds openlie in plaine termes interpreting it against vs. The Authoritie of one Deuine of a Nation will not serue against a world The Doctour obiecteth S. Augustine but against S. Augustine as hereafter will appeare He obiecteth Tertullian and Origen and against Tertullian and Origen they in this point were not diuided from the world But had Origen or Tertullian beene opposite in their opinioÌ„ who so mad as to follow them against so great an authoritie as the Church To oppose a lesse Authoritie to a greater thereby to think to winne the cause is absurd If Authoritie can moue the greater it is the more it moues To vrge against the Church the words of any in As when a man speakes of the practicall dictio or vocatio which is a making of the thing by saying it is or calling it by the name Ipse dixit facta sunt Lazare veni foras Adolescens tibi dieo surge to interprete hâ—s words of a meere speculatiue dictio or vocatio Qui est à terra panis percipiens vocationem Dei iam non communis panis est sed Eucharistia ex
to set downe the confirmations or shew the groūds of our tenet and for excuse pretends that it was against the lawes of the disputation wherein it was agreed as he relates that Master Featlie at that time should onlie oppose and D. Smith onlie a He should haue added that M. Featlie should answer another daie for this was likwise agreed vppon but he could not be brought to do it answer Whereas it was tould him thē that it hath been and still is the custome in Oxford for the Defendant to do that which my Lord would haue done and the Vniuersitie hath conceaued it to appertaine as indeed it doth to the Defendants part which M. Featlie cauilling at in the beginning shewed himselfe not willing to enter in to the combat with my Lord of Chalcedon if he could haue put it of and therefore being conscious of the weakenes of his cause thought the verie sight of our tenet as it appeares to Schollers would ouerthrowe his vtterlie and that euerie word by waie of preface was an argument to conuince it The same feare and in the experience of the first conflict much augmented he betraied againe afterwards when he was called vpon to be defendant according to promise as appeares by the end of the relation where the Reader will see with what tergiuersation he did shift it of And since that time also in England it self twice to my knowledge I can put the particulars downe when time serues he hath refused to meete my Lord in dispute Being himselfe in his Relation to tell the state of the Question he puts downe a discourse to make the simple Reader giddie to the end he see not on which side the truth stands and which of the Disputants haue the vpper hand whereas the state of the Controuersie is in it selfe cleere plaine The Catholikes hold and beleeue that in the holy Eucharist there is the bodie and blood of our blessed Sauiour trulie reallie and substantiallie Conc. Trid. Sess 13. can 1. condemning such as hold it to be there onlie as in a signe or in a figure or in vertue Ibidem a Ioan. 6. v. 55.56 1. Cor. 11. v. 24.25 Cōc Trid. sess 7. can 6. sess 1◠cap. 1. S. Tho. 3. p. q. 83 a 1. ad 2. a 2 ad 2 Decret de Consec Dist 2. c. 48. 72. We doe not denie that it is there virtute in vertue efficacie it hath vertue power there to worke in the Soule neither doe we denie that it is there as in a figure for the Eucharist is an image of the passion or that it is there as in a signe the exteriour species are a signe of that which is within It is a Sacrament also a Sacrament is a signe But wee denie a tatummodo vt in signe vel in figura aut virtute ex Can. 1. that the bodie blood are ther onlie so beleeuing that they are there according to the veritie and substance of bodie and blood The Sacramentarians for whom D. Featlie disputed against our tenet hold the contrarie vzt that the bodie blood of our Sauiour be not in the Eucharist truelie according to the veritie and substance of the thing signified by those names Cited by my Lord of Chalcedon in the Conference of Cath. Protest doct c. 10. a. 1. The Sonne of God is by the mysticall benediction vnited to vs corporally as man but as God spiritually with the grace of his spirit renewing our spirit to new life and participatiō of the diuine nature S. Cyrill Alexād li. 11. in Io. c 27. See Cardinall Perō again S. Ples Mornay Paris 1622. but that the Eucharist is a signe figure of it onlie Iewell it is not indeed Christs bodie Peter Martyr it is not properlie the bodie of Christ Musculus it is not the verie bodie Cartwright it is onlie a signe Perkins it is onlie a signe and seale of the bodie Zuinglius it is onlie a figure Beza it was meere bread and wine which our Sauiour gaue with his hands Caluin the bodie is exhibited according to the vertue not according to the substance And Featlie in his Relation pag. 3. Christ is not therein according to the substance of his naturall bodie and pag. 4. the words of institution are to be construed figuratiuelie and not properly according to the rigour of the letter And a little before not in the proper sence Against this Heresie of the Sacramentarians we oppose plaine Scripture and the direct affirmation of Iesus Christ whith the vnanimous interpretation of Antiquitie and general consent of the Church in whom the holie Ghost determines controuersies appertaining to diuine faith and hath determined this which was beleeued in all ages and generallie professed in all Christian Countreies when Luther who faine would but in conscience as a Epist ad Argentin he said could not contradict it did beginne to deuide himselfe from the Church D. Featlie opponent is to proue the Catholike tenet to be false and that in the Eucharist there is not flesh and blood according to the substance of the thing but a signe or figure of it onlie THE FIRST ARGVMENT DAn Featly The words of Christ This is my bodie are vnderstoode of a figure therefore not of the bodie it self Doctour Smith I distinguish your antecedent 1. Of a meere figure such as were the legall figures which the Apostle calles egena elementa Gal. 4. poore elements or such as statuaes are in regard of the thinges they doe represent I denie your Antecedent 2. Of a figure which hath the verity ioyned together with it in which kind the Sonne according to the Apostle to the Hebrewes Heb. 1. is the figure of his Fathers substance and a Kinge shewing in triumph how he did behaue himselfe in the warre is in this later action a figure of himselfe as in the former and breade exposed in the shop is a figure of it selfe as to be sold So I graunt your antecedent and denie your consequence D. Featly Tertulian lib. 4. contr Marc. c. 40. saith Acceptum panem distributum discipulis corpus suum illum fecit hoc est Corpus meum dicendo id est figura corporis mei The breade taken and distributed vnto his disciples he made it his bodie saying this is my bodie that is the figure of my bodie Therefore according to Tertullian those wordes are vnderstoode of a meere figure D. Smith You passe quickly from Scripture to the Fathers yet you are woont to say Collat. li. 2. ca. 22. that the Fathers though conspiring all together be not authenticall and infallible expositors of the Scripture wherefore your argument relying vpon the Fathers exposition is weakely grounded according to the tenet of your owne men To the place obiected I Answer Lactan. Instit diuin li. 5. c. 1. Hieron li. de Instit mon. ad Paul that Tertullian as Lactantius and S. Hierome haue well obserued
Acceptum panem Corpus suum illum fecit the bread taken he made it his not anothers but his owne bodie e Serm. de Coen Cyp. Panis iste non effigie sed naturâ mutatus omnipotentia verbi factus est caro That bread being changed not in shape but in nature by the omnipotencie of the word is made flesh f Iustin Mart. Apol. 2. ad Ant. Imp. Those words in S. Iustine ex quo carnes nostrae per mutationeÌ„ aluntur be a description of the bread before consecration as in Tertullian those vetus figura 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 We are taught that the meate on foode bread and wine made Eucharist by the prayers words of consecration of the Word of God are his flesh and blood Breade and wine before consecration but after coÌ„secration flesh and blood This was the doctrine of that age D. Featley Heere D. Smith was forced to acknowledge a figure in the words of institution Answer This is false in that you say he was forced In the very g See p. first words of his answer when you had onely alledged the words of institution before you had vrged any thing he of his owne accord told you there was a figure but not an emptie figure which answer you haue hetherto beene impugning And in his answer to the next argument he of himselfe repeated it againe to shew that he did stand vpon the same grouÌ„d still which he knewe you could not vndermine Moreouer in saying he was driuen to it here you make your owne tale vncoherent for in this place of your relation the dispute as you put it downe is not about our Sauiours proposition as it is in the gospell This is my bodie but about an other made out of Tertullian The figure of my bodie is my bodie which wordes whether they be figuratiue or not figuratiue are not the words of institution D. Featly Thus they grewe to an issue M. Featly affirming that he demaunded no more then to haue him graunt there is a figure in these Words hoc est corpus meum Answer The issue of this argument was that you D. Featly could not proue Tertullian said our Sauiour made the breade an emptie figure of his bodie this Authour speaking there of an (a) Non intelligeÌ„s veterem istaÌ„ fuisse figuram Corporis Christi dicentis per Hieremiam c. Cited pag. 15. old figure before signifying our Sauiours bodie which figure he our Sauiour now as Tertullian saith turned into it Acceptum panem corpus suum illum fecit The bread taken he made it his bodie That there is a figure in the words but not an emptie figure was tould you in the beginning and you did vndertake then to disproue it if you be now contented with such an one and desire no more after all your labour then was before offered you gratis your aduersarie must haue the honout of making you change your minde D. Featly As for your distinction of a meere figure and not meere in speach it is nothing but a meere fiction of your owne braine As if you should say this is a shadow but not a (a) You shall reade in Scripture of shaddows which were not meere shaddowes And if shadows may positiuely be seene as you wil say you haue seene many they benot meere shaddowes AppareÌ„t nobis huiusmodi omnia nigra a quibus rarum paucum lumen repercutitur Atis Co. c. 1. meere shadow Answer Here at length the Doctour giues the reader notice of the distinction tould him in the beginning of a meere figure not a mere figure which being not able to disproue he sleightes calling it a meere fiction So leauing the reader to subsume that either the sonne of God whom the Scripture calls the figure of his Fathers substance is a meere figure void of being God without diuinity or that he is a meere fiction Nor doth he mend the matter much by contracting it to speach for his reader in that kinde also wil subsume and thinke that either the Scripture is a meere figure or hath no figure in it Because according to the Doctour a speach cannot be mixt in part proper and figuratiue in part Neither is it the same reason of a figure image or signe as of a shadowe in your sence for a signe an image a figure is not necessarily void of being as you conceaue a shadow to be Sacraments are signes and haue some being man is an image of God yet a substance the sonne of God according to S. Paul is the figure of his Fathers substance but not an emptie figure vnlesse that be emptie which hath in it a whole infinity of perfection He is the image of God and yet hath the Diuinitie all in him In like manner that whereof we speake the Eucharist is an image a figure a SacrameÌ„t of the body not emptie but such one as hath withall the bodie in it This was said at first since when you haue but gone a round and are now euen there where you beganne THE SECOND Argument taken out of S. Augustine D. Featley S. Augustine lib. 3. de doctrina Christ saith that speach of our Sauiour vâ—ses you eate the flesh of the sonne of man c. is figuratiue therefore the other this is my bodie is so too D. Smith I distinguish the * were it denied that S. August speakes there of SacrameÌ„tall eating the Minister could not proue it recondeÌ„dum in memoria c. Antecedent There is one eathing that is figuratiue both according to the thing and the manner too so the Fathers in the old law did eate Christ an other eating there is which is proper in regard of the thing but figuratiue in the manner because the thing eateÌ„ though it be taken into the mouth and let downe into the stomake is not brused and cutt according to the coÌ„mon manner of eating And such a figuratiue eating of the bodie of our Sauiour S. Augustine meanes and sayes that the speach â—oh 6. is figuratiue in this sence to witt according to the manner for else-where he saith that wee receaue with faithfull heart and mouth the mediatour of God and man Lib. 2. coÌ„t Aduers leg ca. 9. man Christ Iesus giuing vs his bodie to be eaten and his bloode to be drunke VVhere it is manifest that he speakes of proper eating of the flesh of Christ according to the thing eaten because he saith wee receaue the same flesh with the mouth which we receaue with faithfull heart and also because he doth adde presently that that our eating of the flesh of Christ and drinking of his bloode seeme to be more horrible then killing and shedding of mans blood whereas a meere figuratiue eating wherein the flesh of Christ it selfe is not eaten but the figure onely doth not seeme to haue any horrour as the eating of our Sauiours flesh which is receaued without all hurting of it seemeth to haue though indeede it haue not
