Body and Blood of our Savior be not in the Eucharist truly accordiâ—… to the verity and substance of the thing signified by those names but that the Eucharist is a signe and figure of them 〈◊〉 For proofe whereof he 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 shreds and snips of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Peter Martyr 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 â—…ght Perkins Zuinglius 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Calvin taken from your shop-boord If it bee no disparagement for him yet certainely it cannot but be a great blemish in you to understand no better the Doctrine of the Protestants we impugâ—…e the Sacramentarians as well as you â—…our Chaplaine might have learned as â—…uch out of the Hand-Maid to Devotion Let no hereticall Harpie pluck from thee thy heavenly dish or meate as Celeno did Aeneas ' s. Beware of two sorts of heretickes especially which seeke to â—…guile thee in the Sacrament or rather of it viz. Sacramentaries Papists The one denying the signe the other the thing signified The one offereth thee a shadow without the body the other the â—…ody without the shadow and consequently neither of them giveth thee the true Sacrament to whose nature and essence both â—…re requisite The Sacramentaries 〈◊〉 rob thee of the jewell the Papists of the casket As Christ at his Passion was crucified betweene two theeves so the Sacrament of his Passion is fallen among two theeves likewise the Sacramentaries who take away the substance of Christ bodie and you Transubstantiators who take away the substance of the elements We take part with neither of you but endite you both of felonious Sacriledge But because you are a Bishop in title at least I referre you to bee instructed in thâ—… point by a Reverend Bishop of oâ—… Church It is well knowne saith hâ—… whither he naming there the priâ—… patron of the Sacramentarians leaneâ—… that to make this point streight he boâ—… it too farre the other way to avoid est iâ—… the Church of Romes sence he fell to bâ—… all for significat and nothing for est 〈◊〉 all and whatsoever went further thâ—… significat he tooke to savour of the caâ—… nall presence for which if the Cardinâ—… mistike him so doe we And so he dâ—… not wellâ—… against his owne knowledge 〈◊〉 charge his opinion upon us Neither do you who if you have read your selâ—… the passages which you cote out oâ—… Iewell Cartwright Martyr Musculâ—… Perkins Beza Calvin c. and tookâ—… them not up upon trust cannot be know that they are meant of the outward element which is not indâ—… Christs Body as Iewel not properly 〈◊〉 Body as Martyr not the very Body aâ—… Musculus but onely a signe as Cartwright a figure as Beza or at the most a seale as Perkins is alledged bâ—… you to call it None of them affirme that in the Eucharist or holy Sacrameâ—… â—…selfe an emptie figure or a bare signe â—…exhibited Let Iewel Calvinâ—…d â—…d Perkins speake for the rest We â—…firme that the Bread and Wine are the holy and heavenly mysteries of the Body and Blood of Christ and that by them Christ himselfe being the true Bread of â—…ternall life is so presently given unto us as that by faith we verily receive his Body and Blood And a little after we abase not the Lords Supper or teach that it is but a cold ceremony onely as â—…any falsly slander us you and S. E. for â—…ample For we affirme that Christ â—…oth truly and presently give himselfe wholy in his Sacraments in Baptisme that we may put him on and in his Supper that we may eate him by faith and spirit and may have everlasting life by his Crosse and Blood and we say not that this is done sleightly or coldly but effectually and truly Calvin Taking away these absurdities he speaketh of Consubstantiation and Transubstantiation whatsoever may be said to expresse tâ—… communication of the true and substantiall Body and Blood of the Lord whiâ—… are exhibited to the faithfull under tâ—… holy Symbols of the Supper I willingly admit and that in such sort that the participation may be understood not 〈◊〉 imagination onely and apprehension 〈◊〉 the minde but a reall fruition to neurâ—… the body and soule to eternall life and againe I say that the holy mystery of the Supper consists of two things bodily signes and the spirituall truth which is both figured and exhibited by the signes For the Spirit truly uniteth those things which are severed in place From the exhibition of the signe we rightly inferre the thing signified by it to be exhibited to us and when we receive the signe we are confident that we receive the Body it selfe Perkins is as full we hold and beleeve a presence of Christs Body and Blood in the Sacrament and that no feigned but a true and reall presence 1. In respect of the signe by Sacramentall relation 2. In respect of the Communicants to whose beleeving heart he is also really present Thus you heare we stand all for a reall presence and that so universally that Andrew Rivet saith peremptorily none of us beleeveth that Christ giveth unto us onely a signe of his Body or onely grace because as truly as the Bread which is the signe of Christs body is given to our bodies so truly is the Body of Christ given unto our soules The difference betweene us is about 1. The meanes 2. The meaning of eating Christ. The meanes We say is by faith mystically You by the mouth and properly The meaning You say is a carnall We say is a spirituall manducation Desire you a greater light because it seemes your eyes are dim thus then conceive of the doctrine of the reformed Churches 1. Christ is said to be present in holy Scriptures foure manner of waies 1. Divinely 2. Spiritually 3. Sacramentally 4. Carnally or corporally According to the first kind or manner he is present in all places Can any man hide himselfe in secret places that I shall not see him saith the Lord doe not I fill heaven and earth According to the second he is present in the hearts of true beleevers I bow my knees to the Father of our Lord Iesus Christ that Christ may dwell in your hearts by faith According to the third he is present in the Sacrament both mystically or relatively and effectually also The cup of blessing which we blesse is it not the communion of the blood of Christ the bread that we breake is it not the communion of the body of Christ For we being many are one bread and one body for wee are all partakers of that one bread According to the fourth he was present in Iudea and the confines in the daies of his flesh And the Word was â—…ade flesh and dwelt amongst us but is now in heaven 2. As the word presence so also the word really is diversly taken sometimes 1. As it is opposed to that which is feigned and imaginarie and importeth as much as truly 2. As it is opposed to
that which is meerely figurative and barely representative and importeth as much as effectually 3. As it is opposed to that which is spirituall and importeth as much as corporally or materially Conclusion the first 1. We beleeve Christ to be present divinely and that after a speciall manner at his table spiritually in the hearts of the Communicants Sacramentally in the elements but not corporally either with them by Consubstantiation or in the place of them by Transubstantiation Conclusion the second The presence of Christ in the Sacrament is reall in the two former acceptions of reall but not in the last 〈◊〉 he is truly there present and effâ—…ctually though not carnally or locâ—… And that this is the generall doctrinâ—… the reformed Churches and co sequently that all your discourse p. 25 26 28 47 51. and through your whoâ—… booke generally against empty types bare signes void figures excluding the verity is uâ—…terly void and of none effect and a meere 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and fightiâ—… with your owne shadow I prooâ—… by undeniable and impeachable evidences extant in the booke intiâ—…uled Harmony of confessions and I will compasse you in both with such a cloud 〈◊〉 witnesses that you shall see no way to get out The English as it well deserveth shall have the first place The Supper of the Lord is not onely a signe of the lovâ—… that Christians ought to have among themselves one to the other but rather 〈◊〉 is a Sacrament of our Redemption by Christs death in so much that to such a rightly worthily and with faith receive the same the Bread which we breake is a partaking of the Body of Christ and likewise the Cup of blessing is a partaking of the Blood of Christ. The rest shall follow as they are martialled by the compiler of that worke The Helvetian The faithfull receive that which is given them by the Minister of the Lord and they eate of the Lords Bread and drinke of the Lords Cup and at the same time inwardly through the helpe of Christ by the Spirit they receive the flesh and blood of the Lord he that outwardly being a true beleever receives the Sacrament he receives not the signe onely but enjoyeth also the thing signified The confession of Basil. Bread and Wine remaine in the Lords Supper in which together with the Bread and the Wine the true Body and Blood of Christ is prefigured and exhibited The French We beleeve that those who bring to the Lords Table pure faith as it were a vessell doe truly receive that which there the signes testifie for the Boand Blood of Iesus Christ are no lesse 〈◊〉 meate and drinke of the soule then brâ—… and wine are the foode of the body The Belgicke confession Chrâ—… instituted Bread and Wine earthly aâ—… visible creatures for a Sacrament of 〈◊〉 Body and Blood whereby he testifetâ—… that as truly as we receive and hold 〈◊〉 our hands this Sacrament and eat 〈◊〉 with our mouthes whereby this our life 〈◊〉 maintained so truly by faith which 〈◊〉 as the hand and mouth of the soule we receive the true Body and Blood of Christ our onely Saviour in our soules to holi and nourish spirituall life in them The Augustan In the Lords Supper the Body and Blood of Christ are truly present and distributed to the Communicants or as we read in a later edition they are truly exhibited with the breaâ—… and wine The Suevick The most holy Supper of our Lord is by us most devoutly and with singular reverence ministred and taken whereby your sacred Majesty may understand how falsly our adversaries charge us that we change Christs words and corrupt them with mans glosses and that nothing is ministred in our Supperâ—… but bare bread and meere wine By all which it appeares as how falsly your Lordship and S. E. relate our tenet so how no lesse blasphemously then slanderously Noris compareth the Protestants Supper to Heliogabalus his feasts he should rather have compared your private Masses to them For as that Emperour invited his servants to a banquet where he ate all himselfe and they onely looked on so you invite the people to your Masse and bid them eate and drinke rehearsing the words of our Saviour Take eate this is my body and drinke you all of this c. yet you eate all and drinke all your selves As the Priests under the Law among the Jewes had their panes propositionis their show-bread which the people â—…ever touched so you though under the Gospell have panem propositionis shew-bread and alwaies vinum propositionis shew-wine for the people very seldome eate of the bread but never drink drop of the consecrated cup. Me thinkes I heare you say if wee both acknowledge Christs Body and Blood to be thus really present in the Sacrament as hath beene shewed how fell we out why may we not be good friends wherein stand we yet at odâ—… about this Sacrament and Christs presence there In five points First You teach there remaines nâ—… the substance of Bread and Wine after consecration we teach that they remaine Secondly You beleeve that Christs body is contained under the superficies or accidents of bread and taketh up the roome of the substance of the element this is no part of our beliefe Thirdly You hold that the host or Sacrament is to be adored cultu latriâ—… the worship proper unto God wee beleeve that though honour and reverence which Saint Cyrill and Saint Chrysostome call for is due to the Sacrament and that with all due respect and a most humble gesture it ought to be handled and received yet no divine adoration may be used to it To yeeld that to any creature is Idolatrie Fourthly You averre that Christs very body is eaten with the mouth we cannot brooke such a grosse and caperâ—…aiticall conceit Fiftly You professe and I know not whether you beleeve it that infidels yea some of you also that rats and mice may eate Christs very body we abhorre that blasphemy For though it might fall out through some negligence that a rat or a mouse or who is worse then either an Insidell may somtimes seize on the Sacramentall bread yet we say Christs Body and Blood are out of their reach their unhallowed hands or mouthes cannot come neare it PAR. 9. Twelve passages out of Tertullian against Transubstantiation vindicated and all objections out of him for the carnall presence answered THis was or should have beene the Rodus our stand now let us measure the leape of which you have made seven jumpes Thus I took my rise That doctrine which hâ—… no foundation in the Word of God is repugnant to the doctrine of the true ancient Church and overthroâ—… eth the principles of right reason iâ—… plying palpable absurdities and apparant contradictions is to be rejected a erroneous and hereticall but the doctrine of the Church of Rome concerning Christs
tearmes Christs typicall and symbolicall body and saith it goeth into the belly c. you dare not say Christs body For it is blasphemy in the highest degree to say that his glorified body passeth through the guts and is cast out into the draught Substance of bread you say there is none and to call accidents a body and the matter or materiall part of bread is as absurd in speech as it is in sense that a man can void tasts and colours and figures without substance Fiftly I alleadge against you in the same Commentarie upon Saint Matthew his interpretation of the words of the institution which can no way stand with your doctrine of Transubstantiation Take eate saith he This is my body the bread which God the Word saith to be his body is the Word which nourisheth the soule the Word which proceeds from Gods mouth by which man liveth bread the heavenly bread which is set upon that Table of which it is written Thou hast prepared a table before me And the drinke which God the Word calls his blood is the Word making glad the hearts of the drinkers Marke I beseech you hee saith that Christ calleth bread his body which he could not but by a trope or figure sith bread and his body are substantiae disparatae substances of divers kinds which cannot in truth and propriety of speech one be called the other Secondly hee saith that this bread is the foode of soules and this drinke refresheth and maketh glad the hearts of them that drinke it is the foode of soules not bodies and the drinke of the heart not of the mouth if wee beleeve this Father Sixtly I retort your owne allegation against you out of the fift Homily The Lord saith hee even now comes under the roofe of Beleevers two manner of waies The one when thou entertainest into thy house the Governours or Pastours of the Church for by them the Lord enters into thy house and by them thou becommest his Host. The other manner is when thou takest that holy and uncorrupted banquet when thou dost enjoy the bread and cup of life eatest and drinkest the body and blood of our Lord then our Lord doth enter under thy roofe wherefore humbling thy selfe imitate the Centurion and say Lord I am not worthy that thou come under my roofe Observe I pray you as before that the faithfull enjoy the cup of life as well as the bread whereof you utterly deprive them and that by roofe hee meanes the heart which entertaines Christ not the mouth That which S. E. addeth suppose the soule bee wicked this Author saith Christ goeth In he adds of his owne Origen saith no such thing that Christ eâ—…ters into the soule or heart of a wicked man but all that he saith is this where hee enters in unworthily he enters in to the condemnation of him that receives that is where the party unworthily eates of that bread and drinkes of that cup for in that bread Christ entereth in his typicall and symbolicall body as hee calls it before not in his true and naturall which hee proved unto us there no wicked man can eate Seventhly I conclude this Section with a testimony out of the last booke of Origen If as these men cavill or upbraid us Christ was destitute of flesh and without blood of what flesh of what body and of what blood did be administer the bread and the cup as signes and images commanding his Disciples by them to renew the memory of himselfe Heare you how briefe he speakes how fully in the language of the reformed Churches bread and the cup are not the very body and blood of Christ by Transubstantiation but signes images and memorialls thereof by representation And if now you are cast as your conscience will tell you you are by severall verdicts of Origen thanke your selfe who would needs referre the matter to him among others and bee tried by the bench of antiquity whereby you are clearely overthrowne as you will be in your owne Court by your owne feed judge Gratian your great Canonist of whom in the next Paragraph PAR. 12. Eighteene places out of Gratian the Father of the Canonists against Transubstantiation vindicated and objections out of him answered GRatian de consecratione distinctione 2. capite hoc est quod dicimus saith as the heavenly bread which is Christs flesh is after a sort called the body of Christ whâ—…n as in truth it is the Sacrament of the body of Christ I meane of that which being visible palpable mortall was put upon the Crosse and that immolation of the flesh which is done by the hands of the Priest is called the Passion death and crucifixion not in the verity of the thing but in a signifying mystery so the Sacrament of faith Baptisme is faith The glosse addeth the heavenly Sacrament which truly doth represent the flesh of Christ is called the body of Christ but improperly wherefore it is said in a sort but not in the truth of the thing but in a signifying mysterie This testimony of Gratian is like a great torch throughly lightened which a strong blast of winde bloweth not out but maketh it blaze the brighter Three puffes you and your Chaplaine have at it First you say Gratian is no authenticall Author with you much lesse the glosse Secondly you say his words are meant of the accidents which are a Sacrament onely of Christs body Thirdly your Chaplaine addeth that the flesh of Christ on the Altar is a Sacrament of Christs visible and palpable body upon the Crosse you say the lesse to the purpose by saying so much and your answers interfere on the other For if Gratian bee no authenticall Author with you why doc you straine your wits to make his words reach home to the truth why doe you contradict one the other to make Gratian agree to himselfe the truth is you have a Woulfe by the eares you can neither safely hold him nor let him goe For if you reject Gratians authoritie all the Canonists like so many Hornets will bee about your eares if you admit him you loose your cause for then you must confesse that after consecration that which remaineth on the Altar is not indeed Christs body but a Sacrament thereof whcih is no otherwise called Christs body then your oblation in the Masse is called the crucifying of Christ and that I am sure you will say and sweare too is not in the truth of the thing but in a signifying mystery To examine your answers severally First you impeach Gratians credit telling us that with you he is no authenticall Author What you meane by authenticall I know not a classicall Author sure he is with you who preferre him before Dionisius Exiguus Isidorus Cresconius Burchardus Ivo and all other compilers of antient decrees and reade him publikely in your Schooles What esteeme Aristotle is in with Phylosophers Hypocrates with Physitians Euclides with Geometricians
