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
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
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
Testament it is not therefore the New Testament no more then the blood of Bullocks is the Old Testament Lastly the word cup cannot be taken for blood contained in the cup as it is evident by that which is added in my blood For the speech will not bee congruous if thou say this blood is the New Testament in my blood the cup therefore must be properly taken for the vessell which undoubtedly in the proper signification is not the New Testament wherefore of necessity wee must confesse that these words this cup is the New Testament in my blood cannot bee taken in the proper sense but are spoken by a trope or figure PAR. 15. That the words of our Saviour Matth 26. 29. I will drinke no more of this fruit of the vine are meant of the Evangelicall cup or Sacrament is prooved against D Smith and S. E. by the testimonie of Origen Clemens Alexandrinus Cyprian Austin Chrysostome Druthmarus the Author of the booke de Ecclesiasticis dogmatibus Jansenius Maldonat the Councell of Wormes and Pope Innocentius and D. Smith and his Chaplaines evasions refuted THe last argument prosecuted in the Conference was taken out of thâ—… 26. of Saint Matthew ver 29. wherâ—… Christ himselfe not onely after the blessing of the cup but also after hee had ministred the Communion saith will drinke no more of this fruit of the vine Doubtlesse Christ who instituteâ—… the Sacrament and immediatly before consecrated the cup ver 28. best knew what it was wine or blood and he resolves us that it was the fruit of the vine and that we al know is wine not blood whence I framed this Syllogisme No blood is in propriety of speech the fruit of the vine That which Christ and his Apostles dranke in the consecrated Chalice was the fruit of the vine Ergo it was not blood For this blow you have a double ward the first is that Christ called his blood the fruit of the vine because it was such in appearance the 〈◊〉 of wine remaining after the 〈◊〉 thereof was turâ—…ed into Christs blood Put the question but to your owne conscience and I dare say it will tell you that this your answer is a meere shift and evasion For why should not Christ who is the truth rather call that hee dranke according to that which it was in substance and truth then that which it was as you teach onely in appearance who ever heard accidents without substance quantity or quality moysture or rednesse called the fruit of the vine did Christ drinke meere accidents in the cup or doe you at this day in the consecrated Chalice if so your Priests could never be at any time overseene or become light-headed in drinking never so much of the consecrated cup. For it is a thing never heard of that meere accidents should send up a fume much lesse overcome the braine and cause drunkennesse in any man and I hope you will not flie to a miracle and say that your Priests braines are intoxecâ—…ted by miracle in case he take a dram to much of the wine he hath consecrated Your owne Schoolemen put the case that a Priest may sometimes forget himselfe by drinking too deepe even in the holy cup. But I presse not this so much as that you in this your answer forget that we are about the Sacrament where you will by no meanes allow of any such figure as excludeth the verity of the thing otherwaies if you take a liberty to expound these words by a figure and say that Christ by a trope here called that which was his blood wine you shall never debarre us of the liberty of expounding the former verse by the like figure and saying that Christ called by a trope that which was in truth wine his blood 'T is hard to say and more then you can prove that Christ ever dranke his own blood upon earth Christ neither dranke his blood properly nor metaphorically but wine he was to drink in heaven metaphorically as himselfe said Luke the 22. 29 30. I appoint unto you a kingdome that you may eat drinke at my table in my kingdome therefore Christ spake not of his blood but of wine when he said I will drinke no more of this fruit of the vine till I drink it new in heaven thus your own Maldonate Yet you have another ward you say p. 162 163 164. that there is a Legall cup and an Eucharisticall both mentioned in Saint Luke and that these words were spoken of the legall or common cup as Saint Ierome Saint Bede Saint Theophylact expound This ward will not beare off the blow which comes with such a weight that it drives your weapon to your head for 1. 'T is evident to any man that wilfully shuts not his eyes that this in the 29. ver hath reference to this in the 28. ver drinke ye all of this for this is my blood but I will not drinke henceforth of this fruit of the vine these words immediatly follow the other and of necessity have relation to them neither can they have relation to any other cup then the Eucharisticall here and in Saint Marke because they make mention but of one cup and that cup whereof Christ said drinke ye all of this for this is my blood of the New Testament This reason alone convinced the conscience of your Learned B. Iansenius who thus writeth upon this verse Some Catholickes saith he affirme that these words were not spoken of the Lord after he had drunke of the consecrated cup but after the former whereof mention is made in Saint Luke But the order of the Evangelists will not suffer it For sith Matthew and Marke make mention of no other cup then the consecrated when it is said by them of this fruit of the vine no other cup can be conceived 〈◊〉 be pointed to or demonstrated by them theâ—… that cup whereof they make mention Of the same minde is Titelmanus whose opinion Barradius the Jesuite relateth and defendeth in his 3. Booke of the Eucharist c. 5. 2. The Authors alleadged by you to the contrarie doe not weaken the sinewes of my argument for neither Ierome nor Bede nor Theophylact denie these words to be spoken of the consecrated cup though they allegorize upon them 3. By following Bellarmine you and your Chaplaine are fallen into a fowle flow either you must say you tooke up your quotations upon trust or els confesse you are a falsificator For none of these Fathers alleadged by you either in words or by consequence say that you put upon them to wit that the words mentioned in Saint Matthew are to bee understood of the Legall or common cup Saint Ierome and Bede and Anselme have no distinction of two cups but leaving after their manner the literall sense expound allegorically the vine to be the people of the Jewes and the fruit of the vine to be either their beliefe or their legall observances and
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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