speeie it was S. Augustine saith (b) Li. 9. Conf. c 13. victima sancta qua dâ—letum est chirographum this which is also dispenced from the (c) Ibid. altar the Disciples did eate they did eate (d) Tract 59. in Ioan. Mat. 26. panem Dominum bread our Lord a delicacie no doubt The thing in the chalice in the forme of wine was his blood so he told his disciples This is my blood It was sanguis humanus in aliena specie that which (e) Serm. ad Neoph cit Paschas ep ad Fâ—ud Idem que asserit SaÌ„ Chrys HoÌ„ 24 1 Cor. issued out of his side though not in the same forme the very (f) Ep. 162 price of our redemption and the Disciples did receaue it and (g) Ibid. Iudas though he did not beleeue dranke it too This is the Feast which our Sauiour made these be the delicacies which the best Antiquitie did feede vpon according to S. Augustine who did well reflect on your difficultie yet found no difficultie in the thing it selfe (h) 2 coÌ„t Adu leg c. 9. Wee receaue I repeate what you were tould before with faithfull heart and mouth the Mediatour of God and man man Christ IESVS giuing vs his bodie to be eaten and his bloode to be drunke though it seeme more horrible to eate mans flesh then to kill and to drinke mans bloode then to shed it For such as wil peruse S. Augustines words I wil put theÌ„ downe at leingth Ferebatur Christus in manibus suis quando commendans IPSVM CORPVS SVVM ait Hoc est corpus meum (i) He that carieth a man carieth his soule quodammodo See the Bachelours Answer to the fift obiection and the words of the Canon Hoc est in the fourth ob ferebat enim ILLVD Corpus in manibus suis S. Aug. in Psal 33. conc 1. Tantummodo memoriam sui ad altare tuum fieri desiderauit VNDE sciret dispensari VICTIMAM SANCTAM qua deletum est chirographum quod erat contrarium nobis lib. 9. Confess c. 13. Illi manducabant PANEM DOMINVM ille panem Domine contra Dominum illi vitam ille poenam Qui enim manducat indignè iudicium sibi manducat Tract 59. in Ioan. Hoc accipite in pane quod pependit in cruce hoc accipite in calice quod manauit de Christi latere Serm. ad Neophit Tolerat ipse Dominus Iudam diabolum furem venditorem suum sinit accipere inter innocentes discipulos quod fideles nouerunt PRECIVM NOSTRVM Epist 162. D. Featly S Augustine by figurata locutio meant such a one as could in no sence be proper for he distinguisheth proper from figuratiue Answer Proper and figuratiue in the speach are distinct and as farre as the speach may be taken properlie there it is not figuratiue but it is figuratiue where in proprietie it imports a crime And because part of the speach whereof we dispute may be taken in proprietie part cannot therefore it is mixt as being not purelie figuratiue nor purely and entirely proper D. Featlie A proper figuratiue speach is as a man should say a white blacke colour How can that be Answer And a mixt speach is as if one should saie a mingled colour may not that be In a mixt-coloured habit blacke is not white or white blacke yet the garment hath both so a figuratiue sence is not proper nor a proper sense figuratiue but in the same speach both may be And as S. Augustine here calles this speach figuratiue in regard of the manner of eating though the same speach in regard of the substance receaued be not figuratiue Com. in câ— ad Ephes so doth S. Ierome who liued at the same time call the flesh of our Sauiour in the Eucharist Spirituall in regard of the manner though the Substance of flesh be not a Spirit and the Apostle 1. Cor. 15.44 termes the bodie Spirituall in regard of the condition it shall haue in the resurrection though for substance it consists of mater still and by corporeum differ from a Spirit intrinsecallie as much then as it doth now And as you cannot argue out of that place of S. Paul it is spirituall therefore it is a meere Spirit or it is a spirituall bodie therefore it is not a bodie properlie no more can you make such arguments our of S. Augustines wordes and say it is figuratiue therefore it is a meere figure or it is figuratiue eating therefore it is not eating properlie The reason is because eating may be figuratiue some times in regard of the manner of doing as a bodie may be spirituall in regard of the manner of being though neither the substance of the one be spirituall nor the essâ—nce of the other figuratiue The discourse about the proprietie of those words Hoc est corpus meum this is my bodie against which you did obiect that none of ours acknowledge any figure or improprietie in them at all whereby you seeme hetherto not reflecting on that which in the beginning was tould you to haue conceaued our tenet so as if we held and beleeued a pure proprietie for substance and manner giues me occasion to enlarge my self heere a little by way of digression My Lord tould you that the words are proper in regard of the thing signified but that in regard of the manner there is not exact proprietie wherefore the speach may be said to be secundum quid improper or figuratiue but not absolutè and simpliciter for the reason by him specified So the Logicians do say that an Ethiopian is white secundum quid but absolute blacke This seemed to you strange as if it had neuer beene said before by any Catholike deuine and therefore you poore he thought the Protestant cause was gained as soone as you did obserue which was not so soone as you might haue donne that there was an improprietie and figure in the manner whereas all learned men doe knowe and your owne Masters doe confesse that such an improprietie or figure is admitted by our Deuines And that the Controuersie betwixt vs Protestants is not about that but about an other matter to wit Whether the thing in our Sauiours hand after consecration were his bodie truelie according to the substance This I say and not that other is the Controuersie for it is certaine and agreed on all sides that it was not there existent according to the manner of a mans bodie it was not locallie extended and visible in its owne forme and shape this was and is still out of Question So that when you disputed you did not indeed knowe the state of the Question Neither when you were tould yea many yeares after Sunt ergoea qua sunt in voce earum quae sunt in anima passionuÌ„ notae A rist li. r. periher c. 1. Dictiones significant primò intentiones quae sunt in anima CoÌ„mentat Ibid. haue you beene able if willing to conceaue it
especiallie wee must exclude that figure which excludeth the reall presence of Christs bodie vnder the Sacrament Againe And according to this figure did Tertullian and S. Augustine speake when they did expound our Lords words This is my bodie thus this is a figure of my bodie Cardinall Allen li. 1. de Euchar. c. 32. declaring the sence of S. Augustine in these words the Sacramēt of Christs bodie is in some sort Christs bodie c. He said so quoth the Cardinall because a thing being put out of its naturall manner of being and out of all naturall conditions and sensible proprieties agreeing to such a name and endued with strange accidents although it keepe it's substance yet because it wanteth the conditions of subsisting which together with the substance come to the sence and coceipt of man and are comprehended vnder the proper name it almost leeseth its proper name or if it keepe it yet not so provertie as if it kept its proper māner of being c. in so much as the bodie of Christ vnder the forme of breade is called and is the bodie of Christ by a certaine figure In which words he admitreth yea and in all that booke defendeth the reall presence yet withall in regard of the manner of being he doth admitt an impropriate or figure Suar. 3. p. disp 46. Sect 4. I adde saith he out of S. Anselme and out of that which I said before that albeit Christs bodie be truelie and substantiallie in this Sacrament yet in the māner of being it differeth from the naturall being of bodies which manner Christ hath in his proper forme and therefore according to this manner Christ may be said to be in this Sacrament either incorporallie or inuisiblie or lesse properlie or figuratiuelie And so the words which fignifie Christ to be here are in a manner sometimes said to containe a figure beeause according to this manner they haue an other sense then without this mysterie they should haue Gordon Controu 3. cap. 9. There are two kinds of figures some that wholie take a way the veritie of the thing which Christ promised and these wee admitt not others there are that take not a way the true presence of Christs bodie but rather confirme it and these wee most willinglie embrace for there is scarce any speech so proper in which there may not be found some figure either of word or speach where vpon the Councell of Trent sess 13. c. 1. disallo weth not all figures but only such as denie the truth of Christ flesh and blood Pitigianis in 4. dist 10. q. 1. ar 1. ad 2. Wee doe not exclude from the forme of this Sacrament all figuratiue and vnproper speaches for without doubt some are to be admitted especiallie in the forme of the blood but wee reiect only those which suffer not with them the reall presence of the bodie and blood in the Eucharist To spend time in citing more of these it is needles These had read the rest and he that is conuersant in our writers can presentlie turne to more Of ould when Berengarius had broached your heresie our Deuines then liuing taught the same When Frudegardus obiected to Paschasius that according to S. Augustine it is a figuratiue speach whē the Eucharist is called the body blood of Christ Paschas epist ad Frudeg he answereth thus These are Mysticall thinges in which is the verity of flesh and blood and none others thē Christs yet in a mysterie and figure Neither is it meruaile if this mysterie be a figure and the words of this mysterie be called a figuratiue speach seeing Christ himselfe is called of the Apostle Paul a Character or figure though he be the Veritie And Lanfranke Archbishop of Canterburie answering to Berengarius that obiected S. Augustines words the Sacrament of Christs bodie is in some sort the bodie of Christ The flesh Li. cont Bereng saies he and blood with which wee are daily nourished for to obtaine Gods mercie for our sinnes are called Christs body and blood not onely because they are thē in substance though differing much in qualities but also after that manner of speach where with a figure is termed by the name of the thing which it signifieth To the same purpose Suarez 3. p. tom 3. disp 46. Sect. 4. and Sanctes Repet 3. c. 4. doe cite these words of S. Anselme Christi benedictione panis fit corpus eius non significatiue tantùm sed etiam substantiuè neque enim ab hoc Sacramento figurā omnino excludimus neque eam folā admittimus By the benediction of Christ bread is made his bodie not significantly onely but also substantially for wee do neither wholly exclude a figure from this Sacrament nor admit a bare figure Before these againe the Fathers also did whith the reall presence to the mouth admit a figure in the manner calling the Eucharist an image an antitype a figure which speaches your selues not vnderstanding them obiect many times The reason of all is because our Sauiours bodie and blood haue not heere their naturall but a Sacramentall manner of existencie which manner of existence or being is not the proper being of such things And the formes vnder which they be doe signifie and therefore are significatiue the same as existent in their proper manner This came to passe by our Sauiours institution It is all one to signifie and to be significatiue to represēt to be representatiue who could order all as he thought good Hoc est corpus meū quod pro vobis tradetur Hic est sanguis meus qui pro vobis fundetur If you should further aske me why our Sauiour were so delighted with signes or figures as to mixt then with propriety in this his great worke and Sacrament of the Church and this kinde of figure or image principally wherein the same for substance is in the representing and the represented I remit you to some greater cleark for an answer vnles this will serue that himselfe is the figure image of his Father and in substance all one with him VERBVM est DEVS substantialiter DEVS representatiué the eternall word is God substantially and God representatiuely Yea it selfe doth represent it selfe since it represents all that the Father doth vnderstand THE THIRD ARGVMENT D. Featly Origen Hom. 7. in Leuit saith if you follow the letter in these words vnlesse you eate the flesh c. that letter killeth therefore the words of Christ concerning this Sacrament are not to he expounded according to the letter D. Smith Origen speakes according to the Capharnaiticall letter that is to say according to that literall sence wherein the Capharnaits did vnderstand those words who as S. Augustine saies in Psal 4. in c. 6. Ioa. and S. Cyprian serm de Coena wee do not say the Capharnaiticall sence is indeede the sēce of those words but they mistaking thought it was vnderstood those words of our Sauiour so
wee haue declared to be auouchers of chang of bread and transubstantiation seeme to fauour you D. Featlie Meere accidents of bread which are Sacramentum tantùm cannot be termed heauenlie bread this which the Glosse and Gratian speake of is called heauenlie bread wherefore they do not speake of meere accideÌ„ts or that which is Sacramentum tantùm I Answer to the maior they cannot be called heauenlie bread properlie but they may be so called as the Glosse tould you improperlie and as S. Augustine speakes with a restriction secundum quemdam modum after a certaine manner For after Consecration they are signa Corporis Christi a As the same Authors teach in the same place praesentis signes of the bodie of Christ present so are heauenlie breade and Christs flesh in their kinde that is significatiué But you will aske me how they can be called coeleste Sacramentum a heauenly Sacrament I answer that they may be so called in regard of their reference to our Sauiours bodie which they couer which reference is founded in a supernaturall and heauenlie action to wit consecration A relation you knowe takes it's nature or species from the terminus the thing which it relates vnto and from that which is ratio fundandi the reason of founding it if those be sacred or heauenlie the relation is esteemed so too THE FIFT ARGVMENT D. Featlie In those words hoc est corpus meum the subiect Hoc stands for bread therefore the speach cannot be proper D. Smith I denie the Antecedent D. Featlie I proue it first out of the Fathers that saie bread is the bodie of Christ. D. Smith I answer that they vnderstand it as they interprete themselues of super-substantiall breade S. Aug. serm 28 de verbis Domin Serm. de Caen. Cypr. of bread which being changed not in shape but in nature is by the omnipotencie of the word made flesh of breade whereinto the diuine essence doth ineffablie poure it selfe Ibid. euen as in Christ vnder humane nature the diuinitie laie hid finallie of bread which saith our Sauiour Ioan. 6. is my flesh for the life of the world Now this breade is breade onelie in name and exteriour shape but in substance it is our Sauiours bodie D. Featley Secondlie I proue it by reason for when hoc signifieth the bodie of Christ is not there therefore as then it cannot stand for it D. Smith I answer that hoc doth signifie and suppose when it is vttered yet not a As in this proposition This is my precept that you loue one another c. Ioan. 15.12 the pronoune this doth relate vnto the precept not as then extant because not vtteded and demonstrate it And was to be verified by it not before for that instant but for the end of the proposition when the praedicatum is in being for subiects are such as their attributes permit then to be And in the end of the proposition there is our Sauiours bodie That bread is bread before the SacrameÌ„tall words wheÌ„ Consecration comes of bread there is made the flesh of Christ S. Ambr. l. 4. de SacraÌ„ c. 4. wherefore that I may answer thee it was not the body of Christ before CoÌ„secration but after CoÌ„secration I tell thee that it is now the bodie of Christ Ibidem As when I saie This a Crosse make it withall the word this doth suppose for the Crosse not which is when the word this is vttered but which is within the whole tyme that I speake So when I say taceo I doe not signifie that I speake not while I am vttering this word but that I am silent when I haue donne vttering it And if our Sauiour had changed water into wine by saying this is wine the pronoune this had signified and supposed for wine not which was whilst the said pronoune was vttering but which was within the whole time of the proposition D. Featley Christ could not change water into wine by saying this is wine D. Smith That â—s strange he hauing made the world of nothing with a word Howbeit this is another busines I brought it onelie for examples sake THE NOTES OF S. E. Iren. l. 4. cont Haer. c. 34. Tert. l. 4. coÌ„t Marc c. 40. Hier. ep ad Hedib q 2. August serm 28 verb Dom. Epiph. in Anc. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Cyril Hier. at cc. 4 THe Authours which D. Featlie cites to proue the Eucharist is ordinarie and common bread are Ireneus Tertullian Athanasius so he names the work Ierom Austen Epiphanius Cyrill Theodoret and Gerson but these will not admit of his interpretation as you may see by their owne words S. Irenaeus It is not common bread Tertullian he made it his owne bodie S. Ierome it is panis qui de caelo descendis bread which came from heauen Saint Augustine it is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 supersubstantiall bread S. Epiphauius though for the exteriour forme there be no similitude yet he that beleeueth it not to be as our Sauiour said his bodie 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 falls from saluation Theod. dial 1. 2. Gers l Serm. de coen Dom. It is not Eucharist till the coÌ„nsecration be coÌ„pleate and theÌ„ it is no more bakers bread omnipotencie hath turned it to verifie our sauiours words Hocest c. Conc. Nic. can 14. Theop. in c 6. Ioan. 26. Mat. S Cyril◠〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. that which seemes bread is not bread notwithstanding that the tast esteemes it so but the bodie of Christ Theodoret there is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a change made by grace or supernaturallie The mysticall signes are adored as being reallie according to the inner substance the things which they are beleeued to be videlicet the flesh and blood of Christ Gerson bread is transubstantiated into the true bodie of Christ I omitted to bring the testimonie of S. Athanasius whose mind is knowne well enough out of the Councell of Nice wherein he was because the Commentaries which you cited are not his but Theophilact's who would be comming in too with his 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 if he were called vppon The reason why the Fathers call the bodie of our Sauiour as being in Sacrament bread but supersubstantiall and heauenlie you had giuen you before videlicet because it is in that exteriour forme and by consecration made of bread Ioan. 6. 1. Co. 10 Mar. 16. Gen 3. Ioan. 2. Exod. 7. So you find in Scripture Angels called men man called dust wine called water and a serpent then when it was indeed a serpent called a rodde D. Featlie Corpus Christi cannot properlie be affirmed of bread for they be substantiae disparatae Answer Of common bread it cannot of consecrated and super-substantiall bread it may These are not disparata sundrie things 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 super-substantiall bread and Caro Christi the flesh of Christ are in substance all one D. Featlie
the subiectum which is signified by the praedicatum when I saie homo est animal rationale a man is a reasonable creature yet the sence is not this homo est homo a man is a maÌ„ Because the manner of signifying is diuers and the thing is conceaued and signified another waie by the praedicatum then it was signified and conceaued by the subiectum though the thing signifyed be the same wherefore the sence of the proposition This is my bodie is this This thing is my bodie and the sence of the other This calice c. is this This drinke is an authenticall signe of my last VVil in my blood VVich sence though it be identicall according to the thing signified as the sence of euerie true proposition wherein it is said This is this ought to be yet is it not identicall according to the manner of signifying for the same thing is signifyed but vnder another conceit which diuers conceit doth not suffer it to be resolued into such a proposition as is identicall both according to the manner of signifâ—ing and according to the thing signified too as that is the bodie of Christ is the bodie of Christ THE NOTES OF S. E. THe dispute here is not about that inner sentence or decree whereby our blessed Sauiour disposed to such as perseuer In calicis mentione testamentum constituens sanguine suo obsignatum substantiam corporis confirmauit Tertull. li. 4. coÌ„ Marc. c. 40. a Kingdome Luc. 22. 29. that of heauen but about an exteriour signe of the foresaid inner Will and the question is Whether the mysticall cup be such a testament or no. Not whether it be our Sauiours inner will that is not in question but whether it be a signe of it and such a signe as may be called a testament as a mans Will written in parchment is commonly called by that name testamentum Other propriety then is there wee looke not after Doctour Featly striues to proue it is not which if he (a) Liceâ— metaphora non sit admitteÌ„da in verbis consecrationis circa substantiam eius quod Deus in eo esse voluit tameÌ„ in aliis verbis quae potius sunt epitheta ipsius saÌ„guinis metaphoram admittere nullum incommoâ— dum est Si enim semel coÌ„stiterit verum sanguinem suum in sacramento nobis reliquisse quid poterit obesse hunc sanguinem vocare nouum testamentum vel quid aliud per metaphoram Vasq 3. p. Disp 199. n. 42. VVhere he hath another answer to this argument And you remember what hath beene said aboue to this purpose p. 54. c. could doe the tenet he vndertooke to disproue would notwithstanding subsist and still might be confirmed yea proued vnanswerably out of this place of Sainct Luke here obiected wherein wee are tould that this thing in the chalice was shed FOR VS and if FOR VS it was not wine but blood The name also testamentum taken and vnderstood in the sence aboue mentioned agrees vnto this thing very well For that authenticall signe or instrument whereby the Testator doth signifie his last Will is in that acception or sence well and fitly called testamentum and this is such a signe or instrument ordained by our Sauiour to signifie his last Will. Moreouer he our blessed Sauiour as S. Luke cap. 22. and S. Paul 1. Cor. 11. doe testifie and their testimony is true did affirme it to be the new testament wherefore since the speach may be vnderstood properly in the sence aboue specified wee must vnderstand it so The Doctour first is discontented as it seemes for hauing any figure at all graunted him as it was graunted in the answer D. Featly What priuiledge haue you more to set a figure vpon the words of consecration of the cup then we vpon the like of the breade Answer That of calix is a figure expounded in the same place by funditur is shed and elswere the thing is deliuered in proper termes hic est sanguis meus This is my blood Marc. 14. Neither did wee put it there the Euangelist did put it On the other words which are plaine and proper you saie you put a figure and it is such a one as takes away the veritie Wee may not be so bould with Scripture The word testamentum is taken properlie in the sence aboue mentioned and because that is not the first signification but a secondarie it was tould you it is taken satis proprie properlie enough D. Featlie No substantiall part of any testator is properlie his testament blood is a substantiall part of Christ ergo Answer The Maior is contrarie to the Gospell This drinke is my testament which drinke is shed for you Is shed FOR VS it was blood blood a testament and blood is a part you confesse 1. Replie Luc. 22 That in the calice was not blood Answer Euen now I proued it was for it was the thing shed for vs wherefore in substance it was not wine wine was not shed for vs but it was blood If you conceaue not this argument which is cleere take the thing immediatlie on our Sauiours word he is God and cannot lie This in the chalice is my blood Mar. 14.2 Replie That in the chalice which our Sauiour said was blood is not a testament Answer Our Sauiour saith it is and I beleeue Him 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 This cup is the nâ—w testament 1. Cor. 11. Heere therefore is blood a testament blood not in forme of blood in propria specie but in aliena specie in forme of wine D. Featlie Will you saie that Christs blood needed his blood to signe it Answer Blood in propria specie in it's owne forme was not the testament nor to be confirmed with the blood that is with the reall death of the testator Blood in aliena specie in forme of wine was our Sauiours testament and to be confirmed with the blood that is with the reall death of him the testatour D. Featlie It is tautologie if that which is the testament be blood Answer No more then this Featlie is a man though that which the subiectum doth signifie be the same reallie with that which is signified by the praedicatum vnlesse I be mistaken and you be not reallie a man Neither is it all one to saie Featlie is a man and to saie a man is a man or Featlie is Featlie He hath not yet vnderstood Logick that cannot distinguish one of these propositions from the other D. Featlie The signe of Christs will is no more his will If testamentum be taken for the inner decree it is calix and sanguis testamenti if it be taken for an instrument signe of that decree it is calix testamentuÌ„ then the signe of his bodie is his bodie Answer The dispute is heere about our Sauiours words and he did not saie of that in his hand this is a signe or figure of my bodie but this is my bodie howbeit the
vine I will not drinke from hence forth of this fruite of the vine and he is senceles that cannot see this reference it is so plaine If you desire to knowe more of this cup read S. Luke where the thing is more at large You are wont to saie Scripture must expound Scripture heere it doth so why doe not you beleeue what it tells you D. Featlie All the Fathers generallie vnderstand those words I will not drinke c. of the Sacrament Answer You were told that some doe and had answer giuen you according to that opinion which answer you haue not impugned that some doe not as S. Ierom S. Beade S. Anselme Theophilact whose opinion is better grounded as hath bene shewed Wherefore you did amplifie when you said all generallie vnderstood it of the Sacramentall cup. And when you come to verifie your words by naming those all you finde onelie fiue in all with one particular Councell all which held the reall presence and were opposite vnto you in the cause Let vs looke on them seuerallie Clement Cyprian Chrysostome the Authour de dogmatibus Pope Innocent and the Councell of Wormes First the Bishops in the Councell of Wormes were knowne Papists in communion with the See of Rome and at that tyme when by your owne confession the whole world beleeued the reall presence and Sacrifice of the Masse which they also professe euen in the Canon whence you would dispute and throroughout they shew themselues Papists acknowledging Confirmation Monkes Penance or Sacramentall Confession c. together with the Popes authoritie in calling Councells and determining controuersies appertaining to Religion The treatise de Ecclesiasticis dogmatibus which you cite as S. Augustines is not his and you haue beene told alreadie what sainct Augustine said was in the Cup Ep. 162. euen the price of our Redemption He taught also that the holie victime whereby wee were redeemed l. 9. was dispenced from the Altar that Christ had his owne bodie in his owne hands Conf. c. 13. suprà pag. 45. and so caryed it after such a strange manner as no man euer before did or could beare himselfe that wee receaue the Mediatour Iesus Christ with our mouth Conc. 1. in Psal 33. l. 2. con◠Adu leg c. 9. and with our mouth drinke blood notwithstanding the seeming horrour Clement saies 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c as our Sauiour in the Gospell I am the true vine Io. 15. if he a vine his blood and especiallie as in the chalice may be called (a) See S. Ierome cited p. 111. m. wine S. Chrysostome saith in the place obiected that our Sauiour doth chang the things proposed that he doth nourish vs with his owne bodie that we receaue him and touch him and haue him in vs that Angels tremble when they see the thing wherewith wee are fed and exhorteth vs to beleeue it is as our Sauiour tould vs his bodie and not to trust our sence He saies also that is in the cup which did issue out of the side of our Sauiour S. Cyprian did openlie professe vnbloody Sacrifice vnder the formes of bread and wine Epist. 