corpus hee alleadgeth out of Eusebius Emissenus these words When thou goest up to the dreadfull or venerable Altar to bee satisfied with spirituall meates by faith regard honour and admire the holy body and blood of thy God touch it in thy mind take it with the hand of thy heart drink it by the draught of the inward man What need hee to have said looke upon him with the eye of faith touch him with thy minde and with the hand of thy heart and draught of the inward man but to exclude your carnall eating and drinking him with the hand and mouth of the outward man 3. In the Chapter Vt Quid out of Saint Austins booke de remedio penitentiae hee quoteth these words Why dost thou prepare thy tooth and thy belly beleeve and thou hast eaten he that beleeveth in him eateth him if the tooth and bellie have nothing to doe in eating Christs flesh how doe you affirme that he is eaten with the mouth 4. In the Chapter prima quidem out of Saint Austin his Comment upon the fourth Psalme he repeateth those two testimonies which before I produced in Paragraph the eleaventh The first is a strong evidence against the carnall interpretation of Christs words the latter against the supposed existence of Christs body in more places at once The former is this spiritually understand what I have spoken you shall not eate this body which you see nor drinke that blood which they who crucifie mee shall shed I have commended a kinde of Sacrament or mystery unto you which being spiritually understood will quicken you The latter is the body of Christ in which he rose must bee in one place his truth or divinity is every where 5. In the Chapter Non he mentioneth out of Saint Ambrose a sentence which directly excludes your eating Christ with the mouth it is not this bread which goeth into the body but the bread of eternall life which supporteth the substance of the soule 6. In the Chapter Qui manducat hee expoundeth out of S. Austin the phrase of eating and drinking Christ after this manner he that eateth and drinketh Christ eateth drinketh life to eate him is to be fed or refreshed to drinke him is to live that which is visibly taken in the Sacrament is in the truth spiritually eaten and drunke if in the truth hee is eaten spiritually hen not corporally or orally for a Spirit hath no flesh and bones and consequently no mouth and teeth In the same Chapter hee addeth that which is seene and our eyes tell us is bread and the cup but that which faith being to be instructed requireth is the bread is Christs body the cup is his blood but bread can no way bee Christs body properly as I have demonstrated before Austin therefore and Gratian stand for a trope or figure in the words of the institution 7. In the Chapter Qui discordat out of the same Austin hee debarres all wicked men from tasting the heavenly food of Christs flesh He who disagreeth saith he from Christ eateth not his flesh nor drinketh his blood though he daily receive the Sacrament of so great a thing to his condemnation and perdition But he who is at distance with Christ may and doth sometime eate of that which is in the Pix after consecration it is not therefore the flesh of Christ which no wicked tooth or mouth can touch but the Sacrament thereof onely which is set on your Altar 8. In the Chapter Panis est cap. Revera hee diggeth much ore out of Saint Ambrose his bookes de Sacramentis whereof I will trie a little at this present If there bee such force in the word of the Lord Iesu that thereby that began to be which was not before how much more operatorie or effectuall is it that things may be what they were and yet turned into an other thing that they may bee what they were in substance and changed into another thing in significancie and supernaturall efficacie Christ saith This is my body before the blessing of heavenly words an other kinde is named after consecration the body is signed or signified he tearmeth the cup his blood before consecration 't is called another thing after consecration it is called Christs blood Why because the Wine is turned into Christs blood no but because it is a Sacrament of Christs blood and beareth the similitude thereof so saith Ambrose in expresse words as thou takest the similitude of Christs death so thou drinkest the similitude of his blood 9. In the Chapter Iteratur he brings in Pope Pascasius transubstantiating if I may so speake your externall visible and proper sacrifice of the Masse into a significative and mysticall Because saith he we offend daily Christ daily is offered for us mystically and his Passion is delivered to us in a mysterie 10. In the Chapter De hac out of Hierom upon Leviticus hee determineth that it is lawfull for us to eate of that Host which is offered in memoriall of Christ but that it is lawfull for no man to eate of that Host in it selfe which Christ offered upon the Altar of the Crosse. Whereof no other good construction can be made then this that we may eate of the bread broken on the Lords Table whereby Christs sacrifice upon the Crosse is represented but not of the very body of Christ it selfe which was offered upon the Crosse. We may eate with the mouth Christs flesh in Symbolo but not in se or secundumse wee may eate it in the signe or Sacrament thereof but not properly and orally in it selfe What you alleadge for your selfe out of Gratian maketh very much against you the words are The sacrifice of the Church doth consist of two things the visible forme of elements and the invisible flesh of Christ both of a Sacrament and re Sacramenti as the person of Christ doth consist of God and man To this distinction wee fully subscribe that the Lords Supper or Sacrament consists of a visible part to wit the outward elements offered to our bodily senses and of an invisible or heavenly part the flesh and blood of Christ exhibited by the Spirit to the eye of our faith but you cannot allow of this distinction of parts For you have no elements at all For accidents without substance are no elements and besides accidents you have nothing in your Sacrament but Christs flesh which is the res Sacramenti Moreover if the Sacrament consist of the elements and Christs body as Christs person consisteth of his humane and divine nature as Gratian out of Saint Austin affirmeth then is not the substance of the element turned into the substance of Christs body but both remaine entire as the humane nature of Christ is not turned into the divine but remaineth entire What your Chaplaine urgeth out of Gratian for himselfe I have answered els where PAR. 13. That the words
for before his Incarnation hee had no body into which bread could bee then turned Cyprian speaketh of bread made of many cornes or graines and of wine pressed out of many grapes Ambrose speaketh of bread broken but super-substantiall bread or turned into Christs body is not broken bread Saint Hierome likewise speakes of broken bread and consequently not of the heavenly bread which is Christs flesh Epiphanius speakes of that which is of a round figure and without sense and such is bakers bread but not that bread which Christ said Iohn the 6. He would give us to wit his flesh for the life of the world Gaudentius speakes of bread consecrated before he gave it or said This is my Body but it was not according unto your doctrine turned into Christs body before the words this is my body are uttered neither â—…oth the Priest consecrate Christs body but the bread for consecrare is ex communi sacrum facere of a thing common before to make a thing Sacred or a Sacrament Saint Chrysostome and Saint Austin both speake of terrestriall bread or as you call it bakers bread not of transubstantiated or coelestiall bread for both of them observe in the bread and in the wine a representation of Christs mysticall body which is one consisting of many members as a loafe of bread is â—…c yet made of the flower of many â—…res or cornes and the cup of wine is one â—…ough made of the juyce of many grapes â—…int Isidore speaketh of bread which â—…engtheneth the body and therefore of â—…ead in substance and not in appeaâ—…nce onely Lastly Arnoldus Carmoâ—…nsis whom you mistake for Saint â—…yprian saith not that bread is called â—…hrists flesh because it is turned into it â—…t because the thing signifying and â—…ing signified are called by the same â—…ames Now to the shreds of sententes of Fathers which your Chaplaine takes from your bulke I will returne as short answers in the order as he hath laid them Irenaeus saith that the bread in the Eucharist is not common bread so say we also for it is consecrated to a holy and heavenly use Tertullian saith that hee made the bread his owne â—…ody that is as he expoundeth it himselfe in the same place the sigure of his â—…ne body Saint Hierom Epist. ad He dib q. 2. saith the bread came downe fâ—…om heaven but hee meaneth Christ himselfe not the Sacramentall bread for that came not downe from heavâ—… but was made of wheate growing upâ—… the earth Saint Austin as you quoâ—… but indeed Ambrose 15. de Sacram. c. speaketh of super-substantiall bread 〈◊〉 thereby he meaneth Christs flesh or thâ—… heavenly Manna not that bread 〈◊〉 eate in the Sacrament with the mouth as he admonisheth in the next wordâ—… it is not the bread which goeth in the body but the bread of eternall 〈◊〉 which supporteth the substance of 〈◊〉 soule with whom Saint Austin him selfe accordeth Ser. 29. de verb. Doâ—… Thy Shepheard and thy giver of life is thâ—… meate and eternall bread learne and teach live and feed what is sufficienâ—… for thee if thy God bee not Epiphanius saith that he who beleeved not thâ—… bread to bee as our Saviour said his body falleth from salvation 't is true hee that beleeveth not the bread to be our Saviours body as our Saviour said it to bee his body endangereth his salvation for hee questioneth the truth of our Lord but Epiphanius saith not that Christs words are to bee take litterally nay in that very place heâ—… proveth the contrary for the breaâ—… 〈◊〉 round and without sense but our Lord 〈◊〉 know is wholy sensitive or rather all sense Saint Cyrill saith that which seemes bread is not bread but Christs body but hee in the words going before and in his Catech. plainely sheweth his owne meaning Come not therefore as unto simple bread and wine or â—…are bread and wine The bread after the calling upon of the Holy Ghost is no more common bread as the ointment after benediction is no more common ointment but chrisme Yet oyle after benediction still retaineth the substance of oyle and so doth the bread after consecrasion the substance of bread The Author Decaen Dom. who is so much in your Bookes that wee finde him almost in every Section is not the blessed Martyr Saint Cyprian as Bellarmine proveth by many arguments but a farre later Writer by name Arnoldus Carmotensis as the Epistle Dedicatory to Pope Adrian who sate Anno 1154. extant in All-Soules Library in Oxford testifieth but bee hee Cyprian or Arnoldus who wrote the Treatises de cardinalibus Christi operibus hee is no friend to your carnall presence or Transubstantiation for in the Chapter cited by you hee hath these words wee whet not our teeth to eate but by sincere faith wee breake the holy bread And in the words immediatly following those words which you alleadge hee saith that Christ powreth his divine Essence into the Sacrament even as in Christ under the humane nature the divinity lay hid therefore according to this Author there remaineth the substance of bread together with Christs Body Sacramentally united as in Christ the humane and the divine nature remaine united hypostatically And moreover that when hee saith the bread is changed not in shape but in nature and by the Omnipotencie of the Word made flesh that hee speaketh of a Sacramentall change and not substantiall and that by nature hee meaneth the naturall and common use not the essence of bread appeareth by his owne words a little before in this Tract of the Supper of the Lord. That although the immortall food delivered in the Eucharist differ from common meate yet it retaineth the kinde of corporall substance And in the Treatise following Our Lord saith he at the Table in his last Supper gave bread and wine with his owne hands and on the Crosse hee gave up his body to bee wounded by the hands of the Souldiers pray take speciall notice that hee gave bread at the Table and his body on the Crosse not his body at the Table no more then bread at the Crosse that hee might expound to the Nations how divers names or kindes are reduced to the same essence and the things signifying and signified are called by the same names If Cyril would be comming in as your Chaplaine speaketh with his Conversion and Nyssen with his Transmutation and Theophylact with his Transelementation they shall be met with and repayed all three in their owne coyne Cyril who in his Epistle to Colosyrius if it bee his whereof Vasques doubteth in his 180. Disputation upon the 3. part of Thomas his summes saith the bread and wine are changed into the veritie of Christs flesh in his second booke upon Iohn Chap. 42. saith that the waters of Baptisme are by the operation of the Holy Ghost changed into a divine nature Nyssen who saith that bread
Salmoron Barradius and Jansenius THe two kindes in the Lords Supper are like the eyes in our body which are mooved by the same nerve opticke or double strings in an instrument which are tuned alike 〈◊〉 comparative reason therefore drawne from the one to the other cannot but be of great force The sixt argumenâ—… therefore in the Conference as you reckon was from thence drawne after this manner The words used in the Consecration of the bread are so to bee expounded as the like in the consecration of the cup. But the words used in the Consecration of the cup are to bee expounded by a figure Ergo the words used in the Consecration of the bread are to â—…ee expounded by a figure In this Sylogisme because you lay youâ—… batteries at both propositions the Major and the Minor I will fortifie them both and first the Major It is a topiâ—…k axiome similium est idâ—…m judicium like are to be judged by the like and these are so like that Bellarmine himselfe draweth an argument from the one to the other I will add saith hee a most forcible argument If the pronoune hoc used in the Consecration of the bread demonstrateth bread then also the same pronoune this used in the Consecration of the cup must needs demonstaâ—… wine the validity of which consequence dependeth upon the correspondencie betweene the words used in the institution of each kinde neither indeed can any reason bee assigned why the words used in the one may not as well admit of a figure as the words used in the other both are dogmaticall both have a precept annexed unto them both are words of a Testament both Sacramentall and according to your doctrine alike operatory never therefore exclaime against us for expounding the words used in the institution of the bread by one figure when you expound the words used in the institution of the cup by two figures at least Blame not us for interpreting This is my Body thaâ—… is a signe or Sacrament of my body when you your selves interpret This cup is the New Testament that is this drinke is 〈◊〉 signe or Sacrament of the New Testament If you alleadge that Calix is expounded in the same place by funditur and argue from thence that because the blood of Christ and not wine is shed for us therefore this cup must needs signifie his blood I answer that the figure in panis in like manner is expounded in the same place by frangitur and argue that because bread is broken in the Sacrament and not Christs body therefore this must needs signifie thiâ—… bread If you replie that frangitur is â—…t for frangetur I will say in like manâ—…er that funditur is put for fundetur â—…he Major being therefore put out of all doubt let us examine the Minor which was this The words used in the Consecration of the cup are to he expounded by one figure or more For the words as they are recorded by Saint Luke are these This Cup is the New Testament in my blood Where we have a double figure First a Metonomie â—…ntinentis pro contento the cup is taken for the thing contained in the cup. Secondly signatuÌ„ pro signo the Testament for the Signe Seale or Sacrament of the New Testament So saith Theophylact alleadged by you In the Old Testament Gods Covenant was confirmed by the blood of bruit beasts but now since the Word was made flesh He sealed the New Testament with his owne blood So your Gorran the blood of Iesus Christ is the confirmation of the New Testament for a Testament is confirmed by the death of the Testator Nay so your most accomplished Jesuits Solmeron and Barradius Solmeron pointeth to a double figure saying in these words we have a double figure first the cup being put for that which is contained in the 〈◊〉 Secondly the Testament for a Symbâ—… thereof Barradius though he expoâ—… the word Testament as you doe for Legacie bequeathed by Christs wâ—… yet he addeth expressely that it is taken by a figure called Metonyâ—… What say you here to this 〈◊〉 word Testamentum is here taken pâ—… perly enough For not onely a mans 〈◊〉 ward will but also his outward wriâ—… will in parchment is commonly called Tâ—… stamentum because it is an authentâ—… signe of his will I pray expresse yâ—… selfe a little farther what meane yâ—… by properly enough doe you meaâ—… by an usuall figure or without aâ—… figure if you meane by an usuall figure assent unto you and it sufficeth for thâ—… strengthening of my argument if 〈◊〉 meane without a figure name me 〈◊〉 Author of note Divine or Civilâ—… who before you affirmed that either Legacie bequeathed by will or the pâ—… per and parchment in which the willâ—… writteÌ„ is in propriety of speech withâ—… any figure either 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in Greeke Testamentum in Latine or Will in 〈◊〉 glish Not to take the advantage might against you that the blood of Christ as you beleeve it to bee in the â—…acrament cannot bee an authenticall â—…gne of Christs will because if wee should grant it to be there really in your sense yet it is not there visibly â—…nd therefore cannot be an authenticall signe of it like the paper or parchment â—…ou speake of or as we teach the wine in the cup to be I shall bee much inâ—…ebted unto you if you can resolve mee â—…ow the blood of Christ can be without any figure his last Will and Testament sith 1. He made his Will at this his last Supper but made not then his blood 2. His Will was his just determination or appointment of what he would have done after his death his blood is no such thing 3. The Scripture speakes of blood of the Testament hic est sanguis novi Testamenti never of a Testament of blood 4. Blood is a suâ—…stantiall part of the Testator and therefore not his Will or Testamâ—…nt 5. Every Will is either written or nuncupative the blood of the Testator is neither After you have blunted the edge of these weapons see how you can rebate the point of Iansenius his dartâ—… which he lets flie levell at you These words saith he cannot bee taken properly whether the cup be taken for the vessell used for drinking or for the blood of Christ by a Synechdoche for no man will say that the vessell in propriety of speech is Christs Testament sith the Scripture testifieth that Christs Will is eternall so iâ—… not that cup which no man knoweth whether it be extant at this day or no neither can the blood of Christ bee properly said to be his Testament for his Testament iâ—… one not many and Paul in the Epistle 〈◊〉 the Hebrewes teacheth out of Jeremie that the Gospell is the New Testament Christs blood is not therefore properly the New Testament Moreover in Matthew and Marke the blood is said to be the bloâ—… of the New
Councell of Trent defineth Which is a question of greatest importance for if the Body of Christ be not there really and substantially the Church of Rome which adoreth the Host committeth Idolatry in the highest degree by attributing cultum latriae to a piece of bread And that the Body of Christ is not there in such sort as the Councell determineth and the whole Church of Rome beleeveth I will prove by necessary arguments drawne from the words of the institution the doctrine and practise of the ancient Church and the very principles of nature and infallible grounds of Reason Saint Paul fully setteth downe the institution of the Sacrament I have received of the Lord saith he that which I also have delivered unto you to wit that the Lord Iesus in the night that he was betraied tooke bread And when hee had given thankes he brake it and said Take eate This is my Body which is broken for you this doe ye in remembrance of me After the same manner also he took the cup when he had supped saying this cup is the New Testament in my blood this doe as oft as ye drinke it in remembrance of me For as often as ye shall eate this breaed and drinke this cup ye shew the Lords death till hee come In this faithfull relation of the Apostle many things are very remarkable First our Saviour spake to his Disciples in a knowne tongue you to the Communicants in an unknowne Christ took bread and brake it you breake no bread at all Christ after hee had broken the bread took the cup and gave it likewise to all the Communicants you sacrilegiously mutilate the Sacrament and debarre the Laity of the cup. Christ used no elevation at all neither did his Disciples adore the Sacrament you practise both Lastly Christ when hee said eate and drinke truly reached the bread and cup to all which were present and thereby celebrated a Supper you use the same words eate and drinke you all of this and yet eate and drinke all your selves And call you this inviting Gods people to a Supper where you eate up all and they feed nothing but their eyes D. Bagshaw You promised to dispute M. Featley you do but discourse M. Featley Thus I frame my argument Christ in these words This is my Body called bread his body for hee tooke bread and brake it and said take eate this pointing to the bread but bread cannot be called Christs body properly therefore you must needs acknowledge there is a figure in these words and by consequence they make not for much lesse make any Transubstantiation of bread into Christs body D. B. I denie your Major Christ in these words This is my Body calleth not bread his body M. F. Tertullian saith he doth So God revealed in your Gospell calling bread his body Theodoret affirmeth the same in words most expressely Orth In the delivering of the mysteries hee called bread his body And a little after Our Saviour changed the names imposing the name of the Signe or Symbole upon his body and the name of his body upon the Signe or Symbole D. B. Tertullian speaketh of that which was bread in the old Law but now is Christsbody For in the words before he alleadgeth Jeremie mittamus lignum in panem ejus let us cast wood on his bread Theodoret is not of great credit because he favoured sometimes the heresie of Nestorius M. F. If Theodoret sometimes favoured any heresie that can be no just exception against this passage of Theodoret taken out of those bookes of his which have alwaies beene approved for Orthodoxall even by your own Church Your answer to Tertullian neither satisfieth the place nor avoideth my argument for he proveth not onely by the words of Ieremy in the Old Testament but of Christs also in the Gospell the bread was and is a figure of Christs body His argument standeth thus Christ by the Prophet Ieremie called his body bread let us cast wood on his bread that is the Crosse on his body And in the Gospell bread his body Ergo bread was and is a true figure of his body I insist not upon Tertullians allegation out of Ieremy but upon his explication of the words of the institution in the Gospell The Lord in the Gospell called bread his body And to the like purpose he speaketh The bread taken and distributed unto his Disciples he made it his body saying This is my body that is a figure of my body A little after he propoundeth this question why doth he call bread his body Out of which places I thus argue against your answer Tertullian saith that Christ in the Gospell called the bread which he brake and distributed unto his Disciples his body and therefore hee speaketh not of that which was bread in the old Law and you suppose to bee Christs body in the new but of that which was very bread then when hee called it his body But I inferre that which is truly bread cannot be properly called Christs body Ergo you must reject Tertullian or admit of a figure D. B. Prove that bread cannot properly be called Christs Body M. F. No disparata can be properly affirmed one of the other Bread and Christs body are disparata Ergo The one of them cannot properly be affirmed one of the other D. B. Panis corpus Christi are not disparata because they are not sub eodem genere M. F. Nay for that very reason rather they are disparata because they are not sub eodem genere The especiall difference betweene Contraria and Disparata is that contraria are sub eodem genere proximo disparata may be sub diversis as homo lapis corpus Christi panis the one sub corpore animato the other sub inanimato D. B. You ground your faith upon Scriptures not upon Fathers therefore we expect other arguments from you then such as these M. F. But you ground your faith not upon Scriptures onely but upon the traditive doctrine of Fathers and therefore wee expect from you better answers then these to the Fathers You beare the world in hand that all the Fathers are yours and yet when it comes to the triall dare not stand to their authority but flie to the Scriptures which give you no countenance at all but rather check your errors D. B. Shew me in Scripture where Christ called bread his body or els you doe but trifle out the time M F In the 1 of Cor. 11. v. 24. This is my body which is broken for you D B. Conclude your proposition from these words M. F. Thus I inferre iâ—… That Christ called his body which he said was then broken for us this is my body which is broken But that which was there broken was bread nothing but bread Ergo he called bread his body D. B. I denie your assumption Christs true body was then broken
for we speake not now of qualities or spirituall graces Note this by the way It savoureth of heresie Let me bee so much beholding to you before I leave to get of you a direct answer to this Syllogisme Every bodily substance truly existent in a place that neither abideth in that place nor removeth to another nor is changed into something els is truly annihilated or brought to nought or nothing The body of Christ according to your beliefe was really existent in the stomack and neither continueth there still neither goeth out of the stomack neither is converted into another substance or thing Ergo it is there truly annihilated D. B. Thus you dispute Christs body is annihilated in the stomacke Ergo it is annihilated simpliciter I denie your argument M. F. You denie your owne argument not mine I undertooke not to proove that Christs body is annihilated simpliciter simply but that it is annihilated in the stomacke which it seemes you denie not nor can standing to your owne grounds Yet because you are so briefe with me thus I proove the argument That which is made absolutely nothing in the stomacke cannot be something elsewhere Christs body as you grant is turned into nothing in the stomack Ergo it cannot be something elsewhere D. B. Your Major is most false M. F. That which is made simply nothing is yet something Nothing is a contradiction if this be not D. B. Respectu ejusdem M. Featley How often have I distinguished of divers respects M. F. And how often have I resuted this frivolous distinctioÌ„ of yours which was your first and now is your last Inchoat atque eadem finit oliva dapes Here M. Featley being caâ—…led off from farther objecting D. Bagshaw opposeth as followeth D. B. Christs body may be in more places at once Ergo it is in the Sacrament M. F. I denie your argument D. B. This is the reason why you denie Christs body to be in the Sacrament because you suppose it cannot be in more places at once Ergo if it may be in more places at once it may be in heaven and in the Sacrament M. F. This argument as little followes as the former Ex particulari non fas est Syllogizare Though this reason were not good yet we have many other strong and invincible D. B. It is no wickednesse to eat Christs flesh in the Sacrament Ergo your argument drawne from the impiety of eating Christs flesh with the mouth is of no force M. F. S. Austin indeed alleadgeth this for a reason to proove that Christs words unlesse you eate my flesh Ioh. 6. cannot be meant properly but figuratively because it is an horrible wickednesse to eate the flesh of a live man I approve of this reason and will maintaine it Yet if you could overthrow it it would not prove your argument you know Aristotle distinguisheth inter argumenta 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 These arguments of yours if you could prove them are but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 they are not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 they demonstrate not the conclusion of your faith that Christ is really and corporally in the Sacrament At the most they prove but that he might be in the Sacrament for ought they bring to the contrarie that insist upon the former reasons Let us heare one Syllogisme from you D. B. The words of Christ are litterally to be taken except you can bring some just exception against the literall exposition But you can bring no just exception against the literall exposition Ergo the words of the institution are litterally to be understood and by consequence the Sacrament is Christs true body M. F. All the arguments I have hitherto used are so many exceptions against the literall exposition But to restraine you to some certaine reasons I say the words of the institution cannot be taken properly because all the circumstances of the Text are against it first Christ took bread and brake it pointing to it said This is my body and he added doe tlois in remembrance of me And after he had given the cup said I will drinke no more of this fruit of the vine From all which circumstances many strong arguments may be drawne Bread cannot properly be Christs body Christs body cannot be given in remembrâ—…nce of it selfe That which is the fruit of the vine is not properly Christs blood Moreover Christ in these words This is my body instituted a Sacrament and therefore this sacred forme of speech is to be mystically and Sacramentally understood answerable to the like used in the matter of Sacraments Gen. 17. 10. This is my Covenant speaking of Circumcision which was but a signe of the Covenant Exod. 12. 11. It is the Lords Passeover speaking of the Lambe which was but a figure of the Passeover 1 Cor. 10. The Rock was Christ that is a figure of Christ. Luk. 22. this cup is the New Testament that is a sacred signe or memorial of the New Testament The literall exposition of the words is repugnant to the Articles of our faith clearely deduced from those words of our Saviour Ioh 16. I leave the world and go to the Father where it followeth immediatly now thou speakest plainely now thou usest no parable It is said Act. the 3. that the heavens must containe Christ according to his humane nature till his second comming Now if Christ according toâ—…is humane nature have lest the world he is not in the world if he be contained in the heavens then he is not without the leavens upon the earth D. B. Thus I overthrow your reason Christs body was contained in heaven after his Ascention and there he remaines And yet he was since that upon earth and stood by S. Paul Acts 23. 11. Ergo your strongest argument hath no force at all M. F. First I answer to your Major that many of our Divines and yours also understand those words Act. 3. of the ordinary residence of Christ not denying that Christ if he pleased might extraordinarily and miraculously leave his place in heaven for a while to doe some great work upon earth which as it breaketh the force of your argument so it no way disableth mine For if heaven be the place of Christs ordinarie residence it followeth that he is not daily and ordinarily according to the substance of his body upon earth to wit on the Altar as you beleeve Secondly I answer to your Minor that S. Paul Act. 23. speaketh of a vision in the night not of any reall or corporall presence of Christ. D. B. He saith that the Lord stood by him and spake unto him therefore it was no vision M. F. I denie your argument S. Peter saith Act. 10. that he saw heaven opened certaine vessell came downe to him and he heard a voice saying to him kill and eate And this was done three times the more to confirme him and yet all this was but done in a vision Likewise
there for then I should in the first place have charged you with the Articles of Religion you subscribed unto and the oathes you tooke at your presentation to all which you bid adew when you wâ—… first bound for Rome Vent is verba vela dedisti Vola queror reditu verba carere fide As for the short warning where you complaine to prepare for thâ—… meeting you alleadge it but for fashion For who knoweth not that you were professour many yeares in Spaine aâ—… in your written Workes had befoâ—… this elabourately handled this question Besides for ought I know you weâ—… acquainted with the day of our disputa tion as soone as it was set this I am sure of that excepting onely the goodnesse of the cause you had all advantages of me First of yeares for I was but Tyro you veteranus miles I theâ—… but a pusney in these studies you a Doctor in your facultie of so loud 〈◊〉 fame that your name rung before this in England France and Spaine insomuch that as you your selfe reported M. Knevet said of me that I was to young to deale with you Secondly of bookes for I brought but a few with me to Paris nor had accesse being knowne an opposite to your Religion to any of your Libraries Whereas you besides your owne had the command of the Librarie of Sorbone and others in the City and University Thirdly of assistance for I was alone and had none to advise withall you conversed daily with the Sorbone Doctors of your society the acutest disputants of this age Yet whatsoever garland now your Chaplaine platteth for you at that time you were farre from triumphing For you doubted your owne answers and like beares whelpes often licked them to bring them to some forme and when at the end of the Conference I had read them all unto you written from your owne mouth a friend of yours snatched the paper away and never would 〈◊〉 ver it but in liew thereof you tendered me a paper of answers written with your owne hand with such additions and limitations as your after thoughts suggested in which notwithstanding fairely you yeelded the cause saying ego agnosco quod in his verbis hoc est corpus meum est figura that is I acknowledge that there is a figure in these words or that these words are to be taken figuratively If so then they make no more for the Transubstantiation of Bread into Christs Body then the like figurative words I am the doore I am the vine I am the way make for the Transubstantiation of Christs Body or person into a vine doore or way Wherefore I cannot but commend your ingenuity in choosing that sentence of Saint Austine for your posie in the frontispice of your relation facile est ut quisque Augustinum vincat quanto magis ut vicisse videatur aut si non videatur vicisse dicatur it is an easie thing to get the better of Austin how much more to seeme to get the better or if not to seeme yet to be so reported if you neither had the worse nor seemed to have nor were reported to have the worst in this Conference how doth this posie fit your relation but if either indeed you were foyled or in apparance or at least in report discordant ultima primis the first words agree not with the last that you got the field and bare away the prize PAR. 8. The state of the question is truly set downe five points wherein wee differ touching the Reall presence are touched THe praeludium is past concerning the occasion and conditions I come now to the encounter it selfe concerning your Reall presence by Transubstantiation For which those of your Church contend tanquam pro aris focis and well may you so doe for it furnisheth your ara and your focus too Calvin truely observeth that Satan by his instruments laboureth nothing more then to suppresse the truth in this point of controversie and in regard of the infinite Volumes written on both sides Chamerus rightly tearmeth it the most intricate and perplexed as also the most noble question of all other betweene the Romane and the reformed Churches It much importeth therefore both parties that 〈◊〉 bee rightly stated and solidly handled that which you say in the explicatioâ—… of the state of the question is very briefe much like lightning in tâ—… night that rather skareth a man theâ—… sheweth him the way in the darkâ—… That which your Chaplaine added is large and cleare enough but like false fire held out by Pyrats in tâ—… night to draw Marriners into dangeâ—… You say p. 17. that the Conference 〈◊〉 to be not of Transubstantiation but of 〈◊〉 Reall presence onely which by order 〈◊〉 disputation ought to be first Yet bâ—… your favour these questions are not 〈◊〉 distinct and severed as you imply 〈◊〉 rather like the wheeles in Ezekieâ—… vision rota in rota implicite one in thâ—… other You beleeve no Reall preseâ—… otherwaies then by Transubstantiatioâ—… your Councell of Trent in that Ca non wherein it defines your Reall presence involveth Transubstantiation thâ—… Synod teacheth that in the Sacramentâ—… the holy Eucharist Christ God and Mâ—… is truly really and substantially coâ—…teined under the forme or accidents 〈◊〉 the sensible creatures of Bread and â—…ine If the substance of Christs flesh â—…e there under the resemblances or â—…cidents of Bread and Wine the substance then of Bread and Wine must be gone and Christ his Body and Blood â—…cceed in the roome of them and â—…hat's this but a paraphrase of Transubstantiation take that away and we shall soone joyne issue with you for 〈◊〉 agree with you in the object we differ â—…out the manner we beleeve as true a â—…esence as you touching the manner of â—…is presence we define nothing rashly nor â—…quire curiously no more then in Bapâ—…sme after what manner Christ his blood â—…asheth us no more then in the mysterie â—…f the Incarnation how and after what â—…anner the humane nature is united to the divine in one person Your Chaplaine S. E. that I may repay him backe some of his owne coyne p. 23. being conscious of the weakenesse of his cause thought the very sight of our tenet as it appeares in the Protestants relation p. 288 289. would overthrow his utterly and therfore conceales my distinctions of presence and reall which are the keyes with severall wards without whiâ—… this question cannot be opened 〈◊〉 as f Weston writes that his head akâ—… in reading D Reynolds his bookes oâ—… the Idolatry of the Church of Româ—… So your crazie Chaplaine p. 2â—… complaineth that my discourse upoâ—… the state of the question made his heâ—… giddie For a while hee stands amaze like the Goate after he hath tasted tâ—… hearbe Eringium and after when he comes to himselfe either ignorantly oâ—… wilfully mistaketh his way The Sâ—… cramentarians saith he for whom D. Featly disputed against our tenet 〈◊〉 that the
bodily presence in the Sacrament is such Ergo it is to bee disclaimed as erroneous and hereticall The Major or first proposition had his passe from you nor can it be impeacheâ—… by any who rightly understandeth the termes and seriously weigheth the consequence For divine faith must bee built upon a divine and unmooveable foundation which can bee no other then Gods Word And sith we on both sides acknowledge that the Church in which the Primitive Fathers lived and died was the true Church they who gaine-say the faith thereof are to be ranged with hereticks Lastly that metaphysicall principle is of undoubted verity verum vero non opponitur truth never opposeth truth That doctrine therefore which destroyeth the principles of reason and quencheth the sparkles of divine light kindled in our soules by God cannot but bee from the Prince of darknesse The Minor or assumption hath three branches as you see on the first whereof I insisted in that conference My prosyllogismes which you and S. E. both omit were these First if there bee any ground in Scripture for your carnal presence in the Sacrament it is either in the words of institution or on those Iohn the 6. 53. Except ye eate the flesh of the Sonne of man and drinke his blood ye have no life in you For upon these both the Bishops in that Lateran and Trent Councell and all the learned on your side build their faith especially in this point But neither the one nor the other Text are any sure ground for it Ergo you have none The Major in this prosyllogisme being assented unto by you I proceeded to the confirmation of the Minor in this wise If the words of institution Mat. 26. and the other alledged out of Iohn the 6. are to be taken figuratively and not in the proper sense nothing can be concluded from them for the bodily presence or carnall eating Christ with the mouth But the words above alleadged in both places are to be construed figuratively and not in the proper sense Ergo nothing can bee concluded from them for the bodily pâ—…esence of Christ in the Sacrament or carnall eating of him with the mouth The Major in this second Syllogisme being likewise evident to all men of learning who know that to argue from a figurative sense to the proper is a fallacy in Logick and a dangerous errour in Divinity against which Saint Austin giveth us a speciall caution I undertooke the proofe of the Minor both by unavoidable testimonies of antient Fathers and pregnant argumenâ—…s drawne from the circumstances of those Texts And first because with the ancient is wisedome Iob 12. 12. let the antient speak Tertullian Origen Austin Prosper c. Tertullian in his fourth book against Martion the 40. Chapter the bread taken and distributed to his Disciples hee made his body saying this is my body that is a figure of my body Now a figure it had not or should not have beene unlesse his body had beene a body of truth or a true body for avoid or empty thing such as a phantasme is is not capable of a reall figure Tertullian his argument in this 40. Chap. against Marcion who taught that Christ had no true body but an imaginarie or phantasticall standeth thus That body whereof bread is a figure must needs bee a true body But the Body of Christ is such a Body whereof bread is a figure Christ himselfe saâ—…ing when hee tooke bread in his hand This is my Body that is a figure of my Body Therefore Christs Body is a true Body If Christ made not bread a figure of his Body but turned it into his own Body as you teach how could Tertullian out of those words of our Saviour prove against Marcion that bread was a figure of Christs Body Againe if the meaning of the words of institution This is my Body be this bread is a figure of my Body as Tertullians id est inforceth then are the words of the institution metonymically or figuratively to be taken A faire evidence for the truth is this testimony of Tertullian which so puzzels our adversaries thâ—… they turne them every way yet cannâ—… avoid or impeach it Fisher falls fowle upon this ancieâ—… and most learned Father disabling hâ—… testimonie in regard of his taint oâ—… Montanisme But neither was Tertullian slipt inâ—… that heresie when hee wrote these bookes neither did the heresie of Montanisme concerne the Sacrament neither was ever this passage excepted against by any of the Antients nor the Father himselfe branded for any errour about the Lords Supper Steven Gardiner giveth a more respective answer that Tertullian spake these words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in heate of opposition to his adversary not deliberately and doctrinally But he that readeth these bookes against Marcion which the author so esteemed that he translated them into verse will finde in them strength of reason not violence of passion These words sparkle not with anger but give a cleare light to the words of the instiâ—…tion and the like are found in him â—…ls where and in other of the Fathers when they wrote in coolest temper in their Epistles Commentaries on Scriptures Homilies and Treatises of piety the places are quoted particularly by Peter Martyr Verius ergo Et magis ingenuè Peribomius Well fare honest Rhenanus who ingeniously confesseth that Tertullian favoured our figurative interpretation for which your Church condemned Berengarius But you like not so well of this plaine dealing you have beene better instructed by the Belgick inquisitors to devise some shift and faine a commodious sense to the testimonies of the Fathers and blanch their words with ingenious glosses when they are objâ—…cted against you in disputation or conflicts with us Therfore after Pammelius Bellarmine and Perone conster Tertullian thus This which was once an old figure of my body is now my body for he doth not referre those words id est figura corporis mei to corpus meum but to hoc For this your strange forced and incongruous interpretation you produce first a paralell place to this out of the booke adversus Praxean Christ is dead that is annointed where the words id est are referred to the subject Christus not to the attribute Mortuus Secondly out of the words hee made bread his owne body since say you Tertullian saith that our Saviour taking bread made it his body he was not so forgetfull as immediately to add that the Eucharist is a meere figure of his body this reason you backed with a third that Tertullian presently after the foresaid words saith figura autem non fuisset it had not beene a figure c. by which words he shewes that he speaketh of the figure which was before our Saviour said This is my Body Lastly you much insisted upon the words veterem figuram an old figure and those that follow in the