63. Neither can all your glosses obscure those words before alleadged Panis iste quem Dominus discipulis porrigebat non effigie sed naturâ mutatus omnipotentia verbi factus est caro suppose I say the same of the wine genimen istud non effigie sed naturâ mutatum omnipotentia Verbi factum est sanguis That frute of the vine being changed not in shape but in nature is by the OMNIPOTENCE of the WORD made blood Innocentius tertius in the booke you cite expounds the Masse defends the reall presence and teacheth expreslie transubstantiation which he did also define in the greate and generall Laterane Councell D. Featlie What answer you to so many Fathers a Councell and your Pope Answer I might as you see turne the demaund back to aske of you what you say to so many Fathers and a Pope in a Generall Councell But to forbeare making thrusts because you think that is not faire plaie in a defendant as there aret two Controuersies so you shall haue for answer two things first that all are against you in the matter of the Reall presence against which you are disputing which matter is defined by the Church openlie deliuered in the Scripture generallie acknowledged in Antiquitie and those whose authoritie is obiected did all beleeue it as we doe wherefore themselues were to answer your scruple would doe it easilie in manner aboue (a) In my Lords answer pag. 165. specified Secondlie the other Controuersie is not determined by the Church neither did the Councell that you speake of a Nationall Councell only determine and define it nor Innocentius propose it as matter of beleefe but only as a priuate Doctour makes his vse of it nor the Fathers generallie consent in it nor the Scripture openlie deliuer it but rather the contrarie Wherefore admitting it to be probable you are to thanke those Authours for the curtesie for you cannot get so much by waie of argument And he that could should not be contradicted on our part for persisting in the beleefe of the reall presence wee might indifferentlie defend The Reader may perceaue by the Ministers words more then the Minister would haue him to beleeue touching the euent of the conference either that it was or that it was not the consecrated cup which is meant by those words in S. Mathew D. Featlie D. Smith triumphed as if he had gotten the daie saying are these your demonstrations are these sufficient causes why you should seperate your selues from our Church and from your brethren the Lutherans Answer Had he not reason when your oppositions were all answered and the Dispute at an end The reasons mouing to leaue THE COMMVNION OF THE CHRISTIAN WORLD should be vnauoidablie conuincing but hetherto there haue appeared none such nor euer will doe from the mouth of any Protestant THE BREAKING VP of the conference and the Ministers terguiersation ANd heere the conference ended hauing lasted neere seuen howers from noone till it was almost night Some daies after D. Smith hoping according to M. Featlies promise he should also haue a daie to propose the arguments for the Catholike tenet told M. Kneuet that he would be readie to dispute the next Tuesdaie being the tenth of September desiring him to giue M. Featlie notice of it the Sundaie before but though he went thrise that daie and twise the next vnto the house wherein M. Featlie did abode he could not speake with him F. l. 1. d. 1. c. c. v. c. 9. 44. At length hauing gotten to speake with him he warned him to prouide himselfe against the daie appointed but the minister began to pretend that he was to write letters and that there remained yet a great part of their arguments whereunto in equitie it should be answered or at least they should be proposed for the
Catholike Relator did beginne and therin he did your Doctor more honor in the estimation of such as might be able to distinguish a graue Scholler from a trifling Punie then if he had wire-drawne his discourse into more parts importing but the same and for the leading Enthimeme traced in this with a Coxcomb in his forhead Positio quam defendis falsa est Ergo falleris But if I mistake not your pulse another thing it is that grieues you which you doe not complaine of Your Doctors argument was presentlie cut of with a distinction in so much that he was faine to take another and from Scripture which onlie you thinke able to warrant a tenet in matter of faith to passe to the Fathers whom notwithstanding you do not hold to be infallible in their Iudgment as he was told at the same time For auoiding of which disgrace in changing so soone and so oft his Medium he hath premised a syllogisme with all kind of medium's in it that so changing neuer so oft he might be said neuer to change As if I should argue thus That doctrine which hath 1 no foundation in the word of God and is 2 repugnant to the doctrine of the true auncieÌ„t Church 3 ouerthroweth the principles of right reason implying 4 palpable absurdities and apparent 5 contradictions is to be reiected as erroneous and hereticall This is Featlies Maior I subsume But Caluins doctrine of the Eucharist is such Quamuis incredibile sit in tanta locorum distantia carnem Christi ad nos penetrare vt sit nobis in cibum tamen meminisse debemus quantum arcana Spiritus Sancti supra captum nostrum emineant debet fides concipere quod mens non comprehendit Though it be incredible that the flesh of Christ should penetrate vnto vs in so great a locall distance to be our meate yet wee must call to minde how much the secrets of the holy Ghost are aboue our capacitie and faith must conceaue what the vnderstanding is not able to comprehend Caluinus lib. 4. Institut cap. 17. Ergo Caluins doctrine of the Eucharist is to be reiected as erroneous and haereticall Let me call this my maine argument and I will leap from place to place all the Topicks ouer without changing my Medium iust as your Champion doth Now touching this Argument you will thinke that by denying the Minor you do satisfie for the present till further proose be made why then should not our Defendents deny all be satisfaction enough for yours in that which M. Featly barely had affirmed and for the rest which was one parte onlie the first which he did vndertake to prosecute an Answer met his proofe and dispatcht it Which made you step out into the list to do you knew not for feare what or against whom At last it was resolued vnder your Cap that you would answer the distinction but because it were to much for Hercules himself to deale with two at once you would first of all challeng S.E. for smothering the maine Argument Wherunto his Answer I know would be this that it was fullie satisfied and dispatched there being nothing obiected which was not directlie answered either by denyall if it were barely affirmed euen according to the relation of your owne Doctor or by distinction of a terme in the proofe of that which was vndertaken as in his Notes you find more at large Apologist Doctor Smith would father a false opinion vpon vs that we hold there is a meere figure in the words This is my body whereas wee most plainly affirme that the Sacramentall elementes are not meere emptie signes of the body and blood of Christ but a true and liuely figure of them Censure First you challeng and next you giue the lie wherein you shew your self more cholerick then mindfull Are not you the man who maintaine that a proposition cannot be mixt partlie proper and partlie figuratiue The distinction of a meere figure and not meere in speach is nothing but a meere fiction saith your Oracle in his Relation pag. 293. and pag. 294. how saith he caÌ„ the same speach be figuratiue proper that is proper improper a little after what is this to proue that a speach which may not be properly taken such is euerie figuratiue may be properlie taken and so figurata and propria both And you Master Waferer to the same tune pag. 17. Since a proper speach is when wordes are taken in their genuine sense and a figuratiue when they are translated or taken from their genuine sense to be taken in their natiue sense and not in there natiue sense besides that it is a meere fiction is a plaine contradiction And pag. 36. That there can not be a proper and figuratiue sense both in one and the same proposition I haue already proued So you vitula tu dîgnus Whence it followes that the proposition which wee speak of This is my body is according to you meerelie figuratiue for figuratiue you say it is and all figuratiue speaches are you say meerely figuratiue the case then staÌ„ding so the thing that fawnes on your learned Mastership may put forth the toÌ„gue quantùm sitiat canis Apula taÌ„tùm to lick vp againe this Doctor Smith would Father a false opinion vpon vs that we hold there is in the wordes This is my bâ—die a meere figure Whilst the standers by take notice that you confesse with all Fallitur qui plus aliquid sibi per SacrameÌ„ta conferri putaâ— quaÌ„ quod verbo Dci obla tum vera fide percipiat Caluin 4 Instit c. 14. §. 14 Nihil absurdius est quam Sacramenta â—fferri supra verbum cuius appendices sunt sigilla Idem in Consensu de re Sacram. pag. 755. Vocatur panis sacrae Coenae corpus Christi non quia sit sed quia testatur nobis vere darâ— inâ—cibum Idem in Matt. c. 3. Et in c. 19. Eucharistiam vocat frustulum panis Similiter frustum crustulum placentam laganum vocant VVittakerus Beza Petrus Martyr the opinion which your oracle and your self maintaine to be falâ—â— for for much is imported by those words D.S. would impose a false opinion vpon vs what opinion that we hold there is in the words a meere figurâ— this opinion you say is false and for to maintaine this false opinio you are come abroade a polemick in print Antyciraâ— some will say and vnhappilie enough melior sorbere meracas In the other part of your wordes by me cited in this § wherein you would seeme to put downe your owne tenet for which your Doctor disputed you shew your self ignorant in the cause The controuersie was not about the spirituall effectes which do follow vpon the receauing of this blessed Sacrament but about the thing receaued into the mouth Whether this thing were indeed our Sauiours bodie according to the veritie and substance as his wordes in proprietie of speech import This in forme of
nothing els as to the communicantes after faire promises of the bodie and blood of Christ present by (a) VVafer pag. 8â— Mor. p. 135. Gods omnipotence changing the exteriour elementes and penetrating into our soules according to the substaÌ„ce of flesh and blood you giue nothing but meere bread and wine Apologist Doctor Smith should haue proued that the same proposition may be true in a natiue genuâ—ne and proper sence though the wordes be vsed in a peregrine figuratiue and impropre sence Censure It was ridiculous enough to challeng at buckler onlie as he did who came into the feild to answer distinctions but to be an andabatarian in such a combat not daring to open his eies to behold his enemies so blunt a weapon is superlatiuelie absurde His populus ridet The word questioned for improprietie is corpus in this proposition hoc est corpus meum This word corpus doth directlie signifie if we speake as the chiefest Science doth conceaue it the (a) Fit conuersio totius substantiae panis in substantiam corporis Christi Conc. Trid. sess 13. c. 4. Ex vt sacramenti quantitas dimeÌ„siua corporis Christi non est in hoc sacrameÌ„to S. Tho. 3. p. q. 76 a. 4. proinde neque ea quae sequuntur quantitatem Ex vt realis concomitantiae est in hoc sacramento tota quantitas dimensiua corporis Christi omnia accidentia eius Ibidem vide eundem 1. p. q 76. a. 4· ad 1. substance or part of substance which requires three dimensions leingth breadth and thicknes according to which notion it is in the words of institution taken properlie and the proposition proper by the possessiue meum this word corpus bodie was determined to a mans not whose soeuer but our Sauiours The same word Corpus Bodie both in the apprehension of the vulgar as you may learne by present experience when you please and according to the Philosopher as heereafter shall appeare doth import withall the naturall manner of being of such a substance which manner is to be a thing extended according to the foresaid dimensions and a mans bodie to be a thing figured and visible which manner of being naturallie flowes out of that kind of substance and vsuallie comes into the conceit with it And in regard of this manner the proposition is improper for such an extension imported also commonlie by the word corpus is not there It is improper I say if you regard the manner of being vsuallie imported also by the word corpus bodie but proper if you regard the substance of the thing directlie signified by the same word If you regard the substance of the thing directlie signified the wordes are taken in their natiue genuine and proper sence and the proposition is in that kind natiue genuine proper If you regard the manner of being imported also vsuallie by the word the attribut is not taken properlie nor the proposition proper Had you opened your eies to look vpon the distinction which you answer RelatioÌ„ pag. 39. you might haue seene that in these wordes This is my bodie there is a figure not a meere or naked one voide of truth and proprietie because although they signifie that the Eucharist is the bodie of Christ trulie reallie and properlie according to the thing yet they doe not affirme it to be the bodie of Christ after such a corporall and naturall manner as other thinges are the thinges which they are sayed to be but after a spirituall inuisible mysticall sacramentall manner and such a one as doth figuratiuelie shew and represent the naturall manner of being of the same bodie in another place Now though for words to be taken in their natiue sence and not to be taken in their natiue sence as long as it is secundum idem be contradiction yet to be taken in their natiue sence according to the substance of the thing directlie signified and not to be taken in their natiue sence according to the manner of being vsuallie imported also by them is not secundum idem nor any contradiction Apologist Good Master Doctor take notice that since a propâ—r speache is when wordes are taken in their genuine sence and a figuratiue when they are translated or taken from their genuine sence that to be taken in their natiue sence and not in their natiue sense besides that it is a meere fiction is a plaine contradiction because the sence would be natiue and not natiue Censure Against whom do you fight good Andabatarian who tould you that the speach was proper absolutè simpliciter and figuratiue or improper absolutè simpliciter that the wordes were taken in their natiue sence and that they were not taken in their natiue sence that secundum idem they were and were not This is a fiction of your braine a chimericall goblin that your ignoraÌ„ce hath made for your argument to fight against Those against whoÌ„ you preteÌ„d to deale haue noe such thing they doe not saie the speach is proper absoluté simpliciter and that it is absolutè simpliciter figuratiue they say onlie that it is proper absolutè simpliciter and figuratiue or improper secundum quid Which you will proue to be a contradiction when you proue this to be so Aethiops est niger Aethiops est albus secundum dentes and haue demonstrated against the logick rule that an argument holds well from secundum quid to simpliciter Open your eies braue challenger and read in great letters what they defend THE SPEACH IS ABSOLVTè TO BE SAID PROPER AND FIGVRATIVE ONLY SECVNDVM QVID By this time hauing beene distempered with a giddines of vnderstanding so that you could hardlie peceaue what you were to doe you are reeld ouer the entrie into the matter of the first argument where you beginne to shew your Diuinitie and will reade a lesson to my Lord and S. E. before you know what it is your self My L. had said figures some were not meere figures as were the legall but had the veritie ioyned with them of which kind he brought 3. the first an increated figure the sonne of God who is according to the Apostle the figure of his fathers substaÌ„ce 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and hath it also with him yea and in him heereunto M. Mirth as followeth Apologist I graunt since the Diuiné essence was incarnat that the sonne is essentiallie the same with the Father who though quoad hypostasim in respect of his filiation he be a distinct person from his father yet quoad naturam according to his essence he is equallie sharer of the same godhead and is not an other but the same God But I pray Sirs take notice that these wordes are spoken of the Sonne as his Diuinitie manifested it self in his humanitie so then as the Diuinitie of the sonne did manifest it self in his flesh he had the image of his fathers person ingrauen in him so 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifies tell me then is this image the same with the