same place but why calleth hee bread his body and not a Pepon or Melone rather which Marcion had in place of a heart not understanding that it was an old figure of the body of Christ. Though the water bee never so cleare it is an easie matter by stirring the bottome with a stick to trouble it and make it all muddy stay but a while till it settle and you shall see the streame run clearely and the silver wâ—… seeke for in the bottome bearing the Image of Christs Body Tertullian here prooves the reality of Christs Body by the reality of the figure thereof bread Bread he prooves to be the figure of his body both out of the Gospell of Saint Matthew in the first place and afterwards out of the Prophecy of Ieremy where the Jewes conspiring against the Prophet said Come let us cast wood on his bread that is the crosse on his body The illightner therefore of antiquities declared sufficiently what hee would have bread then to signifie calling his body bread Marke I beseech you Tertullian sets the Texts of Matthew and Ieremy like glasses to cast a mutuall light one upon the other In Ieremy Christs Body is called bread in Saint Matthew bread is called his Body both by a like figure but I subsume Christs body is not called bread in Ieremy because it was transsubstantiated into bread as you must needs confesse therefore neither in Saint Matthew is bread called Christs body because bread was transubstantiated into it Theodoret harpes upon the like strings tuned together Our Saviour saith he changed names and attributed to his body the name of the symbole or signe thereof and to the symbole or signe the name of his body he that called bread his body calleâ—… himselfe bread in both which speeches there is according to both these Fathers a 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 no 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a trope or turning of speech no change of nature The sparkes flie up in the smoake before the fire breakes into a flame afterwards they vanish away such your objections appeare to be after the blazing if I may so speake of Tertullians meaning by the precedent elucidations of this place The first taken out of his booke against Praxeas thus vanisheth to nothing 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 one swallow makes not a summer nor one heteroclyt overthrowes a generall rule in grammar You and your Chaplaine talke of places in the plurall number as if such a Transposition were usuall in Tertullian name you but one other passage in all Tertullian where the like hyperbaton or dislocation is used Et Phillida solus habeto There is in this passage I grant a Metathesis or transposition of the words id est unctus which should have beene placed before mortuus not after but yet that place of Tertullian is not like this as you interpret it for there id est must of necessity be referred to the subject Christus and cannot be referred to the predicate mortuus because the word mortuus doth not signifie annointed as Christus doth but in this place id est may well be referred to the predicatum corpus as Ruardus Tapperus and Gardinerus and Renanus and all other Papists referred them before this new crochet was found out by Pammelius or Peron Againe in those words Christ is dead that is annointed the sense is made good by a meere inversion thus Christ that is the annointed is dead wheras besides an inversion you add the words quod erat vetus non nunc est which words if you should add to the other place saying Christus mortuus est id est is qui erat unctus est mortuus you would make the speech blasphemous insinuating that Christ was the Lords annointed but is not as you make Tertullian say bread which was a legall figure but now is not is Christs body But to put this passage of Tertullian out of all peradventure the words id est that is to say must needs be referred to that tearme in the proposition which was obscure and needed some explication But that was not the subject hoc for Christ by taking the bread in his hand and pointing to it sufficiently shewed what he meant by hoc all the doubt that could be made was of the predicate body what that tearme signified or in what sort it agreed to the subject hoc the id est therefore of necessity is to be applied to the obscure predicate corpus not to the subject hoc which was then when Christ uttered those words evident ad oculum Your second objection melteth of it selfe since Tertullian say you affirmes that our Saviour made bread his body hee was not so forgetfull as immediatly to add that the Eucharist is a meere figure of his body neither doe wee say so as I have proved at large in the former Paragraph It was not forgetfullnesse in Tertullian to add this glosse id est figura corporis mei but mindfullnesse and cautelous wisdome maturely to remove a block at which his Reader was like to stumble When he had said before corpus suum ipsum fecit he made bread his body a man might have thought that he did it so by Consubstantiation or by Transubstantiation to prevent which mistakes hee adds that Christ did it by Sacramentall consecration saying This is my Body that is a figure of my body Your third objection is an idle criticisme as if there were great difference betweene esset and fuisset for your Candor looke but upon Lillie his grammar and you shall finde that eram and fueram and ero and fuero and essem and fuissem are indifferently used as Synonima Yet if you will have fuisset in these words figura autem non fuisset not to be rationall but temporall nor to construed it should not be but it had not beene you must howsoever referre it to that which goeth before acceptum panem distributum not to that which followes sixe lines after veterem figuram corporis Christi dicentis per Ieremiam the apparent sence then is Christ by saying This is my body made the bread then a figure or Sacrament of his body which it had not beene if he had not then when he spake so a true body but onely an imagnarie as the phantasticall hereticke Marcion surmised Your fourth fift reasons are answered already Tertullian as it is evidently deduced from the passage you cote and another paralell unto it l. 3. cont Marcion c. 19. So God hath revealed in the Gospell calling bread his body that hence now thou maist understand that he hath given the figure of bread to his body whose body the Prophet long before figured in bread taught that bread had beene a legall figure and was also an evangelicall signe or Sacrament of Christs Body But why Christ made choice rather of bread then of a Melone as Tertullian speaketh or any other solid thing
to be the Symbole or Sacrament of his body as also why hee rather chose wine then any other licour to bee the embleme and memoriall of his blood we can assigne certainely no other reason then his meere will Tertullian his guesse is but probable that Christ in the institution of the Sacrament in the formes of bread and wine had an eye to the Prophecy of Ieremy or Iacob But be it probable or necessary it matters not seeing it is confessed on all hands that bread is a figure of Christs body though not now a Legall Type yet an Evangelicall Being both it makes the stronger for this glosse of Tertullian this bread is my body that is a figure of my body But here S. E. helpes you at a dead lift alleadging a testimony out of Tertullians booke de resurrectione carnis for the carnall presence of Christ in the Sacrament The words of Tertullian are these The flesh is washed that the soule may be cleansed the flesh feeds upon the body and blood of Christ that the soule may be fatted by God Of this place of Tertullian he is as proud as Pâ—…lius in the proverbe was of his sword not observing that the point of it lyeth against himselfe for if hee expound these words according to the rule of the Fathers the signes have usually the names of the thing signified by them then hee confirmes our figurative interpretation understanding by the body of Christ the Symbole or signe thereof upon which our flesh seeds when we receive the Sacrament but if he understand the words of Tertullian properly as if our very flesh or stomach turned Christs Body into corporal nourishment and so really fed upon it to fatten or cheare our soules he makes Tertullian blaspheme and hee gives the lie to his Lord your selfe who page 65. in expresse tearmes affirme that in the Fucharist there is no violence offered to Christ his flesh in it selfe nor is it eaten to the end our bodies may thereby be nourished To affirme that the substance of our mortall body is nourished or increased by the flesh of Christ taken in the Sacrament is to make the Eucharist cibum ventris non mentis the foode of the belly not of the soule then which grosse conceit nothing can bee more absurd in the judgement of your owne Cardinall Bellarmine Tertullian disclaimes this carnall fancy in the very words alledged by your Chaplaine ut anima saginetur the flesh saith the Father feeds on the Body and Blood of Christ that the soule may bee fatted the soule not the body If hee demand how can the soule bee satisfied or fatted by the bread in the Sacrament if it bee not turned into Christs Body I answer out of the former words of Tertullian even as the soule is cleansed in Baptisme by washing the body with water though that water be not turned into Christs blood You have heard that Tertullian doth not so much as lispe in your language heare now how lowd hee speakes in ours The sense of the word saith he is to be taken from the matter for because they thought his speech hard and intolerable unlesse ye cate the flesh of the Sonne of man c. as if hee had appointed his flesh truly and in very deed to bee eaten of them he premised it is the Spirit which quickneth and a little after appointing his Word to be the quickner because his Word is spirit and life he called the same his flesh for the Word was made flesh therefore to be desired with an appetite to give and maintaine life in us to be eaten by hearing to be chewed by understanding to be digested by beleeving These words are so plaine that you cannot mistake the meaning of them and if you should goe about to draw them to any carnall sense or eating Christ with the mouth he will checke you in the words following where he saith that Christ used an allegorie in this place now an allegorie is a figure in which an other thing is to be understood divers from that which the words import taken in the usuall and proper sense Doubtlesse he who held the bread at the Lords Table to be a representation of Christs body and the wine a memoriall of his blood beleeved not that the bread was turned into his body or the wine into his blood for no picture is the life it selfe no memoriall is of a thing present but absent But Tertullian called bread that whereby Christ represented his owne body taking the word represent in the same sense which Saint Bernar doth As Christ after a sort is sacrificed every day when we shew forth his death so he seemeth to be borne whilest we faithfully represent his birth As the figure signe or that whereby any thing is represented or set before the eye is not the thing it selfe so neither a monument or a memoriall of our friend is our friend the wine therefore which Tertullian saith Christ consecrated for a memoriall of his blood cannot bee his very blood The same Father in his booke of the flesh of Christ smiled at the heretickes who imagined Christ to have flesh hard without bones solid without muscles bloody without blood c. They saith he that fancy such a Christ as this that deceiveth and deludeth all mens eyes and senses and touchings should not bring him from heaven but fetch him rather from some jugglers box I trow hee meant not your Popish Pix yet sure such a flesh it encloseth hard if it bee so without bones solid without muscles and bloody without blood for you say Christs blood is there and shâ—…d too and yet tear me your Masse an unbloody sacrifice I take you to be so ingenuous that you would not belie your senses I am sure you will confesse that you see nothing in the pyx but the whitenesse of bread in the Chalice but the rednesse of wine no flesh or blood colour in either You tast nothing but bread in the one and the sapour of wine in the other you touch no soft flesh with your hand nor quarrie blood with your lips or tongue But I inferre out of Tertullian You must not question the truth of your senses lest thereby you weaken the sinewes of our faith lest peradventure the heretickes take advantage thereupon to say that it was not true that Christ saw Satan fall like lightning from heaven that it is not true that he heard a voice from heaven but the sense was deceived Were not the senses competent judges of their proper objects even in the case we are now putting viz. the discerning Christs true body Christ would never have appealed to them as hee doth Behold my hands and my feet that is I my selfe handle me and see for a Spirit hath not flesh and bones as you see me have I have given a touch hitherto but upon singâ—…e testimonies as it were
single strings now in the close listen to a chord So Christ hath revealed unto us calling bread his body whose body the Prophet prefigured in bread Christ is our bread because Christ is our life and life is our bread I am saith he the bread of life as also because his body is accounted for bread taking the bread he said this is my body when therefore we pray for our daily bread we desire to continue in Christ and never to be severed from his body And against Marcion So God revealed in your Gospell calling bread his body And againe why doth hee call bread his body c. But I assume bread cannot be Christs body in the proper sense because disperate substances cannot properly bee predicated one of the other therefore when Christ spake these words This is my Body which Tertullian constantly and perpetually silleth up thus this bread is my body he used a Metonymie called signatum pro signo or figuratum pro figura which quite overthroweth your carnall presence and beateth you out of your strongest fort the words of Christs holy institution which you would have to be taken according to the letter Thus you see Tertullian is clearely against you and you are foyled in the first argument PAR. 10. Thirty three allegations out of S. Austin against Transubstantiation vindicated and all objections made by the adversarie out of him answered SO are you also in the second which you propound amisse Saint Austin in his third booke de doctrina Christiana saith that speech of our Saviour unlesse you eate the flesh of the Sonne of man Iohn the 6. c. is figurative therfore the other this is my body is so too Quem recitas meus est o Fidentine libellus Sed malè dum recitas incipit esse tuus The argument was mine but by your mis-reporting it and mis-applying the consequent to the antecedent you make it yours Thus I connected this argument to the former there are two Texts in the Gospell upon which you relie either principally or onely for your carnall presence of Christs body in the Sacrament under the formes of bread and wine The former Mat. 26. 26. I have proved out of Tertullian yeelds your doctrine no support and you are driven in effect to confesse as much subscribing with your owne hand Ego agnosco quod in his verbis hoc est corpus meum est figura I acknowledge the words of Institution to be figurative Now I will prove that in like manner the words of our Saviour Iohn 6. 53. are to be taken in a figurative and improper sense and consequently that the proper eating Christs flesh with the mouth cannot be inferred from them For proofe of the antecedent I produced in the first place a passage out of Saint Austins third booke de doctrinâ Christianâ cap. 16. But if that Scripture seeme to command a sinne or an horrible wickednesse or to forbid any thing that is good and profitable the speech is figurative for example when he saith unlesse ye eate the flesh of the Sonne of man and drinke his blood ye have no life in you he seemeth to command a sinne or horrible wickednesse there is a figure therefore in the words commanding us to communicate with the Lord his Passion and sweetly profitably to lay it up in our memory That his flesh was crucified and wounded for us Here said I three things are very remarkeable to the point now in question 1. That Saint Austin maketh choice of these words of our Saviour as of a most knowne instance of a figurative speech 2. That he not onely affirmeth it to be a figurative speech but confirmeth it also by a strong argument figura est Ergo it is therefore a figure 3. That he sheweth what figure it is end expoundeth the meaning of our Saviour in this figurative speech conformably to the doctrine of the Protestants and contrarie to all Romish glosses upon it To this allegation you answered partly by glancing at Saint Austins argument partly by glossing upon his conlusion First said you it is not a horrible thing to eate mans flesh unlesse it be eaten in the proper shape for it appeares in Mumme that mans flesh may be eaten without horrour when it is not eaten in the proper shape Secondly you distinguished of a figurative speech according to the thing eaten and according to the manner of eating it and said that the speech of Christ Iohn 6. according to Saint Austin was figurative according to the manner of eating to wit in the proper forme but that it was proper according to the matter viz. the substance of Christs flesh 1. Against your first answer to Saint Austins antecedent I replie 1. That whereas you pretend Saint Austin to bee for you you should not have disabled his argument but have defended it rather Now you evidently overthrow it For if it be not a horrible thing to eate mans flesh though under an other shape Saint Austins Ergo therefore our Saviours speech concerning eating his flesh must needs be figurative is a plaine non sequitur 2. Saint Cyril maketh good this argument of Saint Austins choaking his adversarie with this interrogatorie Dost thou pronounce the Sacrament to be a man eating and dost thou irreligiously urge the mindes of the faithfull to grosse and carnall imaginations You would have instructed Saint Cyril to have interrogated more warily dost thou pronounce the Sacrament to be the eating of a man in his proper shape Otherwise to eate a man under an other shape you would have whispered him in the eare is a schoole delicacie no carnall and grosse imagination 3. I affirme that it is an horrible thing to eate mans flesh and drinke his blood though in an other shape for it is not the disregard of the countenance of man or the disfiguring his shape which makes Anthropophagie or man eating so horrible a sinne but the making the flesh of one man the food of another and the belly a sepulcher This I make appeare by foure instances 1. Suppose at Rome or Venice on the day of your carnivals when many murthers are committed by men in disguised habits that one of the masquers or mummers slaine should be boyled or rosted and served in at table in the habit of a whiffler or masquer were it not a horrible wickednesse think you to eate of this mans flesh his head for example though with a vizard upon it and so I returne you a mummer for your mumme 2. If according to Iustins storie or Ovids fiction the members of a sonne were baked in a pie in the likenesse of venison with the proportion of a Deere printed on the crust were it not a horrible wickednesse for a Father to eate wittingly of his sonnes flesh though under another shape 3. What though a mans body in some fight were so mangled and battered that it had lost all humane shape would you warrant an