to crucifie it is Heauenlie mysticall bread not bread in substance but the bodie of Iesus Christ Against this bread they did afterwardes conspire they did crucifie this bread Itaque ill c. pag. 192. And that indeed this mysterie was couched vnder those words in the Prophet mittamus lignum c. our Sauiour himself best able to tell the meaning of Antiquitie declared in calling his owne bodie bread Ioh. 6. and afterwardes exhibiting it the very same that was crucified in the forme of bread by turning bread into it and so giuing it Matt. 26. Lue. 22. On the other side if we make of the words that construction which you would haue you I say who contend that in the proposition before alleadged panis stands for earthlie bread figuratiuelie representing the bodie the sence would be that the crosse was cast vpon that earthlie bread that bakers bread was crucified which is false and ridiculous Si panem eo sensu corpus suum Dominus appellauit faciebat ad vanitatem Caluini vt panis crucifigeretur Why because the crosse was to be laide vpon that bread whereof our Sauiour did interprete the speach or words of Ieremie mittamus lignum in panem You had from me in the former place obiected one reason why Tertullian did not vnderstand improperlie the predicate corpus in our Sauiours words hoc est corpus meum Heere now you haue an other out of this second place which declares that he vnderstood it to be so farre from a meere figure or bread-a-figure that it is he beleeued the thing it self which was crucified which agreeth well to the determination that our blessed Sauiour himself doth adde by way of difference to distinguish it from corporall bread-a-figure He doth not as you would haue Tertullian against his owne discourse expound him meane to say this is a figure or vnderstand by the predicate or word corpus the figure of a bodie the whole sence then had beene this This â—s a figure which is crucified for you but he saith this is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 my verie bodie which is giuen for you And so much you Chamier doth acknowedge against Featlie Quaeritur quid sit corpus meum sanguis meus Nos candiâ—e liberè ac libenter respondemus 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 interpretandum cum Heâ—ychio in Leuit 22. Sancta Sanctorum sunt propriè Christi mysteria quia ipsius est corpus de quo Gabriel ad Virginem dicebat Spiritus Sanctus superuenier c. Est igitur corpus illud id est solida substantia humanae naturae quam assumptam in vtero Virginis circumtulit in Hypostasi sua verbum Etenim omnino Christi corpus non nisi dupliciter nominatum est vel proprium illud a nobis designatum vel mysticum quod est Ecclesia the Question is what is Corpus meum my bodie sanguis meus my blood whereunto wee answer ingenuouslie openlie and willinglie with Hesichius that it is litterallie to be interpreted The mysteries of Christ are properlie the holie things of holies for it is his bodie of whom Gabriel said to the Virgin the Holie Ghost shall come from aboue c. It is therefore that very bodie that is to say the solid substance of humane nature which being assumed in the Virgins woombe the word caried about in his Person For Corpus Christi signifies but two things in all the proper bodie which wee haue now specified and the mysticall which is the Church so he a protestant and he instar omnium you know the man that said so and if it be so then a greater scholler then he that said so your Master Featlie The third place corporis sui figuram pani dedisse will neither yeeld solid proofe for you nor vs because omitting the cause of doubting whether they be Tertullians words or no which is insinuated together with the reason by Pamelius out of whom you reade pani the lection and it seemes by some defect in a copie out of which other later were transcribed is doubtfull whether it should be pane as Latinius thinks or panis as most do reade with Beatus Rhenanus or pani as Pamelius found in one of the three Vatican copies which he had and where the ground shakes none but W build on it Moreouer none of those lections do fauour you and were it pani the sence would be that he gaue to celestiall bread his bodie the figure which was before by turning the substance of it into the substance of his bodie and with the exteriour shape which was left couering the same so ioyning figure and veritie together and by the one confirming to vs the other leauing the Church withall a Sacrament consisting of them both not the bodie onlie that were not a Sacrement and the communicant would haue horrour to receaue naked flesh nor the figure onlie that would haue beene elementum egenum futurorum vmbra a signe and nothing but a signe but figure and bodie to and so that the tyme of meere figures exspiring the former substance of the figure Vt ergo in Genesi per Melchisedeth Sacerdotem benedictio circa Abraham possit rite celebrari praecedit ante imago Sacrificij in pane vino scilicet constituta Quam rem perficiens adimplens Dominus panem calicem mixtum vino obtulit Et qui est plenitudo veritatem praefiguratae imaginis adimpleuit S. Cypr. l 2. Ep. 3. bread by conuersion passeth into the veritie the bodie thus were it pani the place would make for vs and imply a transubstaÌ„tiation as I haue declared neither would the words admitte any other so genuine a sence as his for if you take pani for bakers bread the construction supposing which is a thing manifest and aboue demonstrated that the figure he speakes of was an old figure would be corporis sui figuram pani dedit he gaue to bakers bread the old figure of his bodie which figure also was bakers bread which is as much as if he had said he gaue bread to bread old to new iumbling belike both together to make one loafe of two as some doe mingle beere old and new together when the one is newlie made and the other growing soure Pane and panis were further from your purpose as I could easilie shew if any should pretend it the fittest if you could find it in any copie were panem but hitherto no such appeares and if it should in time we should not be to seeke a solution hauing allreadie said that the sacrament called also by the name of bread for diuers reasons els-where specified is a figure of the bodie but not a meere and emptie figure I had allmost forgot to take notice of your translation of the wordes corporis sui figuram pani dedisse he gaue to bread to be the figure of his bodie If he had donne so either at the supper by making of it the blesed Sacrament which is a figure though not
emptie of his bodie or in Ieremies time as he was God Tertullians word being Deus sic enim Deus in Euangelio c. vt hinc iam eum id est Deum intelligas corporis sui figuram pani dedisse mark also the preterit if I say he as God be said in Ieremies time to haue giuen to bread to be the figure of his bodie yet should you not haue translated the wordes so as you do I do not speake of translating dedisse he gaue I suppose you meant dedit but of translating the word suppose dedit he gaue to be Which translation in other matter your self would not endure Sempronius Lepido dedit asinum were this Lepidus a frinde of yours you would not turne dedit he aue to be In the margine pag. 23. S. E. had cited other words of Tertullian for a further exposition of his meaning Caro corpore vescitur and these next you glosse Apologist the meaning of Tertullian in those wordes caro corpore sanguine Christi vescitur vt anima de Deo saginetur is that the bodie receauing in the outward element which otherwhere he cals the figure of his bodie the soule presentlie apprehends the thing signified vzt the bodie of Christ Censure See Masters a golden exposition cleere natiue proper subtile accurate The bodie eates the flesh that is the soule doth apprehend it O monstrous wit able to make quidlibet ex quolibet I can not sufficientlie admire I am astonished when I consider thy streingth and perspicacitie Before I knew thou couldst make coÌ„tradictions which omnipotencie it self cannot and now I see thou canst finde senses where they be not But Pluribus intentus minor est ad singula sensus Whilst you were looking beyond the obiect of Gods power to tell vs what he cannot do you did not consider that Tertullian being in that book whence the wordes are cited to defend the Resurrection of bodies which Hereticks did impugne chieflie out of the basenes of flesh and it 's origen at first corruption at last as appeares by the fourth châ—pter of that booke he on the contrarie speakes much in commendation of it Vituperationem laudatione depâ—llas ita nos rhetoricari quoque prouocant haeretici c. you may refute and repell the dispraise of a thing by the praise and commendation of it and Hereticks prouoake vs to plaie the Rhethoricians in this kind so he ca. 5. where he beginns to praise it continuing to the tenth chapter in the middest of of which discourse hauing spoken in the praise of humane flesh in common he betakes himself to speake of the dignitie of the flesh of Christians particularly So much quoth he be said out of the publik forme as it were of humane condition in the behalf of flesh let vs consider now how great a prerogatiue this friuolous as Hereticks in contempt stile it and base substance hath from God in as much as it is the forme of Christian men Porro si vniuersa per carnem subiacent anima carni quoque subiaceÌ„t c. Et hac quidem velut de publica forma humanae conditionis in suffraguim carni procurauerim videamus nunc de propria etiam Christiani nominis forma quanta huic subtantia heretici friuolae ac sordidae apud Deum praerogatiua sit si sufficeret illi quod nulla ommino anima salutem possit adipisci nisi dum est in carne crediderit adeo caro salutis est cardo de qua cum anima Deo allegitur ipsa est quae efficit vt anima allegi possit Sed caro abluitur vt anima emaculetur Caro vaguitur vt anima consecretur Caro signatur vt anima muniatur Caro manus impositione adumbratur vt anima spiritu alluminetur Caro corpore sanguine Christi vescitur vt anima de Deo saginetur non possunt ergo separari in mercede quas opera coniungit Tertullian de Resurrect carnis cap. 7. 8. Obiter aduertet Lector quot in hac vna sententia Tertullianus indicat sacramenta and there come in the wordes aboue cited wherein as appeares both by the wordes them selues and also by the scope of his discourse it is euident that he meanes to say the flesh euen that which Hereticks vilified doth receaue into it self by the mouth the bodie and blood of Iesus Christ to the end the soule by the worthie receauing of it be diuinelie fatned the flesh saies he caro vescitur and what doth it eate a meere signe or figure bakers bread is this the greate prerogatiue no vescitur corpore the bodie it self that his sacred and diuine bodie his creature man by his bodilie mouth the flesh doth eate and thereby the whole hath benefite the soule grace so he receaue woorthelie in time glorie and the bodie as other auncients haue more clearlie expressed themselues immortalitie He that eateth this bread shall liue for euer In another place he saith the hands also touch it wherein he doth agree with S. Augustine De Idol n. 31. 34. out of whom the next argument was taken who saith our Sauiour had his owne bodie euen that which was crucified in his owne hands and that we receaue it with our mouth Citat inserius Apologist He D. Smith or S. E saith he hath good reason to referre that which followes the propostion this is my bodie vzt the figure of my bodie to the subiect his and not to the predicate bodie because it may be shewed otherwhere in him that what followes the proposition in that manner must be referred to the subiiect and not the predicate Censure This is willfullie to mystake and misreport when D. Featlie in the conference had said it did not follow that Tertullian in the place obiected had disordered his words because he had done the like elswhere pag. 17. my Lord answered as you find in the Relation that he did not inferre that Tertullian did heere speake so because he had donne the like in other places but because he doth affoorde in this verie place cited four seuerall reasons why he must be soe vnderstood which thing was inculcated againe by S. E. so that you doe manifestlie impose against your owne knowledge when you tell vs the authour saies he hath good reason to referre c. because it may be shewed other where in him that what followes c. In the end of this your first section you bring a place out of the Sermon de vnctione which makes against your self and for vs as will appeare to him that reades it Dedit itaque D.N. in mensa in qua vltimuÌ„ cum Apostolis participauit conuiuium propriis manibus panem vinum in cruce verò manibus militum corpus tradidit vulnerandum vt in Apostolis secretius impressa syncera veritas vera synceritas exponeret gentibus quomodo vinuÌ„ panis caro esset sanguis quibus rationibus