here receive you that in the bread which hung upon the Crosse here receive you that in the cup which flowed out of Christs side To all which allegations though I might shape one answer out of Saint I Austins owne words That in regard of the similitude betweene the signe and the things signified it is usuall in Sacramentall speeches to attribute the name of the thing signified to the signe So the Lambe is called the Passeover Circumcision the Covenant the Rocke Christ the Bread his Body and the Wine his Blood and price of our Redemption With this one brush reached unto me by Saint Austin I might whiten all the walls you point unto yet partly out of respect to your selfe but especially to S. Austin I will take speciall notice of every place and passage above mentioned Your first allegation is like a leaden sword it boweth either way for as you bow it towards you by urging that Saint Austin must needs speake of corporall and proper eating because he addeth the words with the mouth so I may as easily bow it the contrarie way by arguing that he must needs speake of spirituall eating because he addeth with a faithfull heart As the mouth cannot receive Christ spiritually so neither can the heart receive Christ corporally Saint Austin therefore as hee speakes there of a double organ the heart and the mouth ' so he speaketh also of a double eating Spiritually and Sacramentally and the meaning of the whole sentence is this we receive with a faithfull heart spiritually and with the mouth Sacramentally the Body and Blood of the Mediator betwixt God and Man the Man Christ Jesus Your second allegation is like Sir Philip Sidneys emblem which was the word hope written in large golden characters but dasht through with a pen. When Saint Austin uttered these words a man may be carried in another mans hands but no man is carried in his own hands we finde not how it can be understood of David but we finde how it may bee understood of Christ for hee carried his Body in his owne hands when he said This is my body hee gave you great hope that he was strong for your carnall presence but when afterwards resuming his former words he thus glosseth upon them when hee commended his Body and Blood hee tooke into his hands that which the faithfull know and hee carried himselfe after a sort when he said This is my Body He dasheth all your hope for hee expoundeth quodammodo as Gratian teacheth you out of his 23. Ep. ad Bonifac non rei veritate sed significante mysterio not in the truth of the thing but in a signifying mystery de 3. consect dist 2. Your third allegation hurteth us not at all for wee acknowledge both as Altar and an Host in the Fathers senseâ—… to wit mysticall or representative in memory of that one most proper Host and sacrifice offered once for all upon the Crosse for the crossing of the hand writing against us though we cannot allow of your Masse Altar and Host wherein Christ existing on earth and covered with the formes of Bread and Wine is said in his very substance by you not Saint Austin to be offered up to God his Father Your fourth allegation out of the 59. tract upon Iohn is like Dido her sword wherewith shee ran her selfe through Non hos quaesitum munus in usus For if the other Apostles who brought Faith and Repentance with them received bread the Lord but Judas who brought neither received panem Domini onely not panem Dominum not bread which was the Lord two things hereupon necessarily ensue First that none can receive Christ the Lord or panem Dominum without faith Secondly that bread is not turned into Christs body for then Iudas could not receive panem Domini but hee must needs have riceived panem Dominum Your fift allegation out of the 162. Epist. of Saint Austin is already answered that Saint Austin called the wine which Iudas received Christs blood and the price of our redemption because it was the Sacrament thereof so he expoundeth himselfe in the words following Hee gave the Sacrament of his Body and Blood in common to all his Disciples not excluding Judas Your sixt and last allegation is like a piece of coyne full weight but of counterfeit mettall the Sermon ad Neophytos is not Saint Austins as your Parisians note neither are there in it any such words as you quote By this time you perceive that your few allegations out of Saint Austin are partly forged partly forced and yet come not home to your carnall presence by Transubstantiation whereas on the contrarie the testimonies we produce out of Saint Austine are very many and those most undoubted free cleare and pregnant for the doctrine of our Church concerning the body of Christ given taken and eaten in the Supper onely after an heavenly and spirituall manner by faith I reduce them all to sixe heads 1. The conveniencie betweene the Sacraments of the Old and New Testament 2. The difference betweene the signe and the thing signified 3. The figurative sense of Christs words 4. The true Communicants at Christs Table 5. The necessary dependance of accidents on their subjects 6. The limitation of Christs humane bodie to one place at once Touching the first If the Fathers under the Law and wee under the Gospell in the Sacrament receive the same thing in truth and substance it followeth that we receive not Christs flesh with the mouth after a carnall manner but onely by faith after a spirituall for before Christs Incarnation the Fathers could no otherwise receive it But the Fathers under the Law in their Sacraments and wee under the Gospell in ours receive the same thing in truth and substance as Saint Austin teacheth they did eate the same spirituall meate What is the same the selfe same with us And in his 26 Treatise upon the 6. of Saint Iohn Manna signified this bread their Sacraments and ours were divers in the signes but equall in the thing signified heare the Apostle I would not saith he have you ignorant how that all our Fathers were under the cloud and alâ—… passed through the Sea anâ—… did all eate the same spirituall meate Marke the saâ—… spirituall meate For theâ—… ate not the same corporâ—… meate they ate Mannâ—… we eate another thing bâ—… they ate the same spirituâ—… meate which we eate and they all dranke the same spirituall drinke they dranke one thing and wee another according to outward appearance or in visible forme which yet signified the selfe same thing in spirituall vertue How did they drinke the same spirituall drinke He telleth they dranke of the spirituall Rocke which followed them which Rocke was Christ. Ergo according to Saint Austin wee eate not Christs flesh in the Sacrament with the mouth after a carnall manner but onely by faith after a spirituall Touching the
second No signe Sacrament figure or memoriall of Christs body and blood is his very body and blood for signum signatum the signe and the thing signified the type and the truth are relatively opposed and therefore no more can the one be the other then the Father bee the Sonne or the Master the Servant or the Prince the Subject or the Husband the Wife in so much that Saint Chrysostome concludeth that Melchizedeck could not be a Type of Christ if all things incident to the truth that is Christ himselfe were found in him And Saint Austin apparantly distinguisheth betweene Sacramentum and rem Sacramenti and affirmeth that every signe signifieth something els then it selfe And that it is a miserable servitude of the soule to takâ—… the signes for the thing themselves For the signe of truths are one thing 〈◊〉 themselves and signifie anâ—…ther They are visibâ—… Seales but things invisible are honoured in them But that which we take at the Lords Table is a Mystery a Sacrament a Signe a Figure a Memoriall of Christs Body and Blood Ergo that which wee receive in the Lords Supper is not the very Body and Blood of Christ after your sense Touching the third If the words which our Saviour spake concerning the eating of his flesh and drinking his blood recorded by the foure Evangelists and Saint Paul are to be taken Sacramentally Spiritually and Figuratively and not in the proper sense which the letter carrieth nothing can be from them concluded for the eating the very flesh of Christ with the mouth for so to eate the flesh of Christ is to eate it corporally not Sacramentally carnally not spiritually properly not figuratively wheras to believe in Christs Incarnation to bee partaker of the benefits of his Passion to abide in him and to be preserved in body and soule to eternal life which are the interpretations Saint Austin giveth is not to eate Christ flesh properly but onely in an allegoricall sense But the words which our Saviour spake concerning the eating of his flesh in the judgement of Saiâ—… Austin are to bee taken Sacramentally Spiritually and figuratively For the words which our Saviour spake of this argument are either the words of the institution related by the three Evangelists and Saint Paul or they are set downe by Saint Iohn Chap. 6. The former Saint Austin affirmeth to bâ—… 〈◊〉 spâ—…llyâ—…d â—…d Sacramentally 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 booke against 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 12 and in his Commentary upon the 98. Psalme and in his 23. Epist. to Boniface and in his 33. Sermon upon the words of ouâ—… Lord the latter he expoundeth in like sort figurativeâ—…y in his 3. book de doct Christi c. 16. in his 2. Sermon of the words of the Apostle and in his 33. Sermon de verbis Dom. And in his 25. and 26. Tractats upon Saint Iohn All these passages are wel knowne to the Learned and although you cast a mist before some of them yet it will easily bee dispelled and the beames of truth in this holy Fathers Writings discover themselves so clearely that they will dazle all your eyes What words can be more conspicuous then those of this Father I coulâ—… interpret that precept of not eating blood figuratively understanding by blood that which it figureth for our Lord doubted not to say This is my Body when hee gave the signe of his body Here the antecedents possem dicere hoc praeceptum in figurâ positum esse and the words non dubitavit clearely demonstrate Saint Austins meaning to bee that though it might seeme harsh to call the bread which is a signe of Christs body his body as the blood of a beast slaine the soule yet by a figure Christ made no scruple so to tearme it Doubtlesse the blood of any beast slaine is neither properly the soule of that beast nor a signe of a soule present in it no more by Saint Austins comparing these Texts together is bread Christs body nor a signe of his body present in it but onely a Sacrament and memoriall thereof The next passage is as cleare You are not to eate that body which you see nor to drinke that blood which they will shed who crucifie me I have commended unto you a certaine Sacrament or mystery which being spiritually understood will quicken you And although it ought to be celebrated visibly yet it ougâ—…t to be understood invisibâ—… Put the parts of the sentence together and the meaning of the whole will be evidently this that which you are to eate and drinke is not my very body which you now see and the Jewes shall pierce and crucifie but a visible Sacrament thereof Which yet received with faith in my bloody death through the power of the Spirit shall quicken you If there could bee any obscurity in this passage it is cleared in the next When Easter is neare saith he we say tomorrow or the day following Christ suffered whereas hee suffered but once and that many yeares agoe so wee say on the Lords day this day the Lorâ—… rose whereas many yeareâ—… are past since hee rose why is no man so foolish as 〈◊〉 charge us with a lie in sâ—… speaking but because weâ—… call these daies according 〈◊〉 the similitude of those daies in which these things were done and say thâ—…s is such a day which is not that day but in the revolution of time is like unto it and that is said to be done that day by reason of the celebration or mysterie of the Sacrament which was not done that day but long before Was not Christ once offered in himselfe and yet in the Sacrament he is not onely offered at Easter but every day neither doth he lie who being asked shall answer that he is offered For if Sacraments had not a resemblance of those things whereof they are Sacraments they should not bee Sacraments at all Now in regard of this resemblance for the most part they take the name of the things themselves As therefore the Sacrament of Christs body after a sort is Christs body the Sacrament of his blood is his blood so the Sacrament of faith hee meanes there Baptsime is faith But I assume Good-Friday last past was not the very day of Christs Passion nor the last Lords day the day of his Resurrection nor the celebration of the Sacrament the very offering of Christ on the Crosse nor Baptisme the very habit or doctrine of faith but so tearmed onely by a figure to wit a Metonymie therefore neither is that of which Christ said This is my Body his body in propriety of speech but onely so tearmed by a figure because it is the Sacrament and resemblance of his body For all these speeches Saint Austin in this Epistle makes to bee like I know not what can be more plaine except the words of the same Father Christ gave the Supper consecrated with his own hands
to his Disciples wee sate not together with him in that banquet and yet we eate daily the selfe same Supper by faith Eating by faith is not eating by the mouth for faith is of things not seene what wee eate with the mouth is seene You have heard what Saint Austin conceived of the words of the institution and that his judgement was the same of the words of Christ Iohn the 6. It appeares by these passages ensuing Why dost thou prepare thy teeth and thy bellie beleeve and thou hast eaten To eate the flesh of Christ and drinke his blood is to abide in Christ and to have Christ abiding in himselfe and againe Christ speaketh of him who eates inwardly not outwardly he that feeds on him in the heart not hee which presseth him with his teeth Prepare not therefore saith hee thy chops but thy heart I omit the testimonie out of the third booke de doct Christ. c. 16. figura est ergo c. because it hath beene before fully discussed and I conclude out of all these joynt allegations like many starres iâ—… the same constellation Ergo the words which our Saviour spake concerning the eating of his flesâ—… in the words of the institution and in the 6. of Iohâ—… conclude nothing for the eating the very flesh oâ—… Christ corporally with the mouth Touching the fourth If none are true Communicants at the Lord Table but true beleeveâ—… certainely the Bread and Wine are not turned into the very body and blood of Christ. Were they so wicked men hypocrites and reprobates who are sometimes present at the Lords Table and receive the sacred Symboles with their mouth must needs also eate Christs very body unlesse our Adversaries will feigne a second Transubstantiation of Christs body backe againe into bread as soone as ever a wicked hand lip or tooth toucheth it which as yet no Papist hath beene so hardie as once to opine For then they know wee will come upon them with a new demand by what operatorie words of Christ is this second Transubstantiation wrought But none are true Communicants at the Lords Table or eate his very body but beleevers who are also members of his body in Saint Austins judgement They are onely Catholickes and such who are set or incorporated into Christs body who eate his body not Sacramentally only but in truth For wee must not say that hee eates Christs body who is not in his body The wicked are in no sort to be said to eate Christs body because they are not members of his body Christ himselfe when he saith he that eateth my flesh and drinketh my blood abideth in me and I in him thereby sheweth what is truly and not Sacramentally onely to eate Christs body and drinke his blood and that no man eateth his body or drinketh his blood that abideth not in Christ and Christ in him And againe he saith he that disagreeth from Christ neither eateth his flesh nor drinketh his blood though to his owne condemnation for his presumption he daily receive indâ—…tly the Sacrament of so great a thing Hee beates againe upon the same point To eate Christs body is to bee refreshed and so to bee refreshed that it never faileth whence thou art refreshed to drinke that Christs blood what is it but to live eate life drinke life and thou shalt have life but then or upon this condition the Body and Blood of Christ shall bee life to every one if that which is eaten visibly in the Sacrament be spiritually eaten and drunke in the truth it selfe And the Sacrament hereof that is of the unity of Christs Body and Blood is taken at the Lords Table by some to life by others to destruction but the thing it selfe whereof it is a Sacrament that 〈◊〉 Christs body is received by every one to life and by none to destruction whosoever is partaker thereof For after Christ had said he that eateth my flesh and drinketh my blood hath eternal life hee presently addeth and I will raise him up at the last day And a little after hee expoundeth what it is to eate his body and drinke his blood Saying he that eates my flesh and drinkes my blood abides 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and I in him this is therefore to eate that fleâ—… and drinke that drinke for a man to abide in Christ and to have Christ abiding 〈◊〉 him and consequently 〈◊〉 that abideth not in Christ nor Christ in him withot doubt doth not eate his flesh nor drinke his blood spiritually though carnally and visibly with his teeth he crusheth the Sacrament of Christs body I forbeare to presse here our allegation out of the 59. Tract upon Iohn concerning Iudas eating panem Domini and not panem Dominum the bread of the Lord not bread the Lord because I have retorted it before upon S. E. and out of all these places I conclude Ergo the Bread and Wine according to Saint Austin after consecration are not the very body and blood of Christ. The Syllogisme which hath beene proposed at large with frequent testimonies out of Saint Austin to confirme the Assumption may bee thus contracted No wicked men or reprobates eate Christs body Some wicked men and reprobates eate the bread after the consecration Ergo the bread after the consecration is not Christs body Touching the fist Whosoever holdeth the doctrine of Transubstantiation beleeveth that accidents may subsist without their subjects For Transubstantiation as your Church defineth is a mutation or turning of the whole substance of bread into the whole substance of Christs body and the whole substance of the wine into the substance of Christs blood the accidents of bread and wine still remaining viz. The whitenesse thicknesse roundnesse and tast of the bread the thinnesse moysture colour and relish of the wine with the quantity of both Their owne subject being gone where sticke or inhere these accidents in the ayre or Christs bodie you cannot say either For every accidentall forme denominateth the subject in which it is inherent according to that axiome of Logick quicquid in est in dicitur de But neither Christ his body nor the ayre is denominated by these accidents neither the ayre nor Christs body hath the colour quantity figure or tast of bread or wine Neither the ayre nor Christs body is white or round like a wafer c. It remaineth therefore that according to your tenet that these accidents remaine in no subject But Saint Austin beleeved not that accidents can subfist without their subjects For hee defineth an accident to be that which is in a subject not as a part thereof neither can it ever bee without the subject he expressely affirmeth if the quantity or bulke of a body be it bigger or lesser be taken away the qualities cannot have any subsistence And in his Soliloquies hee hooteth at the contrary assertion as most absurd and monstrous Who would deeme
it possible saith hee that that which is in a subject should remaine when the subject is taken away it is a monstrous thing and most repugnant to reason that that which hath no being but in a subject should yet be when the subject is not That which you adore as a miracle Saint Austin blesseth himselfe from as from a monster and indeed it is a monstrous thing and prodigious to heare of quantity and nothing big or litle of whitenesse in the Sacrament and nothing white thicknesse and nothing thicke rednesse and nothing red moisture and nothing moist it goeth beyond all the fictions in Ovid his Metamorphosis to turne accidents into substance and substance into accidents to talke of meere accidents broken eaten digested and voided to tell us of accidents putrified and growing finwood and mouldie and breeding vermine of accidents frozen and congealed nay of accidents not onely subsisting by themselves but also supporting substance as when dirt stickes to the Sacrament through negligence it having fallen to the ground or when poyson hath beene put into it wherewith Uictor the third and Henry the fourth of Luxenburg tooke their baine It will not serve your turne here to flie to a miracle as Homer when he is at a stand doth to a cloud For S. Austin ex professo denies the Sacraments to be miraculous The Sacraments which are knowne of men and administred by men may have reverence as holy things not admiration we cannot bee astonished at them as at miracles But your doctrine of Transubstantiation cannot be maintained without more miracles then there are letters in the words of consecration from whence I conclude Ergo Saint Austin beleeved not the doctrine of Transubstantiation Touching the sixt Whosoever teacheth that Christs body is confined to a certaine place and there is after the manner of other bodies with distinction of parts overthroweth the doctrine of Transubstantiation For your doctrine of Transubstantiation putteth Christs body upon a Million of Altars at once and teacheth that it is whole in the whole and whole in every part of the host being there as invisible so also indivisible But Saint Austin teacheth that Christs body is confined to one place at once and is there after the manner of other bodies with distinction of parts or as the Logitians speake parte extra partem First in generall hee layes downe this rule place compasseth every body and how great or small soever a body be it takes up some space of place and so fills that place that it is whole in no one part of it And take away saith hee the spaces of places from bodies and they will bee no where and because they will bee no where they will not bee at all and in the same Epistle bodies so possesse places with their bulke that they cannot beâ—… together in distant spaces And because the severa parts of them hold severa spaces of places the lesse parts lesser and the greate greater it cannot be whoâ—… in each part but there is larger quantity in large parts and a shorter in tâ—… shorter and in no part is thâ—… quantity so great as it through the whole An in particular concerning Christs body he affirmeth that the condition of a trâ—… body requireth that sinâ—… his Ascention it be placed is some certaine place of thâ—… heaven and that one oneâ—… at once Till the end of thâ—… world the Lord is above and yet his truth is here wiâ—… us for our Lords body in which hee rose from the dead must be in one place his truth is every where The poore you have alwaies with you but me you shall not have alwaies Let good men receive this saying without feare For he spake this of the presence of his body For according to his providence according to his unspeakeable and visible grace that is fulfilled which was spoken by him Behold I am with you to the end of the world Christ being absent yet is present he is gone and yet hee is here he is returned and yet hath not forsaken us for his body hee hath brought into heaven his Majesty he hath not taken from the world Neither will your common answer hold water that Christs bodie naturally is but in one place yet by miracle it may be and is in so many thousand places at once as the Sacrament is celebrated for 1. Wee ought not to argue from the power of God to his will but on the contrarie from his will to his power whatsoever hee will doe he can doe but hee can doe many things which hee never will Proove that hee will put his body in a 1000 places at once and we will never contest with you about his power 2. I before shewed you out of Saint Austin that the Sacraments are to be reverenced as holy things not to be admired as strange and marvellous signes they are of grace which are properly called mysteries not signa potentiae which are properly called miracles The effect indeed of this Sacrament in the soules of the faithfull as also of the other is supernaturall yet as the Water in Baptisme is not by miracle turned into Christs blood so neither is the bread in the Lords Supper by miracle turned into his body 3. Saint Austin in this 50. Tract upon Iohn useth an argument like to that of the Angell Mat. 286. He is not here for hee is risen Christ according to his flesh is not now with us because hee is ascended into heaven which reason if it hath any force at all must imply and presuppose that Christs body at the same time could not bee in heaven and upon earth 4. This Father in his 20 booke against Faustus the Maniches concludeth not onely that Christs body was not in more places at once but that it could not bee The Dilemma there he useth against them is this When you Manichees beleeve that Christ was at once in the Sunne the Moone and the Crosse whether meane you according to his spirituall presence as God or according to his corporall presence as man if you speake of his spirituall presence according to that hee could not suffer those things if of his corporall presence according to it he could not be at once in the Sunne in the Moone and in the Crosse. Certainely if in Saint Austins judgement Christs Body could not be in three places at once it can much lesse bee in three millions of places where Masses are said at the same houre I conclude therefore this argument and this Chapter Ergo Saint Austin overthroweth your carnall presence of Christ in the Sacrament by Transubstautiation PAR. II. Twelve testimonies out of Origen against Transubstantiation vindicated and all objections out of him answered THe next ancient Doctor I claimed at the Conference for the doctrine of the reformed Churches concerning the Sacrament of the Lords Supper was Origen who in his seventh
Homilie upon Leviticus repeating those words of our Saviour unlesse ye eate the flesh of the Sonne of man and drinke his blood ye have no life in you saith of them if ye follow the letter that letter killeth To this allegation you answer That Origen speakes according to the capernaiticall letter that is according to the literall sense wherein the Capernaits did understand those words who as Saint Austin and Cyprian say thought our Saviour would have cut off some pieces from his body and given them to eate or that they were to eate it boyled or rosted But 1. You should have observed that Origen saith not if you follow the conceits of the Capernaits but if you follow the letter of Christ that is the sense which the letter of his words carrie Now there is never a word letter or sillable in Christs speech which signifieth or importeth boyling or rosting cutting or mangling These are but accidents to the eating of flesh flesh may bee eaten and that in the most proper acception of the phrase though it be neither boyled or rosted nor mangled Whosoever takes flesh raw or rosted whole or cut into his mouth cheweth it with his teeth and after conveigheth it into his stomacke truely and properly eateth that flesh Thus you doe in the Sacrament if Pope Nicolas prescribe not a wrong forme of recantation to Berengarius yet extant in your Canon Law I Berengarius doe beleeve the body of our Lord Iesus Christ to bee sensually or sensibly and in truth handled by the hands of the Priest broken and champt or torne in peeces by the teeth of the faithfull 2. You should have cast backe your eye to the precedent words of Origen which make it evidently appeare that he listened not to your Iewes harpe nor tooke the tune from the Capâ—…naits straine but that his meaning was that we ought to take the words of our Saviour in a spirituall and figurative sense and not in the carnall and proper For having related the words of those Jewes in Saint Iohn how shall this man give us his flesh to eate hee turneth to his Christian auditors saying But you if you are Children of the Church if you are instructed in the mysteries of the Gospell if the Word which was made flesh dwell among you acknowledge these things to be true which we say because they are the words of the Lord. Acknowledge that there are figures in the Scriptures and examine and understand those things that are spoken as spirituall men not as carnall for if you take these things as carnall they will hurt you and not nourish you for there is a letter that killeth in the Gospell as well as in the Law there is a letter in the Gospell which killeth him that understandeth it not spiritually and then follow the words above alleaged For if thou follow the letter in these words unlesse ye eate my flesh and drinke my blood the letter killeth Thus having freed this passage I might proceed to the examination of your next Section yet 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as before I have done in Tertullian and Saint Austin so I will now cleare other places in this Fathers Workes and proove him to be a thorough man for us every where I will follow the order of his bookes in the edition at Basil that you may speedily with a wet finger turne to every cotation First cast I pray you a looke to his ninth Homilie Thou who art come to Christ the true Priest who by his blood hath reconciled thee to his Father sticke not in the blood of the flesh but learne rather the blood of the Word and heare him saying to thee This is my blood which is shed for you for the remission of sinnes He who is instructed in the mystery of the Sacraments knoweth both the flesh and blood of the Word of God You who presse the letter and urge the carnall eating of the flesh of Christ with the mouth sticke in the blood of the flesh but we who feede on Christ by faith receive the blood of the Word and eate the flesh and blood of the Word of God in our heart according to Origens wholesome advise Secondly in his 16 Homily upon Numbers there is a passage paralell to this Who can eate flesh and drinke blood he answereth the Christian people the faithfull heare these words and embrace them unlesse ye eate my flesh and drinke my blood ye have no life in you because my flesh is meate indeed He that spake this was wounded for our sinnes and we are said to drinke his blood not onely in the rite of the Sacrament when we drinke of the consecrated cup but also when we receive his sayings in which life consisteth as himselfe saith the words which I have spoken unto you are spirit and life and a little after hee concludeth thou therefore art the true people of Israel which knowest how to eate the flesh and drinke the blood of the Word of God In this passage with one blow he cuts off both your carnall manducation and your halfe communion the people as you heare drinke of the blood of Christ both in the Sacrament and out of it but how with the mouth nay but by faith therefore he saith not that all Christian people drinke it but populus fidelis the people that hath faith in his words and by receiving his sayings drinke his blood both at the communion and at other times in hearing and reading the Word Thirdly he is constant in this his figurative and spirituall interpretation of the words of our Saviour in the 6. of Iohn for in his 23 Homilie upon the booke of Numbers he harpeth upon the same string Christ our Passeoveris offered for us let the Iewes in a carnall sense eate the flesh of a Lambe but let us eate the flesh of the Word of God for he saith unlesse ye eate my flesh ye have no life in you this that 〈◊〉 now speake is the flesh of the Word of God If you can eate words with your mouth and chew them with your teeth you may in Origens judgemen eate the flesh of Christ with your mouth but if you cannot do that then according to our English proverbiall speech eate your owne words and retract your grosse and carnall assertion Fourthly I presse you with a most materiall and considerable passage in Origen concerning the matter of bread which he calleth the typicall and symbolicall body of Christ and saith it goeth into the bellie and is cast out in the draught but for Christ himselfe and his flesh he saith that it is the true meate which whosoever eates shall live for ever which no wicked man can eate I am sure wicked men can and doe eate of the bread after consecration it is not then in Origens judgement Christs flesh I pray also resolve me what is that S. Origen calls the matter of bread which he
Iohannes de sacro Bosco with Astronomers Ptolomey with Cosmographers Peter Lumbard with Schoole Divines Iustinian with civill Lawyers the same in Gratian with Canonists And if before he were not an authenticall Author with you yet since the yeare 1580. in which by the authority of Gregory the fourteenth hee was revised and purged he must needs bee authenticall with you Howsoever it stands with Gratian because it may be your Dioces of Chalcedon is not governed by the Canon Law this testimony out of him is as a threefold cable which though you and your Chaplaine tugg never so hard at you will never bee able to breake for Gratian quoteth this out of the Sentences of Saint Austin gathered by his Schollar Saint Prosper Gratian is but the relater and approver S. Prosper or rather Saint Austin is the Author thereof and is not Saint Austin with you an authenticall Author Secondly upon better advise you admit of the authority of this testimony and shape a kinde of answer unto it that when Gratian out of Saint Austin denies the bread to be Christs body he meaneth the accidents of bread which are Sacramentum tantum the Sacrament onely and not in truth the body of Christ. This answer cannot stand for the accidents of bread are not panis much lesse coelestis panis heavenly bread or coeleste Sacramentum a heavenly Sacrament and lest of all Christs flesh therefore the former words cannot bee meant of the accidents but of the consecrated host What S. E. adds to piece out your answer that the accidents may be so called in regard of their reference to our Saviours bodie which they cover which reference is founded upon an heavenly action to wit consecration is unworthy the refutation for he begâ—… that which hee ought to proove that the accidents of bread cover our Saviours body this wee denie and I have disproved it in the former Section Besides he seemeth to be ignorant of your Church tenet which is that the words of consecration worke upon the substance of bread and turne it into Christs body not upon the accidents Thirdly the last answer which you or your Chaplaine give is worst of all viz. that the body of Christ on the Altar is a Sacrament of Christs visible and palpable body which hung on the Crosse for this is not onely an absurd and senselesse but also an hereticall and blasphemous solution 'T is absurd to make the same body numâ—…ro to be a Sacrament of it selfe t is all one as to say that the disease is the symptome of it selfe or the Ivy bush is a signe of it selfe or the face is the picture of it selfe or the substance is the shadow of it selfe A Sacrament as your Schooles out of Saint Austin define is a visible signe of an invisible grace how then I pray you can the flesh of Christ in the Sacrament which you teach to bee covered under the forme of bread and so to bee invisible bee a Sacrament of the visible flesh of Christ on the Crosse visible things may bee signes and Sacraments of invisible but it is a thing impossible that an invisible thing should bee the Sacramentall signe of a visible I would forgive your Chaplaine the absurdity and senselesnesse of his answer if there were not implied heresie in it against the fundamentall Article of our Creed 'T is flat heresie to affirme that Christ had more then one individuall humane bodie but if the body of Christ really and substantially and carnally present on the Altar is a Sacrament of his owne body then on the Crosse or now at the right hand of his Father then hee must have two bodies one visible and palpable on the Crosse when hee suffered and now in heaven and an other at this very instant invisible insensible and impalpable on the Altar Thus having made good our fort in Gratian I might passe to the next Section yet because your Armour-bearer S. E. will not yeeld us this fort but having produced some passages out of Gratian and the Glosse against us leaveth it to the Reader to judge with what conscience I cited them for our opinion I will out of this one distinction in Gratian produce so many pregnant testimonies for us that any indifferent Reader will marvell with what face you can denie him to bee ours For the Glosse which you reject with such scorne all that I will say shall bee this that although he lived in times of thickest darkenesse even in the midnight of Popery yet hee saw a glimmering of the truth in this point as appeareth by his note upon cap. ego Berengarius unlesse saith he thou dost understand the words of Berengarius in a good and sound or wholesome sense in which according to a forme prescribed him by Pope Nicolas hee confesseth Christs body to bee eaten in the Sacrament with the mouth torne with the teeth thou wilt fall into a worse heresie then his And upon cap. hoc est The heavenly Sacrament which is upon the Altar is improperly said to bee Christs body And upon cap. utrum sub figura It is unlawfull to devoure Christ with the teeth so saith Gratian here but a little above in the Chapter beginning I Berengarius the contrary is affirmed but there he speaketh hyperbolically and exceedeth the truth I grant you that in his notes upon some other Chapters hee seemeth to favour your Transubstantiation and contradict himselfe and so appeareth like the Glossae dissectae though in a farre other sense divided from himselfe But as for Gratian on whose Text he Commenteth who lived in times not altogether so corrupt hee saw the truth of this point concerning the spirituall eating of Christ in the Sacrament by faith and not with the mouth so clearely ac si solis radio descripta esset as if it had beene described before him with a beame of the Sunne For to let passe the cap. per acta in which by a decree of Calixtus he cashiereth your private Masses And the cap. Comperimus in which by a decree of Pope Gelasius he brandeth your halfe communion with the crime of Grandsacriledge 1. In the Chapter Tribus Pope Clemens gives charge to the Priest Deacon and Minister to keepe with feare and trembling the reliques of the fragments of Christs body what meaneth he I pray you by fragments hee cannot meane the fragments of accidents for accidents have no fragments or reliques neither can hee meane any broken parts of Christs very body for himselfe teacheth out of Austin c. qui that when wee eate we make not parts of Christs body but receive it integerrimè most intirely c. Quid sit It remaines therefore that by fragments reliques or remaines hee understandeth broken pieces of bread and if so the substance of bread remaineth in the judgement of Pope Clemens not onely after the consecration but also after the Communion 2. In the Chapter Quia
of the institution This is my Body are to bee taken in a tropicall and figurative sense is prooved 1. By testimonie of Scripture 2. By authority of Fathers namely Justin Martyr Irenaeus Clemens Alexandrinus Tertullian Cyprian Origen Athanasius Cyrillus Hierosolomitanus Ambrosius Epiphanius Hieronymus Cyrillus Alexandrinus Augustinus Chrysostomus Theodoretus Gaudentius Issidorus Oecumenius and Arnoldus Carmotensis 3. By the confession of our adversaries Gerson Gardiner Bellarmine 4. By force of reason NOw I will ascend from the troubled brooke to the spring from the Canon Law to the divine from Gratian to the Author of all grace Christ Jesus himselfe whose words This is my Body you lay as the ground whereon you build both your carnall presence and Transubstantiation and the sacrifice of the Masse and the adoration of the Host. But it will beare none of them nay rather as ground shaken by an earthquake it will utterly overthrow them all as may appeare by this Syllogisme If in this sentence This is my Body the meaning bee this Bread is my Body the speech cannot be proper but must of necessity bee figurative or tropicall But in this sentence This is my Body the meaning is This Bread is my Body Ergo this speech cannot be proper but must of necessity be figurative and tropicall and if so downe falls Transubstantiation built upon it and carnall presence built upon Transubstantiation and the oblation and adoration of the Host built upon the carnall presence In this Syllogisme the consequence of the Major is so evident that Cardinall Bellarmine affirmeth that it is impossible that bread should be called Christs Body otherwaies then by a figure for bread and Christs Body are things most divers and if disparate substances such as bread and Christs body are might be affirmed one of the other by the same reason wee might affirme something to bee nothing light to bee darkenesse and darkenesse to be light c. Bread is a substance inanimate Christs Body is animate bread of the figure of a loafe or wafer Christs Body of the figure of a man bread inorganicall or without orgaines or members Christs Body Organicall bread made of wheat flower Christs Body of Virgins blood bread therefore in propriety of speech can no more bee Christs Body then Christ himselfe a Vine or a Doore or a Way or a Rocke all which speeches our Adversaries themselves confesse to bee tropicall and figurative The Minor or Assumption is prooved foure manner of waies 1. By testimonie of Scripture 2. By the authority of Fathers 3. Confession of our Adversaries 4. Force of reason 1. The Text is plaine Christ tooke bread and blesseâ—… and brake and said This is my Body what hee tooke hee blessed â—…e brake hee gave of that he said This is my Body But hee tooke he blessed he brake he gave bread of bread therefore he said This is my Body When hee said Hoe or This hee pointed to something not to meere accidents as you confesse for then hee would have said hac not hoc these not this nor pointed he to his owne body sitting at Table for neither did the Apostles nor could they doubt whether the body sitting at Table were his body neither were there any coherence in the words take this bread breake and eate in remembrance of me for this is my body which you see sitting at table with you He pointed therefore to the substance of bread when he said hoc This and consequently the meaning of his words are This bread is my Body 2. You take an oath to expound Scriptures juxta unanimeÌ„ consensum Patrum according to the unanimous consent of Fathers and therefore unlesse you will incurre the censure of perjury you must allow of this interpretation of Christs words This is my Body that is This bread is my Body for so they are expounded by 1. Iustin Martyr The sanctified food which nourisheth our flesh and our blood by the change thereof into our nature we are taught to bee the flesh and blood of him that was incarnate for us Iesus Christ. 2. Irenaeus How did the Lord rightly if an other were his Father taking bread of this condition that is usuall amongst us confesse it to bee his body 3. Clemens Alexandrinus He blessed wine when hee said take drinke this is my blood 4. Tertullian So Christ taught us calling bread his Body 5. Origen Christ confesseth the bread to bee his body 6. Cyprian It was wine which Christ said to be his blood Epist. 76. Panem corpus suum vocat 7. Athanasius What is the bread Christs body 8. Cyrill Christ said of the bread This is my Body 9. Ambrose He delivered broken bread to his Disciples saying This is my Body 10. Saint Hierom. Let us heare that the bread which Christ brake and gave to his Disciples is his body as himselfe saith to salve his credit nay his faith First in this answer you contradict the Tenet of your Church and your selfe For if by hoc or this as the Fathers teach wee are to understand hic panis this bread and the sense of the whole is this bread is my body and bread here stands not for bread in substance but in appearance onely or in the exterior forme or that which is made of bread as your Chaplaine hath it then the words of institution are not taken in the proper sense but are absolutely and simply figurative which your selfe denies and Fisher the Jesuit of Transubstantiation Sess. 2. and Bellarmine of the Sacrament of the Eucharist the words this is my body ought to be taken and expounded properly not figuratively and Alfonsus a Castro and Sanctesius and Salmoron and Costorus and Gardinerus and Tonstallus and Panegyrolla and Roffensis and Suares and Uasques and other Papists named and confuted by Chamierus Secondly this your interpretation no better agreeth with the Fathers words then a wet mould doth with running mettall which makes it flie backe with a great force for instance Iustin Martyr in the words above cited by bread or food understandeth that whereby as hee saith our bodies are nourished quae mutata nutrit carnes nostras but that is not bread turned into Christs body for Christs body is no meate for the belly nor is it turned into our flesh Irenaeus speaketh of bread ejus conditionis quae secundum nos of bread that is usuall among us l. 4. c. 57. c. 34. of bread qui est c terra which is taken from the earth such is not super-substantiall bread or transubstantiated into Christs body Clemens by wine understandeth wine allegorically tearmed Christs blood 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 but that is not wine really turned into Christs blood for that is Christs blood in propriety of speech not by a Metaphor or Allegorie Tertullian as you expound him speaketh of bread which was vetus figura an antient figure of Christs body but that could not bee bread transubstantiated into his body