qui viuificat Caro non prodest quicquam verba quae ego locutus sum vobis Spiritus vita sunt Let Saint Augustine speake againe Non crediderunt aliquid magnum dicentem verbis illis aliquam gratiam cooperientem sed proâ— voluerunt ita intellexerunt more hominum quia poterat Iesus aut hoc disponebat Iesus carnem qua indutum erat verbum veluti concisam distribuere credentibus in se Durus est inquiunt hic sermo which imagination of cutting in peeces and consuming it our Sauiour as he saies refutes in the next words Si ergo videritis filium hominis c. Illi putabant saies he erogaturum corpus suum concisum vt suprà ille autem dixit se ascensurum in coelum VTIQVEINTEGRVM Where he doth oppose integritie to chopping or cutting into peeces He goes on Certe vel tunc videbitis quia non EO MODO quo putatis erogabit corpus suum certe vel tunc intelligetis quia gratia eius non CONSVMETVR morsibus And againe afterwards in the same place Magister bone quomodo caro non prodest quicquam cum tu dixeris nisi quis manducauerit carnem meam biberit sanguinem meum non habebit in se vitam c. Non prodest quic quam sed quomodo illi intellexerunt carnem quippe sic intellexerunt quomodo in cadauere dilaniatur aut in macello venditur S. Augu. tract 27. in Ioan. non quomodo spiritu vegetatur They beleeued him not affirming a great matter and couering a grace vnder those words but as they listed so they vnderstood and as men vse to do because Iesus could or disposed it so that he would distribute vnto those who beleeued in him the flesh which the word had put on cut in peices as it were This say they is a hard saying Ibidem They thought he would giue them his bodie cut in peices he said he would ascend into heauen intire verilie 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 bona gratia de vocabuli suppositione vide Theologos Vide Turrian de Euch. tr 2. c. 13 19. not cut in peices Surelie then at least you shall see that he will not giue his bodie eo modo quo putatis in that manner you imagine then at least you will vnderstand that his grace will not by bitts be consumed Good Master how doth the flesh profit nothing when as thy self hast said Vnles a man eate my flesh and drink my blood he shall not haue life in him c. It profiteth nothing but as they vnderstood for they imagined it as it is torne in peices in the carkasse or sould in the butchers shop S. Aug. Ibidem not as it is quickned with the spirit Featlie For ought appeares by Scriâ—ture or any auncient record the Capernites errour was in this that they construed Christs words groslie and carnallie as you do which you and thay should haue taken spirituallie my wordes are Spirit and life Answer Seeing our Sauiour I repeate my Lords words saith his flesh is trulie meate and that his words are trulie life they are to be vnderstood so that they be expounded both properlie and also spirituallie or mysticallie which thing we rightlie doe when wee say they are to be expounded properlie according to the substance of the thing eaten because that substance which in the Eucharist we eate is the verie substance of the bodie of Christ and also spirituallie according to the manner because wee do not eate cutting and mangling it as the Capharnaites did conceaue but without hurting it at all no otherwise then if it were a meete Spirit Thus farre my Lord who did also declare out of S. Augustine whose antiquitie I suppose Featlie will not call into question out of another more auncient then he what kind of eating the Capharnaites did vnderstand Quidam quia non credebant nec poterant intelligere abierunt retrò Serm. de Coe Cypr. quia horrendum eis ncfarium videbatur vesci carne humana existimantes hoc eo modo dici vt carnem eius vel elixam vel assam sectamque membratim edere docerentur cum illius personae caro SI IN FRVSTA PARTIRETVR non omni humano generi posset sufficere qua semel consumpta VIDERETVR INTERIISSE mark this by the way RELIGIO cui nequaquam vlterius VICTIMA superesset Sed in cogitationibus huiusmodi caro sanguis non prodest quicquam quia sicut Magister exposuit verba haec spiritus vita sunt nec carnalis sensus ad intellectum tantae profunditatis penetrat nisi fides accedat you heard S. Augustine before Putauerunt quod precisurus esset Dominus particulas de corpore suo Carnem veluti concisam distribuere quomodo in cadauere dilaniatur aut in macello venditur non quomodo spiritu vegetatur Some because they did not beleeue nor could vnderstand went back for that it seemed to theÌ„ wicked and horrible to eate mans flesh thinking it was meant they should eate it roasted or boiled and chopt in peices whereas the flesh of that person Christ were it diuided into portions or bitts would not serue all mankind and being once consumed Religion would seeme to haue perished withall no victime or sacrifice then remaining But in such thoughts as these flesh and blood profiteth nothing for as our Master himself hath expounded these words are spirit and life and vnles faith comes in the carnall sence penetrateth not vnto the vnderstanding of so great a depth Breiflie they meant the common carnall way of eating flesh in it's owne forme and shape peece after peece whereby the thing eateÌ„ by degrees is consumed Of which kind of eating our Sauiours words were not indeed to be vnderstood for his bodie was not to be cut in peeces and to be consumed nor in it's proper shape to be deuoured but to be receaued in another shape and still to remaine whole entire Featlie There is no such thing as that which in this answer is attributed to the Capharnaites implied in the litterall meaning of these words vnles you eate my flesh nor can be gathered from any circumstance of the text Answer The Question is not whether that be the true sence of the letter wee know it is not but whether the Capharnaites did vnderstand or conceaue it so And that they did it hath beene prooued first by the testimonie of S. Augustine and he not alone neither Secondlie by the confession of your owne Chamier out of whose quiuer you take the chiefest of your bolts who thinks them blinde that by reading the place perceaue it not Thirdlie our Sauiour himselfe correcting them doth insinuate what they meant by telling theÌ„ caro the carnall meaning of his words noÌ„ prodest quicquam doth nothing auaile there is a higher meaning which the Spirit the inteâ—â—our man and by faith onlie can perceaue in them Spiritus est qui viuificat flesh apart and separate from
delicta ante exomologesin factam criminis mark this by the waye for Confession ante purgatam conscientiam haue pressed in amongst communicantes to receaue and thereby offerd violence as he spekes to the bodie and blood of Iesus-Christ But wee need not goe so far to fetch examples the example of him wee were but now speaking of Iudas being notorious and most fearfull He had receaued vnworthilie and quicklie after his crime being enormous the Diuine Iustice permitted the Deuil to take possession of him and to vse him in the betraying of the sonne of God and after in the vtter vndoing of him self Our blessed Sauiour knowing this did signifie it in the reaching of a peece of bread Ioan. 13. Luc. 22. Cum intinxisset panem dedit Iudae Simonis Iscariotae Et post buxellam introiuit in eum Satanas When he had dipped in the bread he gaue it to Iudas Iscariotes the sonne of Simon and after the sop Satan entred into him After which exiuit continuo he presentlie went out about the treason this was panis Domini quem manducabat contra Dominum the poena the execution of the Diuine Iustice did accompanie it he had before made himself liable hereunto but heere beganne the manifest execution and by a new act of ingratitude in resoluing to betraie his Lord and Master who had admitted him to his table and with his owne hand reached him bread he merited so we sometimes vse the word that the execution should beginne at this instant or moment Which ingratitude was so great that God in the Prophet at the forsight of it could not as it were forbeare to complaine long before Psal 40. August tract 59. in Ioan. qui edebat panes meos Saint Augustine reades in the place obiected panem meum 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 magnificauit super me supplantationem mine owne familiar freind in whom I trusted he that did eate of my bread hath greatlie troden me vnder foote And this buccella this panis Domini was not the Sacrament according to S. Augustine Non vt putant quidam negligenter legentes tunc Iudas Christi corpus accepit intelligendum est enim quodiam omnibus eis distribuerat Dominus Sacramentum Corporis sanguinis sui See S August tract 62. in Ioan. vbi ipse Iudas erat S. Tho. 3 p. q. 81 art 2 Card. Peron Passag S. Aug. pag. 226 S. Aug tract 62 in Ioan. Quid autem erat panis traditori datus nisi demonstracio cui gratiae fuisset ingratus Intrauit autem Satanas post hunc panem in Domini traditorem vt sibi iam plenius possideret in quem prius intrauerat vt deciperet S. Augu. Ibidem sicut Sanctus Lucas euidentissime narrat Ac deinde ad hoc ventum est vbi secundum narrationem Ioannis apertissimè Dominus per buccellam tinctam atque porrectam suum exprimit traditorem Iudas did not then receaue the bodie of our Lord as some who read negligentlie do think for wee must vnderstand that our Lord had alreadie giuen the Sacrament of his bodie and blood to them all where Iudas also was as Saint Luke most plainelie relateth and then afterwards this hapned where according to the relation of Saint Iohn our Lord by the morsell dipped and giuen did manifestlie designe the partie that would betraie him So he in his CoÌ„mentarie vpon S. Iohn where he hath more to this purpose By this heere cited it is cleere what he meant by panis Domini he is his owne interpreter What he meant by panis Dominus and Mediator Dei hominum you know too not bread not a meere signe or figure not the Sacramentall element as you speake with a reference to the bodie or grace that is not panis Dominus bread the Lord it is not Mediator Dei hominum the Mediator of God and men Who then it followes Homo Christus Iesus Vide suprà in Praefat. pag ... See againe the words of S. Chrysostome pag. 349 S. Cyrill pag. 350. and Origen pag. 65. I will not heere dispute what the more learned of your men Bilson Hooker Andrewes c. some of them be cited by Montague in his Appeale c. 30 â—old in this point whereon depend others of great waight Either they take the words Hoc est corpus meum in their a. If they do not the proposition is with theÌ„ meerelie figuratiue Feat Pag 294 VVafer pag. 35. vido sup pag. 159. as it is wâ—th others pag. 163. natiue proper sence 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or they do not If they do not the difference is in obiecte since wee do As betwixt vs and Arians about these Words Ego Pater vnum sumus there is difference in obiecto If they take them in their natiue proper sence 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 they are consequentlie to admit your b Morâ—oÌ„â—â—â—ed aboue pag 293. Patron tells you the consequeÌ„ces which you Puritans denie amongst which consequences you may finde the modus Nobis vobiscum de obiecto conuenit saith Andrewes to Bellarmine Per ambiguitates bilingues communem fidem adfirmant c. Tertull. aduers Valentin Citatur inferius in solutione Arg. quinti. Do Consilium vt apertè fidem Ecclesiae praedices aut loquaris vt credis Dispensatio etenim ac libratio ista prudens verborum indoctos decipere potest Cautus auditor lector citò deprehendet insidias cuniculos quibus veritas subuertitur apertè in luce demonstrabit Et Ariani quos optimé nosti multò tempore propter scandalum nominis homousion se damnare simulabant venenaque erroris circumliniebant melle verborum Sed tandem coluber se tortuosus aperuit noxium caput quod spiris totius corporis tegebatur spirituali mucrone confossum est S. Hieron Aduerr Ioan Hierosol Ep. ad Pammach Quod si quando vrgeri coeperint aut subscribendum eis fuerit aut exeundum de Ecclesia miras strophas videas Sic verba temperant sic ordinem vertunt ambigua quaeque concinnant vt nostram aduersariorum confessionem teneant vt aliter haereticus aliter catholicus audiat quasi non eodem spiritu Apollo Delphicus atque Loxias oracula fuderit Craeso Pyrrho diuersis temporibus sed pari illudens stropha Exempli causa pauca subijciam Credimus inquiunt resurrectionem futuram corporum Hoc si bené dicatur pura confessio est Sed quia corpora sunt coelestia terrestria aër iste aura tenuis iuxta naturam suam corpora nominantur corpus ponunt non carnem vt orthodoxus corpus audiens carnem putet haereticus spiritum recognoscat Haec est eorum prima decipula quae si deprehensa fuerit instruunt alios dolos â—nnocentiam simulant maliciosos nos vocant quasi simpliciter credentes aiunt Credimus resurrectionem carnis Hoc veró cùm dixerint vulgus indoctum putat sibi sufficere maximé
quia idipsum in â—ymbolo creditur Interroges vltra circuli strepitus â—ommouentur fautores clamitant Audisti resurreâ—tionem carnis quid quaeris amplius Et in peruersum â—udiis commutatis nos sycophantae illi simplices apâ—ellantur Quod si obduraueris frontem vrgere â—oeperis carnem digitis tenens an ipsam credant reâ—urrecturam quae cernitur quae tangitur quae incedit 〈◊〉 loquitur primò rident deinde annuuÌ„t Dicentibusâ—ue nobis vtrum capillos dentes pectus venâ—em manus pedes caeterosque artus ex integro â—essurrectio exhibeat tunc verò risu se tenere non â—ossunt cachinnoque ora soluentes tonsores nobis â—ecessarios placentas medicos ac sutores ingerunt â—dem S. Hieron de Error Orig. in Epist ad Pammach â—cean Congregatis Episcopis volentibusque voces imâ—etatis ab Arianis inuentas è medio tollere litteâ—rum sacrarum voces certas confessas scripto comâ—ecti nimirum ex Deo esse silium natura vnigeâ—tum esse verbum cumque solum virtutem sapieÌ„â—am esse patris verum Deum esse vt Ioannes dixit â— splendorem gloriae formam substantiae patris vt â—aulus scripsit hic Eusebiani prauas suas opiniones quentes inter sese mussitate Imus quoque nos inquientes in vestram sententiam Nam nos quoque ex Deo sumus c S. Athanas Epist ad Episc Aphric Episcopis verò denuò interrogantibus paucos istos Anne agnoscerent Filium non creaturam esse sed virtutem vnicam sapientiam Patris per omnia imaginem indemutabilis patris Deum verum Deprehensum est Eusebianos inter se conlusuriate annuere nimirum quasi ista etiam ad ipsos pertinerent Nam nos inquientes imago gloria Dei appellamur Quod si etiam Deum verum Filium nuncupent id nos quoque non malè habet quoniam verus Deus factus est Haec Arianorum corrupta peâ—uersa mens Caeterum Episcopi intellecta eorum fraude collegerunt in vnum has voces c. Ibid. Non omnibus dormio Post panis vinique benedictionem se suum ipsiuâ— corpus praebere ac suum sanguinem disertis ac perspicuis veâ—bis Christus testatus est Quae verba à sanctis Euangelistis commemorata à D Paulo postea repetita cùm propriam illam ac apertissimam significationem praese ferant secundum quam à Patribus intellecta sunt indignissimum â—â—nè flagitium est ea à quibâ—sdam contentiosis prauis hominibus ad fictitios imaginarios tropos quibus veritas carnis sanguinis Christi negatur contra vniuersum Ecclesiae sensum detorqueri Conc. Trident. Sess 13. c. 1. Animam sub vtraque vi naturalis illius connexionis concomitantiae qua partes