is transmuted into Christ body saith in the same Oration that Christs humane nature is transmuted into a divine excellencie And Gregory Nazienzes saith that by Baptisme we are transmuted into Christ. Theophylact who upon the 6. of Iohn saith the bread is transelementated into Christs body 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 saith that we are transelementated into Christ. You see therefore that neither Cyrils 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 nor Nyssenâ—… 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 nor Theopylact's 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 come home to your 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 they import no more then a spirituall 〈◊〉 Sacramentall change Were they 〈◊〉 bee taken in the most proper sense for a substantiall change yet would they not helpe you a whit for in the conversion of water into wine or the transmutation of one element into another the formes and accidents are changed but the common matter remaineth the same whereas in your Transubstantiation the whole matter and substance perisheth and the accidentâ—… onelâ—… remaine Thirdly I proove that the Pronoune hoc this standeth for hic panis by confession of our learned Adversaries Gerson wee must say that the Pronoune hoc demonstrateth the substance of bread Gardiner Christ saith plainely This is my Body pointing to bread Bellarmine The Lord tooke bread blessed it and gave it to his Disciples and of it said This is my Bodie Fourthly I proove it by force of reason when this Pronoune hoc is uttered it must signifie something then existent but that could not be Christs body under the accidents of bread for vour selves teach that the bread is not turned into Christs body till the last instant in which the whole proposition is uttered it remaineth therefore that the Pronoune hoc stands for haec accidentia which yee all disclaime or hic panis this bread as then unaltered Hereunto you answer that hoc doth signifie and suppose not for that instant in which it is uttered but for the end of the proposition when the praedicatum is in being as when I say this is a crosse and make it withall the word this doth suppose for the crosse not which is when the word this is uttered but which is within the whole time that I speak so when I say taceo I doe not signifie that I speake not while I am uttering this word but that I am silent when I have done uttering So saith your Chaplaine in these operative speeches of our Saviour Lazarus come forth young man arise the words Lazarus and young man did not signifie persons existent then precisely when they were uttered but when the speeches were compleat If Sophistry were the science of salvation these knack and querkes of wit might be in high esteeme wheras they no more befit Divinity then it would become grave Cato to cut many a crosse-caper I might justly remand you your Chaplaine to the disputations in parvis where such cummin as this is tithed or rather such gnats streigned by puneys in Logick yet because you shall not say that I let passe any apex or title in your booke I will examine all these your instances To which I replie first in generall that you beg what you ought to prove and use a base fallacie in all this diâ—…â—…d petitio principij you take it for granted that these words of our Saviour This is my Body are practicall in your sense that is worke a substantiall and miraculous change which we denie and you will never be able to make good proofe of For first bare words as they are words have no operative power much lesse a vertue to worke miracles which cannot be effected without the imployment of the divine Omnipotencie Secondly words that are practicall that is used by God or men as instruments to produce any effect of this nature are imperative or uttered in the imperative mood as Be thou cleane receive thy sight Lazarus come forth young man arise sile obmutesce and the like not in the indicative as This is my Body This is my Blood Thirdly the words of themselves can no more proove the bread to bee turned into Christs Body then the accidents For certaine it is and conâ—…sed on all sides that when hee uttered these words This is my Body he pointed to that which he held in his hands which was a substance clothed with the accidents colour quantity tast and the like But your selves confesse that by vertue of these words This is my Body the accidents are not turned into Christs Body therefore neither can it be prooved that by vertue of these words Thâ—… is my Body the substance of bread is turned into Christs Body In particular to your first instance in a Crosse which at the same instant you make and say this is a Crosse. I answer first that if you could proove Christ had a purpose to make his Body in your sense as you have to make a Crosse when you say this is a Crosse and make it withall this instance of yours were considerable but till you proove the former 't is nothing to the purpose Secondly either you have made the Crosse with your fingers before or at the instant when you say this or els your speech this is a Crosse if it be true is figurative the present tense est being taken pro proximè futuro that is for the time immediatly ensuing upon the uttering of your words To your second instance in the word taceo I hold my peace I answer that if you will make a proposition of it you must resolve it into ego sum tacens I am silent and then the subject I is in being when this word I is uttered and likewise the praedicatum silent is in being as soone as the word is uttered Howbeit in ordinary and vulgar speech taceo is taken for jam nunc tacebo I hold my peace thaâ—… is I will utter not a word more To your third instance in Lazarus and the young man I answer that either Christ by a Metonymie partis pro toto called Lazarus his soule or his body by the name of the whole Lazarus or if Christs speech be proper that both Lazarus and the young man at that very instant when Christ called them were persons existent their soules being returned to their bodies For though the one came not forth out of his grave nor the other arose till after our Saviours speech was compleat and ended yet I say and you shall never be able to disproove it that at the same moment when Christ called Lazarus Lazarus was in being and so likewise the young man and the damsell In a proposition every part or word is vox significativa as soone as it is uttered as you may learne out of Aristotles booke de interpretatione and S. Austin his Dialogue with Adeodatus therefore as soore as this Pronoune hoc is uttered it must then signifie something then being A proposition is a complexum like to a heape or a number
of three graines whereof though the number bee not compleat till the actuall adding of the third graine yet hath every graine his existence when it is first laid if the parts of the proposition signified not the parts of our conception the whole could not signifie the whole that which is in speech a proposition is in the understanding a composition and the simpleâ—… must needs bee presupposed existent before we can actually compound them If this will not satisfie you I leave yoâ—… to Cardinall Bellarmine and the Trent Catechisme and Solmeron to be better informed in this point both of Grammer and Divinity Solmeron affirmeth with a profectò and full asseveration that the speech of him who in drawing a circle doth say this is a circle cannot without trope or figure be judged true The Fathers of the Councell of Trent in a Catechisme set forth by the commandement of Pope Pius the fift affirme directly against you and your Chaplaine that such is the force of this word hoc that it demonstrateth the substance of a thing present Cardinall Bellarmine taketh you also to taske relates your opinion and professedly refuteth it Some Catholickes saith he answer that in such propositions which signifie that which is then done when it is spoken the demonstrative pronounes doe not demonstrate that which is but that which will be and they give these examples as if one drawing a line or circle saith this is a line this is a circle as also the pronoune ought to bee expounded in those words of Christ Iohn the 15. This is my commandement You cannot but say that this is your very opinion and the grounds you lay downe for it Now observe I pray you how punctually the Cardinall answers them Although saith he the pronoune demonstrative demonstrate a thing future when there is nothing present which may be demonstrated by it as in the former â—…xamples Yet if a man should point to something with his finger when hee uttereth the pronoune hoc or this it seemes to be very absurd to say that the pronoune this doth not demonstrate something present But our Lord tooke bread and reaching it said Take eate this is my Body hee seemes therefore to have demonstrated bread neither is it any thing against 〈◊〉 which they alleadge for themselves that a proposition doth not signifie till tâ—… end of the proposition when the whole is uttered for though that be true of a preposition which is a kinde of Oration yet the demonstrative pronounes presently signifie some certaine thing even before the other words follow verily 't is exceeding harsh to say that in these words Drinke ye all of this the pronoune this doth not demonstrate the thing which then was bâ—… onely that which should be afterwards Lastly whether hoc signifie as soone as it is uttered or after the whole proposition is pronounced I demand of you what it signifieth not these accidents for the accidents are not Christs Body Aquinas Suarez and Bellarmine not onely reject that Exposition but also brand it with the name of a most absurd conceit Of the same judgement are Sotâ—… and Iansenius If the pronoune hoc demonstrate not accidents it must demonstrate the substance either of bread then or Christs Body if the substance of bread then is there in the words necessarily a Tropologie if of Christs Body then you make of them a Tautologie or Battologie And here againe you sticke in the mudd and though your Chaplaine labour with might and maine to pull you out of it yet hee plucks you not out but you draw him in and both are swallowed up in the same quagmire For if this your interpretation bee admitted this body of mine is my body these absurdities will necessarily insue upon it First that these words are not consecratory Secondlâ—… that they are not at all 〈◊〉 Thirdly that they are not argumentative or 〈◊〉 Fourthly that they are meere Identicall and â—…ugatorie 1. Consecratorie words are such whereby something which before was common is made sacred according to the words of Saint Austin accedit verbum ad elementum fit Sacramentum But if the meaning of these words This is my Body be this body of mine is my body nothing by them of common is made sacred For Christs body was never common but alwaies most sacred and by your explication hoc this hath no reference to bread but to Christs bodie 2. You teach generally that these words of the institution are not contemplative but practick and operatorie that is they effect what they signifie and indeed upon this hinge hangâ—… all your doctrine of Transubstantiation and carnall presence but glossing the words with your paraphrase viz. This body is my body you breake downe this hinge For all words which are operatory or practicke produce something by their prolation which was not before but Christs body was his body before the prolation of these words therefore by the prolation of these words it is not made If you answer as your Chaplaine doth that Christ by these words made not indeed his body yet thereby hee made his body to bee under the shape of bread you quite overthrow your doctrine of TransubstantiatioÌ„ For the putting a body which was existent before in a place or under a shape where it was not before as for example a candle under a bushell or a picture under a curtaine or a face under a maske is a translocation or transposition or alteration of habit or whatsoever rather then a Transubstantiation This your acute Schoolemen well saw Aureolus Vasques and Suarez and therefore contend for a new production of Christs body in the Sacrament For a meere succeeding of it in the place of bread or union thereof with the accidents or bringing it to and placing it on the Lords Table will not inferre a Transubstantiation their reasons are good Aureolus thus argues when one thing precisely succeeds another it is not true to say that that thing to which another succeedeth doth come and is converted into that which succeedeth that thing doth not passe into another which ceaseth to be before it come to that other as for example wee say not that the Sea or a river passeth into another which is dried up before it can come to it as you say the substance of bread is abolisht before the substance of Christs body succeed Vasques thus impugneâ—… your assertion if Christs body bee 〈◊〉 produced de novo but onely united and applied to the Sacramentall signes to which it was not before this union by whatsâ—…ver meanes it bee wrought is onely accidentall and consequently cannot make 〈◊〉 substantiall conversion Suarez driveâ—… this nayle to the head by a meere addictive action whereby Christs body 〈◊〉 brought to bee under the shape of bread the true nature of Transubstantiation is not unfolded such an adduction importeth onely a translocation and not a substantiall conversion when
one substance onely succeeds in the place of another the one cannot properly bee said to bee converted into the other For how absurd were it to say that D Bishop were transubstantiated into D. Smith because D. Smith succeeds him in the See of Chalcedon or that when your foure Lecturers at the Sorbon one after another read in the same pew that at every new Lecture there is a new Transubstantiation and by name that D. 〈◊〉 who 〈◊〉 at seven a clock is transubstantiated into D. Filsac who takes his roome and reades at nine a clock 3. By this your Exposition you cut your selfe in the hammes and enervatâ—… your maine argument for Transubstantiation For as I told you in the Conference the bare affirming Christs body to be his body prooves not that any thing is turned into it If Christ were now comming in the clouds and any pointing to the cloud should say this or there is Christs body could any from thence conclude the conversion of the cloud into his body Every proposition which is of use in argumentation and can affoord or minister a reason to proove any thing must consist of one or more of the 4 praedicata topica or at least one of the quinque praedicabilia as every young Sophister can informe you but in this proposition This is my Body as you expâ—…und it this my body is my body there is none of the 4 praedicata topica or quinque praedicabilia For the predicate herein is neither genus nor species nor differentia nor proprium nor accidents of the subject but the selfe same with it re and ratione 4. Hence it followeth that the proposition is meerely Identicall and neugatorie which to affirme of any of the words of the word of life especially of these whereby hee instituted a most divine Sacrament were blasphemy this fearefull consequence thus I inferre upon your interpretation Every proposition in which the subject and predicate are the same not only quoad suppositum but also quoad significationem is meerely Identicall and nugatorie In this propoposition God is wise the subject and the predicate are the same quoad suppositum but not quoad significationem for the subjectum Deus signifieth Gods Essence in generall the predicate wise signifieth but one Attribute in particular which though in regard of the simplicity of the divine Essence it be all one with God himselfe yet is it distinguished from God quoad nostrum modum concipiendi according to our apprehension Likewise in this proposition Petrus est Apostolus Peter is an Apostle or a man is a living creature the praedicatum and subjectum are the same quoad suppositum for Peter is that Apostle and that Apostle is Peter a man is that living creature and that living creature is a man yet they differ quoad significationem for the subject signifieth the person of Peter the predicate his office and in the other proposition the subject signifieth the compositum the predicate an essentiall part onely and so in all other instances your Chaplaine brings neither can any one instance bee brought of a proposition which is not meerely neugatorie in which the praedicatum and subjectuâ—… are not distinct quo ad significationem But according to yoâ—… exposition in this proposisition This is my Body the subject this and the predicate bodie are the same not onely quoad suppositum but also quoad significationem not onely quoad rem but also quoad modum for iâ—… it idem numero which is maximè idem is predicaâ—… de eodem numero the subject hoc standing for and signifying bread actually turned into Christs Body and the predicate Christs Body made of bread Ergo according to â—…our interpretation the words of institution containe 〈◊〉 proposition meerely Identicall or nugatorie If I thought you had not already you full â—…ad I could add more weight tâ—… my former replies from the authority of your great Gamaliâ—…ls at whose feete you and your Chaplaine were brought up I meane Aquinas Soto Durand and Bellarmine Aquinas thus loads you Some have said that the pronoune this is to be understood not for the instant in which the word is uttered but for the last instant of the whole speech as when I say tacco I doe not signifie that I speake not while I am uttering this word but that I am silent when I have done uttering of it is not this your owne instance p. 127. But saith Aquinas this cannot stand because according to this glosse the sense of Christs words should be my body is my body which the above named speech doth not make to be so because it was so before the uttering of these words Soto thus presseth you This opinion saith he which referreth the pronounc hoc to that which is accomplished aâ—…ter the pronunciation of the whole proposition that is to bread actually turned into Christs Body is not consonant to the truth for the the pronoune should demonstrate Christs body and make this sense the body is the body Now this forme of speech is no way operative nor doth it turne bread into Christs body because before the uttering of them it was true that Christs body was his body Durand thus chargeth you If the pronoune hoc points to Christs Body the proposition may bee true referring the pointing thereof to the last instant of the prolation of the words because then Christs body begins to be under the accidents of bread and the sense may bee this that is my body is my body but this forme of speech is not agreeable to the Sacrament because this Sacrament doth not make Christs body to bee his body but onely makes it to be in the Sacrament or under the accidents of bread now the proposition so understood as above is expressed onely implies that Christs body is his body and not that it is made by this Sacrament which is against the nature of every Sacrament all forme wherein that is effected by the uttering of the words which they signifie Bellarmine thus clearely confutes you and cuts your throat as it were with a knife whet upon your owne grindstone Sacramenta words according to Catholiques are not speculative but practicall for they effect that which they signifie whence they are called operatorie but if the pronoune hoc demonstrate onely the body the words will bee speculative not practicall for 't is alwaies true pointing to Christs body to say this is the body of Christ whether the words be spoken before Consecration or after either by a Priest or a Laye person but the Sacrament all words because they are operatorie or working words have not their force unlesse they bee spoken by a lawfull Minister neither are they true before the Sacrament is administred PAR. 14. That in the words of the institution of the cup. this cup is the New Testament iâ—… my blood there are divers figures is prooved by unavoidable consequences and the confession of our Learned Adversaries
are signes and have some being man is an image of God yet a substance the Sonne of God according to Saint Paul is the figure of his Fathers substance he should say image of his person but not an empty figure unlesse that be empty which hath in it a a whole infinitie of perfection Quid ad Rombum what 's this to my argument ego disputo de alijs ille respondet de cepis I dispute of tropes he answers of types I dispute of words he answers of things I dispute of Metaphors or Metonomies he answers of images and Sacraments Is Christ I pray you a trope is man a figure in Rhetoricke are the Sacraments Metonomies is a King acting his owne tryumphs a Metaphor or an Allegorie if you are ashamed to say so bee then ashamed of your and your Chaplaines shifting evasions in your answer to my first argument When in answer to my second argument taken out of Saint Austins third booke de doctrina Christiana you said that the speech of our Saviour Iohn the 6. Vnlesse you eate the flesh of the Sonne of man you have no life in you is according to Saint Augustine mixt of a proper and a figurative speech and I replied upon you that it is most certaine that Saint Austin in that place by figurate locutio ment such a one as could in no sense be proper for S. Austins words are if this now be taken in the proper sense let it be accounted no figurative speech Besides he speaketh of such a speech wherein an horrible wickednesse is commanded or a verteous action prohibited which can in no sense bee true in the proper acception of the words Otherwise it should be lawfull to sin because expressely commanded and sinfull to doe well because forbidden To this replie he rejoynes negry quidem When in refutation of your answer to my argument drawne from the pronoune this in the words of the institution whereby you will have understood this bread transubstantiated into my body I inferred this consequence thereupon that the words of Consecration make nothing for Transubstantiation or any thing els For a proposition that is meerely identicall quoad significatum proves nothing at all I may truly say pointing to Christs body in heaven at the right hand of his Father this or that body of Christ is his body and will it hence follow that bread or any thing els is substantially turned into Christs body your Chaplaine answers no but something els how els could your mouth utter such an impertinent discourse with which words hee concludes the fift Section And thus as when Philip of Macedon walked in state Clisophus his flatterer comes in strutting after him and when afterwards Philips thigh was run thorough so that hee halted downe-right in comes Clisophus limping after him in the like manner so where you are confident in your answer S. E. is peremptorie where you are profuse he is redundant where you are imperfect he is defective where you are lame he halteth downe-right The best is what he is faultie in his answers hee mends in his encomiums and where he is defective in Argumentation he supplies it to the full with flattery and Adulation Erodius in his book de Iure Armorum teacheth that none by the law of the Romanesmight have a millitarie garland given him but upon some noble exploit done by him as scaling the walls of a Cittie or firing the enemies Tents or the like And therefore wâ—… reade in Aulus Gellius that Marcâ—… Cato that Romane Worthie framed a bill of indictment against Fulvius Nobilior for rewarding his souldiers with garlands upon light occasions and for meane services as for looking to their fence for digging a well strenuously A like bill of indictement I might put in against S. E. for crowning you with a garland for doing no noble exploit at all but onely holding up your buckler most valiantly I referre my selfe for proofe hereof to his owne words wherewith hee endeth his Pamphlet I should say his Pagent So my Lord saith he though hee were not permitted once to put an argument nor so much as to shew the grounds of our tenet using the buckler onely and never suffered for to draw the sword got the field and bore away the prize A noble prize no doubt Egregiam verò laudem spolia ampla refertis tuque puerque tuus A remarkable victory and rich spoiles like those at Salmacis gotten without shedding a drop of blood or sweat If Câ—…esiphon had met with no better an Advocate before the Judges that sate in Arâ—…opaous at Athens he had certainely lost his Crowne the best flower whereof was Demosthenes his eloquence yet as he ends so he begins this his Panegyrick rather then Apologie as his last so his first dishes after the French manner are larded with your praises in such a fulsome manner that I wonder your Lordships stomacke could brooke them This Conference being short I presently read it over and liked so well some fragments of my Lords answers which the Minister hath imparted that I desired to see the whole but could not then get a copie Having lighted now at length on a Latine one and liking it exceeding well I thought good to translate it and impart it to others by the print And could the Reader have beene a spectator and seene this action in the life he would have acknowledged what M. Knevet hereupon did confesse that M. Featley was too young for D. Smith He is many waies to weake to undertake so great a wit so ready in answer so strong in argument so conversant in Scripture Fathers Divines Much lesse what ever out-recuidance makes him thinke of his ability is hee able to over-match an understanding so full of light so ample so vigorous excellently furnished with all variety of learning Davus ne â—…oquitur an herus who is the speaker you or your servant if S. E. bee your Chaplaine as his every where exhibiting unto you more then ordinary reverence should implie I will be bold to tell him that he is sometimes very saucie with you to spend his judgement upon your answers in such sort as he doth It may be the Bishops of Chalcedons Chaplaines use such familiarity with their Lords but assuredly the Chaplaines to the Ordinaries of England know better their distance But if as we know that Matheus Tortus is Cardinall Bellarmine and Doleman is Father Parsons and Marcus Antonius Constantius is Steven Gardiner so S. E. is Smithus Episcopus then I am sorrie to see a Reverend Prelate so endeared to the Pope and Cardinall Brandinus to be driven to this exigent for want of a Herauld to blazon his owne armes and trumpet out his owne titles and praises Yet I marvell not at it because Chalcedon is very remote and farre from good neighbours Howsoever whether it be hee or you Edward Stratford or Episcopus Smithus it
this 12. yeares Which happinesse I ascribe to the evidence of truth on our side and not to any the least opinion of sufficiencie in my selfe who have ever studied that golden Text of the Apostle 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The greater wrong doth â—…our Gnatho offer me in facing downe his Reader that in a challenge to Fisher the Jesuite I compare my selfe to a Lion and him to a butterflie saying Their strength with bulls let Lions trie and not persue the butterflie And he addeth in the Margent Featly of himselfe in his sacriledge It seemeth to me that S. E. having learned out of Saint Austin that there is a threefold lie 1. Officiosum an officious 2. Pernitiosum or malitiosum a malicious 3. Iocosum and a merry lie or lie in jest He thought himselfe obliged to make use of all three in his masters service his officious and malitious lies wee have heard before now he puts his wits to it to frame a jocosum mendacium to make himselfe and his Reader merry but having no occasion of any such jest from any words of mine hee breakes not a jest upon me but sheweth himselfe absurd and ridicuâ—…ous For the words I alleadge out of Martiall are not spoken in the singular but in the plurall number nor of my selfe but others If he hath not lost his sight together with his wit he might have seene a relation in the Margent to a booke of Fishers set out in the yeare 1626. in which he takes upon him to refute a Treatise of the Visibility of the Church put forth by George Abbot Lord Arch-Bishop of Canterburie and a Sermon of D Ushers Lord Arch-Bishop of Armath and a replie of D. White Lord Bishop of Elic These Lions I wisht in the Poets phrase to fall upon the bulls meaning the Popes bulls and not look after that sillie butterflie Fishers sorrie pamphlet intituled sundry relations This S. E. knew well enough to be my meaning but hee was disposed to play with the Lions paw ex Vngue saith he you may gather what a thing the Lion is not minding what Iunius out of Aelian observeth that if the Lion he any way distempered or diseased he makes himselfe whole upon the Apc. To verifie which emblem what mops and mowes doth he make with what Apish imitation and ridiculous scurrilitie doth hee sport his Reader saying that I brought my arguments written in paper and urged them so poorely that M. Porie did prompt him divers times And hereafter Universities must all neglect art in speech and reade your predicament which before times hath beene Featleus homo animal vivens corpus substantia thus in English accorto your Logicke Featley Featley Featley Featley Featley Featley where you the supreme genus of your new predicament are in predication to be common to other animals bodies and substances for so the supreme genus must be I could have answered these insulsos sales with a mycterisme but because Salomon adviseth sometimes to answer a foole least he bâ—…e too proud of his art or skill let therfore S. E. your Iester I should say your Chaplaine tell me by what rule of Doway Logicke doth this follow M. F. disliketh D. Smith his exposition this is my body that is this bread transubstantiated into my body is my body because it implieth a meere Tautologie affirming idem numero de eodem numero Ergo he overthroweth all the predicamentall classes In this proposition this my body is my body the predication is neither generis de specie nor speciei de individuo nor accidentis de subjecto but ejusdem rei numero de eadem numero the subjectuÌ„ and praedicatum are both idem re ratione and therfore such an identicall proposition may be remooved and casheered out of Logick without any disturbing of the predicamentall rankes or files And that hee may farther know that I have climbed up Porphyrie his predicamentall tree as well as hee I will make in it a bower or two for him and his fellowes to shade themselves under them Vide arborem Place this before folio 229. Vtram harum mauis accipe Μσ̄οÏος Ed St Jo Hig Jo Fl. Pithecus Simia Caudata absque cauda Brutum Ferum Cicur Animal Rationale Irrationale Ïαâ—â—ος Ed St Io Hig Io Fl Scurra Dicax Facetus Infacetus mendax Serius Iocosus maledicus ueriloquus falsiloquus PAR. 17. A serious exhortation to D. Smith otherwise Bishop of Chalcedon to returne home to his dearest mother the Church of England and famous Nurse the Vniversity of Oxford THus leaving your Chaplaine in a bad predicamens I returne to your selfe and let me be bold to speake to you in the words of the blessed Martyr Saint Cyprian win the day in the edge of the evening enter yet into the Lords vineyard though at the eleventh houre You were an ancient Doctor of Divinity when I conferred with you at Paris 22. yeares agoe and therefore now you cannot in reason but thinke of the day of your dissolution and in Religion also of making your accounts ready which you know ere long will be called for from you How will you dare to appeare before him who is the Way the Truth and the Life if you continue still perverting his Way impugning his Truth therby depriving your selfe and others of his Life O that I might be so happie as Iason was with my darts to open your aposteme and wound you into health and by arguments to confute you into heaven Take I desire you this occasion of replying to my answers to retrive your former thoughts and to examine upon what grounds you left both your deerest Mother the Church of England and your famous Nurse the University of Oxford Enter into a serious consideration what an ill change you have made of home for banishment of security for danger of allegiance for disloyalty of truth for errour of Scripture doctrine for traditions and legendarie fables of Religion for Superstition of the pure worship of God in Spirit for manifold Idolatry of Jerusalem for Babylon of Christ for Antichrist and the Lord of his infinite mercy annoint your eyes with the eye-salve of the Spirit that you may see your errors before you go hence and be no more seene August 31. 1634. Yours as farre as you are Christs D. F. The true Relation of a Disputation betweene M. Featley and D. Bagshaw drawne out of the notes of M. Ashley and M. Ezekiel Arscot taken in the Conference at Paris Anno Dom. 1612. MAster Featley demanding of D. Bagshaw whether hee would joyne in prayer with him and the other refusing made a short prayer to himselfe and after he had ended it began the Disputation as followeth M. F. The Question we are to debate to give satisfaction to this Honourable Assembly is Whether the Body of Christ be truly really and substantially contained in the Sacrament under the formes of bread and wine as the
their decrees are fouly mistaken who frequently alleadge sentences out of these Homilies under the name of S. Chrysostome It is true there are some places corrupted by the Arians whom this Author notwithstanding manifestly impugneth and refuteth Homil. 28. 45. but that this place should be inserted by Arians there can be no colour or shew for as much as the Arians never were called in question for any errour touching the Sacrament Secondly if it could be prooved that Chrysostome was not the Author of these Homilies yet in regard of the antiquity of the Author whosoever he was you should vouchsafe him some answer D. B. I answer that by non verum corpus he meaneth not visible by not true not visible M. F. Non verum corpus hoc est non visibile a proper interpretation as if nothing were true but that which is visible or as if Christ had two bodies one visible which Chrysostome called his true body and another invisible which must needs be his false body sith you oppose it to his true D. B. I distinguish not so of Christs bodies but of divers habitudes of one and the selfe same bodie to wit visibility and invisibility M. F. You say then that Christs body is visible and invisible at the same time D. B. Why not M. F. And in the same place too to wit at the Table D. B. What of all this M. F. Nothing but this apparant contradiction That one and the selfe same body at the selfe same time in the selfe same place may be visible and invisible to the same persons D. B. This is no contradiction because I say not that his body is visible and invisible respectu ejusdem M. F. Scis simulare cupressum you know the story of the Painter who being good at portracting of a cypress tree whē one gave him money to draw represent a shipwrack in a Table asked if he would have a Cypresse tree drawne in it dispairing to doe ought else worth his ◅eward This your distinction of respectu ejusdem is as fit to the purpose as a Cypresse to a shipwracke yet still it comes at a dead lift Once more explicate your selfe what meane you by r◅spectu ejusdem D. B. Ejusdem habitudinis or modi existendi the body of Christ as he sate at the Table was visible in it selfe but invisible sub speciebus under the formes of bread and wine M. F. If the species cover Christs body and hide it from sight how say you that they are visible signes to represent Christs body and set it before our eyes visible signes you must needs make them or you have none in your Sacrament for the bread according to your doctrine remaineth not and Christs body is the thing signified not therefore the signe When Drusius in his defence against a nimble Jesuit that called him heretick alleadged that heresie must be in fundamentis fidei in foundations of faith the Iesuit replied that even that assertion of his was heresie I may with farre greater reason replie upon your distinction of extra species sub speciebus whereby you seeke to avoid a contradiction that even this very distinction of yours implieth a manifest contradiction to wit that the selfe same body the same time is sub speciebus extra species under the formes and without the formes is within the formes of bread and wine and without If Christs body at the same time may be sub speciebus and extra species it may bee under the formes and not under the formes sub speciebus and non sub speciebus Is not this a contradiction D. B. No because he is not sub speciebus and extra species in the same place M. F. Who ever required identitatem loci to make a contradiction are not these propositions contradictorie Deus vivit Deus non vivit Angelus movet Angelus non movet Anima est in corpore Anima non est in corpore and yet in none of all these propositions there is any respect at all to place The affirmation and negation ejusdem de eodem ad idem secundum idem eodem tempore is a contradiction but in these propositions Christus est sub speciebus Christus non est sub speciebus the same thing to wit esse sub speciebus is affirmed and denied of the same thing to wit of Christ secundum idem viz. according to the same nature and part of him to wit his body ad idem to wit with a reference to the selfe same accidents numero And lastly in eodem tempore to wit at the instant after the prolation of these words hoc est corpus meum c. D. B. The respect to diverse places is sufficient to salve the sormer propositions from contradiction What urge you Aristotle in matter of faith above reason M. F. I urge not Aristotle for any matter of faith but for a question of Logick touching the nature of contradictions but because you so sleighten Aristotles authority I proove it by reason that a body cannot be in divers places sub speciebus extra species under the formes and without the formes it cannot at all be in divers places therefore not in such or such a manner D. B. How proove you that M. F. By this argument One body cannot be divided and severed from it selfe But if it be in the same time put in divers places distant one from another it must needs be severed and divided from it selfe Ergo one and the selfe same body cannot be put in diverse places at the selfe same time D. B. Divided and severed I grant you respectu loci non respectu substantiae in respect of place not of substance M. F. If the place be severed I cannot conceive but that the substance that is in those severed places must needs be severed D. B. This you are to prove M. F. Thus I prove it Those things betweene which there is a great space or way and many bodies and substances interposed are really severed and discontinued But betweene the Hosts consecrated at Rome and Paris there is a great space or way and many bodies interposed Ergo the Hosts consecrated at Rome and at Paris are really severed and discontinued bodies D. B. I denie your Syllogisme M. F. Marke it once againe this is the Major Those things betweene which c. But the Hosts consecrated at Rome and Paris are those things betweene which c. Ergo c. D. B. They are not those things betweene which many bodies are interposed M. F. Is it not a great way and are there not many bodies interposed betweene this and Rome D. B. I grant you that but I denie that the Hosts consecrated at Rome and Paris are things M. F. Betweene one thing therefore and it selfe many bodies may be interposed But if divers wafers consecrated by divers Priests in divers places be not divers things I know not what things you will call divers I perceive it will
be to little purpose to reason with you by arguments drawne from reason for you will make good any absurdity in reason by your faith What answer you to the words of your owne Masse which you say every day M. F. After the Priest hath consecrated and elevated the Host he saith Wee offer unto thee O Lord of thy guifts a pure and holy Host upon which vouchsafe to looke with a benigne and propitious countenance and to accept them as thou didst vouchsafe to accept the guifts of thy child Abel the righteous command that these things be carried by the hands of the holy Angel into thy high Altar into the sight of thy divine Majâ—…sty by Iesus Christ our Lord by whom thou dost alwaies create sanctifie blesse these good things unto us D. B. What do you urge me with the Canon of the Masse M. F. You a Masse-Priest and not able to defend your owne Masse are you not affraid of that thundering Canon if any man say that the Canon of the Masse containes any errors in it let him be acoursed I should think my selfe much disparaged if I should refuse to maintaine our owne Church Liturgie Let this be noted that M. D. will not answer to the words he readeth every day in the Masse doe you make as little reckoning of the customes of the ancient Church as you did of the Canons and Constitutions of the present Church of Rome set downe in the Masse D. B. What an idle thing is this in you to urge the customes of the Church a morall argument in a theologicall controversie M. F. Your exception were plausible if I purposed to urge a morall or civill custome I make an inference upon religious customes of the ancient Church whereby a man may as certainely gather what their opinion and judgement was touching this point as by their words Evagrius saith that at Constantinople they called children from the schoole and distributed the remainder of the Sacrament among them Hesychius l. 2. in Levit c. 8. speaketh yet of a more strange custome of casting it into the fire D. B. What collect you from these customes M. F. That they thought not the Sacrament to be Christs very body but only a mysterie of it D. B. I see not any force in this consequence conclude Syllogistically M. F. That which the ancients distributed to children cast into the fire they beleeved not to be the body of Christ farther then in a mysterie But the remainder of the Sacrament after the Communion they disposed of as above Ergo they beleeved it not to bee the very body of their Lord and Saviour farther then in a mysterie D. B. I make doubt of your Major M. F. I marvaile how you can make any doubt of it for if they had beleeved as you do the Sacrament to be the very body of Christ by way of Transubstantiation they had grievously sinned against their conscience in thus using or rather abusing the Lords body D. B. How proove you that M. F. It is a sin to give Christs body to children that cannot discerne it a greater sin by farre to cast it into the fire I say to cast the remainder of the Sacrament into the fire holding it to be the very body of Christ in your sense otherwise holding it to bee but the figure or Sacrament of Christs body they might burne it without sin in imitation of the Israelites who by the commandement of God burnt the remainder of the Paschall Lamb which was a figure of Christ. D. B. You answer your selfe as you say the Iewes burnt the remainder of the Paschall Lambe to prevent worse inconveniencies so the ancient Church might cast Christs body in the Sacrament into the fire in a reverence to it M. F. A strange kinde of reverence to throw a man especially alive into the fire D. B. If the figure of Christ might bee burnt in reverence his body might with greater reverence M. F. I scarce beleeve M. D. that you thinke a man should doe you a greater reverence to cast you into the fire then to burne your picture I see by my watch that the two houres allotted for me to dispute are neare past and therefore I knit up the foure arguments which I purposed to prosecute at large in three breefe questions 1. What doth the mouse eate that lighteth upon a piece of bread or drop of wine consecrated D. B. The forme of bread returneth againe by a miracle M. F. Peter Lombard propounding this doubt quid ergo mus comedit answereth Deus novit God knoweth Aquinas resolveth it against you And so doth your church saying si mus corpus Domini comederit if a mouse eate the body of Christ. D. B. What tell you me of Aquinas M. F. I must be briefe that I may not defraud the Auditorio of your arguments My second question is what is that you call the consecrated Host the bread is not the Host because it is not offered the body of Christ is not the Host and I trust you will not say the accidents are the Host. D. B. Christs body is the Host. M. F. Christs body is not offered therefore it is not the Host. D. B. It is offered M. F. That is offered which is consecrated Christs body is not consecrated therefore it is not offered D. B. I denie your Major M. F. I had thought you had held that you offer a thing consecrated What is consecrated sith Christs body is not D. B. The bread M. F. The bread remaineth not after consecration and Christs body you confesse is not consecrated by the Priest therefore you have no consecrated Host. D. B. The bread is consecrated to be offered because it is consecrated to bee made Christs body which is offered M. F. Your answer in a word to my third demand What becommeth of Christs body in the stomack doth it remaine there still then you have Christs body at this time within you And what need you often receive his body if you have it still within you doth it goe out of the stomack when and which way Is it turned into the substance of our body or evaporeth into ayre or is it altogether annihilated D. B. None of all these But it ceaseth to be as the soule in a part of the body that is cut off from the rest M. F. Chius ad Choum I speake of a body you answer of a soule The soule of a man because it is a spirituall substance may in an instant invisibly disfuse it selfe through the whole body and contract it selfe in like manner when a part is cut off or rather stay her influxe into that part but a bodie that hath parts of quantity and soliditie of substance cannot penetrate another body nor quit the former place but by a true locall motion visible and divisible and that in time D. B. Christs body is more spirituall then our soule M. F. What according to the substance