Christi Domini c. c. 3. Quid credant ne filio ita dicenti Ego Pater vnum sumus Certè inquient quia ita scriptum est credimus Sed quomodo vnum sint c. S. Athan. vbi supra and more particularlie in his 9. Sermon Of the Resurrection pag. 476. At the name of IESVS euerie knâ—e should bow c Philippens 2. If to his name then your argumeÌ„ts against relatiue image worship are confessedlie inualid His name He Iesus hath left behind to vs that wee may shew by our reuerence and respect to it how much wee esteeme Him how true the Psalme shall be Holy and reuerend is his Name But if wee haue much adoe to get it bow at all much more shall wee haue to get it donne to his name There be some that do it not What speake I of not doing it there be that not only forbeare to do it themselues but put themselues he speakes of Puritans to an euill occupation to finde faults where none is and cast scruples into mens mindes by no meanes to do it Not to do it at his name Nay at the Holy mysteries themselues not to do it where his name is I am sure and more then his name euen the bodie and blood of our Lord Iesus Christ and those not without his soule nor that without his Deitie nor all these without inestimable high benefits of grace attending on them So he your Doctor Andrews Are these things all within your communion-bread surelie no Iesus a Sauiour secunduÌ„ rationeÌ„ spiritualis Vniuersalis salutis nomen est proprium Christo S. Th. 3. p q. 37. a. 2. Ego sum Dominus non est absque me Saluator Isa 43. Not more nor so much as in his Name the soule for example is not there at all any way no not as in a signe vnles at leingth the words of Institution souÌ„d with you thus Hoc est corpus meum this bread doth signifie my soule Which interpretation had your a. Doctor Carolstadius ex his sacrosanctis vocabulis Hoc est corpus meum miserè distorquet pronomeâ— Hoc Suinglius autem verbum substantivum Est macerat Oecolampadius nomen Corpus torturae subiicit Alij totum textum excarnificant inuertunt Alij dimidiam partem textus crucifigunt Alij dicunt non esse articulos fidei ideoque non esse de hiâ— contendendum liberum enim cuique esse vt hic sentiat quicquid velit Hi omnia pedibus conculcant destruunt Veruntamen Spiritus Sanctus est in his singulis nullus vult erroris argui in his tam diuersis contrariis probationibus textus ordinationibus cùm tamen vnam tantùm textus collocationem veraâ— esse oporteat Adeo crassè manifesté Diabolus noâ— naso suspendit Luther Desens verb. coenae pag. 387 Grand-Father heard of he would with open laughter haue redoubled his crassé manifeste Diabolus vos naso suspendit The fourth Argument was taken out of Gratian and the Glosse that the Heauenlie bread is the flesh of Christ secundum queÌ„dam modum It was Answered that the Glosse which doth vse the word Sacramentum speakes of that which is Sacramentum tantum and Gratian of the Canon saith the Heauenlie bread which includes the flesh of Christ is the visible flesh or bodie secundùm quemdam modum Apologist For satisfaction concerning Gratian if you but please to reade D. Featlie on another occasion you shall finde him instead of yeelding that Gratian contradictes himself proue that he oppugnes your transubstantiation See the CoÌ„ference betwixt D. Featlie and M. Musket pag. 60. c. Censure He must looke for satisfaction somewhere els it seemes who doth expect it as no man euer did froÌ„ you to my knowledge Well! at your request I haue turned vnto the Conference and the page 60. What is there Featlie I make a breach vpon you with two Canons the Canon-lawe and the Canon of your masse Answer Nonne hoc spumosum But stay let vs make a demurre vpon the Doctors preface and consider whether it be likelie that he doth vrge Authoritie sincerelie
He who doth offer to perswade vs that the Canon-lawe that Gratian that the Masse it self is against the reall presence as heere in this argument he vndertakes to do what will he not affirme what testimonies will he not presse to serue him what so strong that he will not wrest what so sacred that he will not violate he might aswell vrge against vs the Canon made at Trent in this matter and outface me that in this defence I do not auouch but oppose it I cannot think him in his wits that vndertakes to perswade me white is black neither is he much wiser that takes on him to know the meaning of the Church better then Shee her self Ea quae in voce Arist sūt earum quae in anima passionum notae Where the wordes are obscure or ābiguous it is better the speaker interprete his owne mind then you that are not of his counsel I am sent hither by Waferer to see how the Doctor doth vrge the Canon of Gratian which I will examine God willing before I returne to looke againe on his pamphlet but since insteed of one Canon I find two drawne together to make the greater noise I must giue the one a lift to remoue it out of my waie before I meddle with the other Which waie the mouth of it stands the Doctour he stood in his owne light could not see He tels vs it is against the Reall presence Why so Master Featlie because a. Featl Conf. with M. Musk pag 66. it is verie incongruous to pray to God to looke downe mercifullie vpon Christ and to accept the bodie and blood of his sonne as he did Abels sacrifice of first fruites yet the Canon of the Masse doth so Offerimus tibi de tuis donis datis hostiam puram c. panem sanctum vitae aeternae calicem salutis perpetuae supra quae propitio ac sereno vultu respicere digneris accepta habere sicut accepta habere dignatus es munera pueri tui Abel Wee offer vnto thee of thy benefits and guifts a pure hoast the holy bread of eternall life and the chalice of euerlasting saluation Vpon which vouchsafe to looke downe with a fauorable cleere countenance and to accep of and auow them as thou hast vouchsafed to accept of the guifts or oblations of Abel thy child Answer That quae is not referd as you pretend to Christ or his bodie absolutè reade againe and marke it Neither would anie scholler conclude suppose your premises had beene right ergo the Canon denies the reall presence it affirmes it and in those verie wordes But rather thus ergo that prayer is not well conceaued or is incongruous Which is farre from your mark Wherefore to help out your argument you adde an other peice Per quem Christum haec omnia Domine semper bona creas sāctificas viuificas benedicis praestas nobis by whom o Lord thou doest euer create sanctifie quicken blesse and bestow vpon vs all these good things Whence your inference is as before that the Canon is against the reall presence But I turne it vpon you The words cannot be verified without a reall presence ergo the Canon by them doth make for the reall presence And the auncient Fathers who dedeclare themselues to be directlie for the reall presence vse the same kind of speach To beginne in S. Cyprians time one as auncient as he tels vs vsque hodie veracissimum Corpus suum creat sanctificat benedicit till this verie day he doth create and sanctifie blesse his owne most true not a meere figure then and most holie bodie How so let the same Authour tell how the Sacrament for of that the Canō speakes is made Panis iste non effigie sed natura mutatus omnipotentia verbi factus est caro Well but how quickned sicut in persona Christi humanitas videbatur latebat Diuinitas ita Sacramento visibili ineffabiliter Diuina se infundit essentia Another Influit oblatis vim vitae conuertens ea in veritatem propriae carnis vt corpus vitae quasi quoddam semen viuificatiuum inueniatur in nobis Serm. de Coena Cyp. S. Cyril Alex. Epist ad Calos That bread being changed not in shape but in nature is by the omnipotencie of the word made flesh and as in the Person of Christ the Humanitie did appeare and the Diuinitie lie hid so heere a Diuine Essence doth vnspeakeablie infuse it self into a visible Sacrament He doth flow into the things offered the power of life conuerting them into the veritie of his owne flesh that the bodie of life might as a certaine quickning seed be found in vs. The like is in S. Chrrysostome S. Ambrose and others as you might haue learned partlie out of Gratian whom you cite had you but read him Moreouer in Scripture it self these words haue a larger sence then that which you conceaue a. Ioan. 17. Ego pro eis sanctifico meipsum there sanctifico is offero or sacrifico himself being as the words import both the victime and the Priest b. Psal 101. Populus qui creabitur laudabit Dominum c. Psal 50. Cor mundum crea in me Deus Praecipio d. 1. Timot 6. tibi coram Deo qui viuificat omnia These words viuificat and creabitur haue a latitude as you see And since allmightie God doth not onlie giue life but still conserue it e. Hebr. 1. portans omnia verbo virtutis suae why may not he be said in that regard also still to quicken why cānot an action of omnipotencie able to abstract accidents from the subiect still keeping them in being and vnder them to make a succession of substances be called in large sence at least creation since none but the Creatour can in chief or as principall produce this effect and he who puts in the Sacrament the bread of life which heauenly bread liues it self and giues life to the receauers why may he not be said in a large sence at least to quicken the thinges that are before the Priest And you Master Featlie that are so strait-laced as not to suffer words to be euer vsed but in one sence and that of all the most rigorous what sence will you find in Scripture where words are not euer vsed so or to forbeare that question and come neerer how will you expound of bread and wine which is your intent these wordes by you obiected Haec omnia Domine semper bona creas sanctificas viuificas and the like before cited out of the Fathers was your communion-bread made of nothīg is it aliue did the Church in her liturgie meane to professe this was this the Fathers meaning shew me to vse your owne wordes Featl pga. 68. Master Featlie in what tolerable sence those elementes may be said cōtinuallie to be created and made aliue sith before they cannot be said not to haue beene or to haue beene
dead Creatio est ex nihilo Viuificatio est rei prius mortuae aut non viuae So you inuoluing your credit in a difficultie out of which you will neuer extricate your self till you beleeue as we do But there is a prayer to resume that argument for the Readers sake supra quae propitio sereno vultu respicere digneris c. True there is indeed such a prayer the quae that is in it which word you catch at reflects on things otherwise and more then you imagine Haec quotiescumque feceritis vnde offerimus supra quae propitio sereno vultu respicere digneris accepta habere sicut vt quotquot ex hac altaris participatione repleamur per Christum See the like and withall the meaning of it in the Liturgie of S. Iames Respice in nos ad nostrum hoc rationabile obsequium idque accipe vt Abel dona accepisti ita quoquee manibus nostris qui peccatores sumus recipe Apocalyps a Prophecie which thou hast beene pleased to inspire and suggest vnto one of his Disciples wee reade that an Angel came and stood before the Altar the Altar of thy mercie d. Apoc. 8. with a golden censer and that there was giuen vnto him much incense that he should offer of the prayers of the Saints and that the smoke of the incense ascended from his hand before thee ô God And wee though not yet Saints be coÌ„secrated vnto thee in the blood of thy deare Sonne wherefore let our incense our prayers ascend too Iube haec perferri per manus sancti Angeli tui in sublime altare tuum in conspectu Diuinae Maiestatis tuae vt quotquot ex hac Altaris participatione sacrosanctuÌ„ filij tui corpus sanguinem sumpserimus omni benedictione coelesti gratia repleamur per eundem Christum Dominum nostrum Commaund o God these things to be brought by the hands of thy holy Angell vnto thy holie Altar in the view of thy Diuine Maiestie that wee as many of vs as by this participation of the Altar shall receaue the most holy bodie and blood of thy Sonne may be replenished with all heauenlie blessing and grace through the same Christ our Lord. So the prayer which you speak of in the Canon of the Masse I haue staid so long vpon it that Waferer who sent me to looke vpon the place of Gratian will think I haue for feare taken Sanctuarie and dare not appeare to answer it against his Master Featlie who hauing â—got the Canon readie is leuelling it against our cause and since now I am defending it against me The Minister by a stratagem hath gotten me iust before his Doctor and I may not without losse of honour steppe back or runne away Well stand I must But is this thinne paper my poore armour Canon-proof the bullets will flie thorough thorough or I shall be blowne away out of rerum natura If I be killed Master Mirth you le singe my Dirgeâ— and laugh a peale or two I leaue you this writing for a remembrance of me and for your greater comfort will tell you mine that if I die in this cause I shall neede no more Canonizing Your aime is M. Featlie to proue that our Sauiours flesh is not vnder the species or accidentes of bread after Consecration I am directlie opposite I saie it is there Giue fire to your Canon Featlie Gratian hath these wordes As the Heauenlie bread which is Christs flesh after a sorte or maÌ„ner is called Christs bodie whereas indeed it is the Sacrament of his bodie and the sacrifice of the flesh of Christ which is donne by the Priests hands is said to be his Passion death and crucifying not in the truth of the thing but in a signifying mysterie Thus Gratian Answer And well had it not beene your misfortune shall I mitigate your action by that word to corrupt the text by omitting that substantiall and intrinsecall part of the senteÌ„ce which answers directlie to that argument you made out of it as will appeare in the ensuing citation and discussion In regard whereof in the other a. See the CoÌ„fer pag. 68. and Feat Relat. pag 295. Conference where you did obiect the same words as vnanswerable you broke of the citation before you came to them which was no great argument of faire dealing in the triall of so great a cause Was it not this which Waferer meant when he said Featlies argument was b. VVafer pag. 50. mincinglie produced If the Canon thus corrupted do chance anon to burst and and the peices flie about your eares each enough to confound you thank your self To the text of Gratian so alleaged you ioyne wordes out of the Glâ—sse which are cited aboue in the Catholicke Relation pag. 68. and shall be brought againe when their turne comes The text must go first Featlie In this allegation vnlesse you will taxe Gratian with false quoting there is a threefold Cable which cannot easilie be broken first Saint Augustines authoritie out of whom S. Prosper collecteth this sentence secondlie S. Prospers who in effect relates it and approues it and thirdlie Gratians who inserts it into the bodie of the Canon-lawe and citeth both for it Answer We shall be held hard to it it seemes with this triple Cable this mustering of men together to make good the breach which the Canon you presume will make in our Cause makes a great noise amongst the vnlearned who expect by this time when the mountaines will bring foorth Featlie The words of Gratian and the Glosse heere are so cleere against your reall presence of Christs bodie vnder the accidentes of bread and wine Brutum Fulmen that neuer any Protestant spake more expreslie and directlie against it Answer Implerunt cornua bombis Featl pag. 62. I think I must bid you as Master Musket did Frame your argument out of those wordes Featlie Gratian heere speakes of the bread after consecration for before it is consecrated it is not Coelestis panis heauenlie bread much lesse caro Christi Christs flesh by your owne confession But heere he saith this heauenlie bread is but after a sort Christs bodie and not indeed as the opposition betwixt suo modo after a sort and reuera indeed plainlie sheweth as if I should saie that picture is after a sort or in some sence Caesars it being indeed the true picture of Caesar Therefore after consecration the Sacrament is not in truth Christs bodie but onlie in a signifying mysterie Answer If you take the bumbast out of this Argument it will be more in fashion though not altogether The Sacrament consisteth you were told before of two things the one visible the other inuisible the Controuersie is not whether all this be the bodie the species or shape of bread may signifie but cannot be a mans bodie but whether the bodie be reallie according to the substance within that accideÌ„tall shape whether it be
the Sacrament which it calls panem Coelestem the other is the act of immolation performed by the Priest which it calls immolationem carnis Of the first of these it saith againe two things the one appertaining to the quid of it in ratione rei telling vs that it is according to the interiour substance caro Christi the other appertaining to it as it hath put on rationem signi telling vs that it is Sacramentum corporis Christi visibilis crucifixi Of the second also two the one that it is a mysticall mactatioÌ„ crucifying death of Christ the other that it is not his death or crucifyiÌ„g in rei veritate Vocatur immolatio carnis quae Sacerdotis manibus fit Christâ— passio non rei veritate sed significante mysterio The two former thinges vizt the heauenlie bread the act of Immolation Featlie either of ignorance or of purpose doth confound so to drawe vpon the one against the authours intention expressed in cleare tearmes more then once or twice all that is auouched of the other which prooceeding in a matter of this nature vrged and insisted vpoÌ„ in two seuerall disputations to decrie the reall presence of the bodie of our Sauiour in the signes which when Luther beganne was beleeued by all the knowne Christian Churches in the world and is so plainlie deliuered in Scripture that the greatest Protestantes in the world were in conscience thereby confessedlie conuinced Luther Melanâ—â—ton c. and not vrged onlie but also seuerall times printed to the ruine of poore soules which esteeme him a great clerck giues vs iust occasion to complaine of it as vnworthâ—e of a Scholler and in it self vnconscionable And to think as Waferer doth that he thereby proues Gratian to oppugne transsubstantiation or that his discours doth satisfie what S. E. had said about the text is a signe that the iudgment or vnderstaÌ„ding power is in the man defectiue But stay wee are to answere his interrogatorie that will kill the cause Featlie Hath Christ tWo bodies one visible and palbable an other inuisible the heauenlie bread is trulie the one and sâ— Sacrament onlie of the other Answer Not two according to the substance the Dualitie is in the manner it is the same bodie which on the Crosse was visible in the Sacrament it is inuisible and as hauing one of these manners of existencie it was a signe the text saith of it self as in the other carne sanguine vtroque inuisibili there is the bodie in one manner of existeÌ„cie significatur visibile Domini corpus there is the same bodie in an other manner of existencie againe that caro quam forma panis opertam in Sacramento accipimus the caro crucifixa are in substaÌ„ce but one Corpus visibile palpabile in cruce suspensum and coelestis panis qui veré Christi caro est or as he doth otherwise also call it caro inuisibilis intelligibilis spiritualis are according to the substance but one thing Had you cast your eie on that which in Gratian followes out of S. Ierome you had seene a further confirmation of this double manner together with the solution of your difficultie Dupliciter intelligitur caro Christi sanguis vel spiritalis illa atque Diuina de qua ipse ait caro mea verè est cibus sanguis meus verè est potus nisi mand caueritis carnem meam biberitis meum sanguinem non habebitis vitam aeternam vel caro quae crucifixa est sanguis qui militis effusus est lancea The flesh and blood of Christ is vnderstood two waies either that spirituall and Diuine whereof he himself saith my flesh is meate indeed and my blood is drink indeed vnles you eate my flesh and drink my blood you shall not haue euerlasting life or the flesh which was crucified and the blood which by the soldiers launce was powred out according to this distinction of the same flesh secuÌ„dum dâ—uersos modos he doth resolue an other difficultie of videbit non videbit both verified in the same being taken according to diuers manners of existing Iuxta hanc diuisionem in sanctis eius Christi diuersitas carnis sanguinis accipitur Com. in c. 1. ad Ephes vt alia sit caro quae visura est salutare Dei alia caro sanguis quae regnum non queant possidere According to this distinction the diuersitie of flesh and blood is taken also in the Saints that it be one flesh which is to see the saluation of God another flesh and blood which cannot possesse the kingdome How another how alia alia secundum substantiam no that were not to reconcile Scripture but to decrie Scripture and the common Article of the Resurrection but alia alia secundum modum And of the flesh of Christ in like manner that spirituall and Diuine flesh which he saith we are to eate and the flesh which was crucified be not alia alia secundum substantiam no be they Master Featlie diuina quae veré cibus and crucifixa be these alia alia secundum substantiam you will not say they be but alia alia secundum modum When the Scripture saith God gaue Saul another heart the meaning is not that he tooke out that which was before and put in place another substantiallie distinct but it was another in the manner or accidentall being and S. Augustine cont Adamant Cum induerit corpus in corruptionem immortalitatem iam non caro sanguis sed in corpus Coeleste mutabitur de fide symbolâ— In Coelestibus nulla caro sed corpora simplicia lucida quae appellat Apostolus spiritualia a. S. Aug. con Adimant c. 12. when the bodie shall haue put on incorruption and immortalitie it shall be now not flesh and blood but it shall be changed into an heauenlie bodie b. Idem De fide Symb. cap 10. Credimus carnis resurrectionem Non tantum quia reparatur anima quae nunc propter carnales affectiones caro nominatur sed haec etiam visibilis caro quae naturaliter est caro cuius nomen anima non propter naturam sed propter affectiones carnales accepit Haec ergo visibilis quae caro propriè dicitur sine dubitatione credeÌ„da est resurgere S. Aug. Ibidem Si mutatis moribus dicimus hominem non esse qui fuit si denique mutatis aetatibus ipsum corpus non dicimus esle quod fuit quanto magis ipsum non erit tanta conuersione mutatum vt non solum immortaliter viuat verum etiam inuisibilem videat S. Aug. Epist 111. Non hoc corpus quod videtis c. Supra pag. 53. Vide ibi marg Ait modâ—cum et iam non videbitis me quia eum corporaliter tunc videbant quando iturus erat ad patrem eum deinceps mortalem visuri non erant qualem
corradere c. cum ergo obijciunt locum Malachiae de Missae Sacrificio ab Irenaeo exponi oblationem quoque Melchisedech sic tractari ab Athanasio Ambrosio Augustino Arnobio breuiter responsum sit eosdem illos Scriptores alibi quoque panem interpretari corpus Christi sed ita ridiculè vt dissentire nos cogat ratio c. Caluin l. de vera Eccles Reform p. 389. In this Section as appeares by the Synopsis which Waferer himself sets before it be many thinges both impertinent to the Argument which was of the signification of the word Hoc and without order packt together As. 1. Of the sixt chapter of Saint Iohn whether it speakes of the Sacrament which Question he concludes negatiuè so cashcering one of his owne Doctors Arguments 2. Of transubstantiation where he would haue the Reader know from him yes that the Fathers speake hyperbolicallie when they saie bread is changed by the power of omnipotence not in shape but in nature that the nature it self is changed that it is transelemented And hauing said for explication of those places that in transelementation the materia prima which is an element or principle of the thing aswell as the forme doth remaine he tells vs the Fathers meane a change in office Your greatest Protestantish polemicks come in fine to the same Expectu eadem a summmo mâ—â—â—moque as if that office to represent or signifie the flesh of Christ came in place of the nature or forme of bread or that a substantiall forme or element were turned into an ens rationis which is in a Ministers emptie braine 3. Of adoration where he would ridiculouslie perswade the Reader that the Councel of Trent will haue latria bestowed vpon meere accidentes for being Sacramentum tantum sacred and Sacramentall signes onlie as if the Church esteemed that a motiue of Diuine and highest worship 4. Of Omnipotencie where he professeth not to meddle with Gods absolute power and yet denies things which we maintaine to be donne onlie by that power 5. Of the Incarnation where he saith that since our Sauiours manhood is inseparablie vnited to his Diuinitie in that sence it may be said to be euerie where present to it and that the vnion of our Sauiours maÌ„hood to the Deitie is extended as far as thâ— Deitie 6. Of miracles Where he saith that that which is onlie spirituall he meanes inuisible such as the changes made in the elements bread and wine by consecration or by the Sacraments in our soules or by God in his Saincts is wrought no where but in the mind These effects and other spirituall created things S. Hier. ad Ctes all if this tenet hold are imaginarie Non necesse habet conuinci quod sua statim professione blasphemum est I spare paper to some other better purpose what neede I spend it Ibidem Sententias vestras prodidisse superasse est This Euripus homo Wauerer in his discourse doth saie and vnsaie and interprete himself when some bodie it seemes warned him of his grosse errours against the CommoÌ„ Creede no better in effect then if hauing said it is I should adde for explication that is Quo teneas vultus mutainteÌ„ protea nodu it is not wanting discretion to leaue out what he had not wit enough to mend The Obiections which he brings such as he picks heere and there out of others he thrusts together in a bundle without order like sticks in a fagot which if it were caried to Carfox and set on fire would illuminate the four quarters of the Vniuersitie Will you heare some recited and obserue in him whilst from his extaticall throne or pulpit he scatters Oracles to sanctifie the attentiue eares of astonished Pupils an example of sweete ingenuous faire ciuill gracious comportment Credite me vobis folium recitare Whist he speakes Apologist let me see what you would haue this bread in the Sacrament to be Such say you as whereunto the Diuine essence doth ineffablie power it self euen as in Christ vnder humane nature the Diuinitie lay bid And finallie such bread of which our Sauiour saith it is my flesh for the life of the world O most insufferable dotage First because the blasphemous comparison of putting Christ so in the bread shaps as his Diuinitie was in his humanitie as if he were personallie vnited to them as he was to the humane nature 2. you would against sense as well as the condition of a Sacrament make an inuisible thing namelie Christ inuisible vnder the accidens of bread to be a signe of a visible thing namelie of Christ visible on the Crosse and so make either two Christs or els the self same bodie to be at the same time both eating and eaten visible and inuisible Censure Who bolder then blind bayard who more furious in charging men with errour and dotage then those who be most ignorant and haue least wit I told him before of his temeritie but the Ethiopian will not change his skinne nor the Leopard depose his spots The Holie Ghost saies of Heretickes and wee finde the experience of it that they are a. 2. Tim. 3. elati superbi criminatores proterui tumidi b. Epist Iust Hi autem the scriptures saies of them quaecumque quidem ignorant blasphemant c. 2. Tim. 3. As Iannes and Mambres withstood Moyses so do these also resist the truth men of corrupt minds reprobate concerning the faith but they shall proceede no further for their follie shall be manifest to all as the others was It is a peece of stupid ignorance in a writer of polemicall bookes to think and an vnsufferable calumnie it were to report that wee beleeue two Christ or that he whom wee beleeue is vnited hypostaticè personallie to the bread shapes To iustifie that wee saie by you recited and so deeplie charged I neede do no more but pray the Authours themselues to come foorth and againe speake it ouer before your face When you see parties peraduenture you will blush 1 Cor. 11. Iesus Christ our Redeemer God and man Take and eate this in the forme of bread is my bodie which is broken Ioan. 6. giuen for you The bread which I will giue is my flesh for the life of the world my flesh is meate indeed c. the Comment you shall haue anon out of S. Ierom. The Authour of the Sermons in Saint Cyprian and of the same age Motton pag. 25. Serm. de Coena whom all know your Patron sayes to be a Catholicke Father That bread being changed not in shape but in nature is by the omnipotencie of the Word made flesh These two places the one out of S. Iohn the other out of the SermoÌ„ that is in S. Cyprian Waferer tooke notice of and in his waie there were more Cyrill Catech. 4. Canon Hoc est as that of S. Cyrill That which appeares breade is not bread but the bodie and of the Canon