father whom it represents is God the sonne God the Father is the second person the first or is the Diuinitie of the sonne as manifested in his flesh the person of the Father if not then this instance proues not your distinction which manitaines a figure to haue a veritie ioyned with it Censure 1. Tim. 1. Some the Apostle saies will needes be Doctors of the law though they neither vnderstand what they say nor of what thing the speake and among these Doctors M. Mirth you take a place violating with a prophane temeritie the sacred mysteries of Religion and vndertak to teach diuinitie to graduates in Diuinitie before you can speak sence in matter of Diuinitie For which reason this worthie specimen of your improficiencie therein which being the first in your book I haue transcribed deserues not a relation yet since you giue it for a lesson to better then my self and call for good attention with pray Sirs D. Smith E. S. take notice that I will ouer it once againe with as many pauses for the reuerence to such a Master as there be parts in it Waf. I grant since the Diuiné essence was incarnat that the sonne is essentiallie the same with the father The sonne essentiallie the same with the father how not absolutlie but say you since the Diuine essence was incarnate Before it seemes he was not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 consubstantiall his generation was not eternall or if it were the essence which by this generatioÌ„ he receaued was not the same which God the Father hath but another for had he receaued the same as the Scriptures teach and the Catholik church beleeues he had beene 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 consubstantiall before the incarnation which is more then your Mastership doth admit A bad lesson that is Master Mirth which can-be learned without forgetting of the Creed Waf. Who though quoad hypostasim in respect of his fillation he be a distinct person from the father yet quoad naturam according to his essence he is equallie sharer of the same God head is not an other but the same God Hetherto it hath beene beleued in the Church that the sonne of God receaued by his eternall generation the Diuinitie all the whole nature or essence together with all the essentiall attributes That there is in him 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Coll. 2. â— all the fullnes of the Diuinitie and our Sauiour himself to his father Ioan. omnia tua mea sunt thy creatures are my creatures thy perfections my perfections thy substance my substance and thou thy self art my Father but now the case is changed in M. Mirths lesson the Diuinitie is diuided betwixt the Father and the sonne and each hath an equall portion of it the sonne is a sharer in the Godhead and equallie sharer with the Father What part he leaues the Holie Ghost I doe not find whether he the Holie Ghost hath an equall share with the Father and the sonne or none at all as not being incarnate for the Sonne got his share this Master thinks since the Diuine essence in him was incarnate since which time he is essentiâ—llie the same with the Father Waf. But I pray Sirs take notice that those words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 are spoken of the Sonne as his Diuinitie manifested it self in his humanitie Why not rather if I may be so bold to speake to so great a Master of the Sonne as consubstantiall to the Father as the Auncients haue vnderstood it especiallie Ioan. 1. since it followes immediatlie that He caries or sustaines all things 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 by the word of his power this he doth not as man but as God and as God also the world was made by him Hebrâ— 1. as you find immediatlie before and the like in S. Iohn per ipsum facta sunt omnia all things were made by him who was in the beginning before the Incarnation they were made by him by the word which was in God and was God by this intellectuall subsisting Word which doth expresly represent God the Father and is his liuelie image Imago Dei inuisibilis and his eternall Sonne the splendor of his glorie 2. Cor. 4 Coloss 1 Hebr 1 Sap. 7. Basil Hom 15 de fide Epiph. in Ancor Ambâ—l 2 Exam Greg. Nyss li de diff ess hyp the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of his substance the spotles glasse wherein he beholdes his owne glorious maiestie CaÌ„dor lucis aeternae speculum sine macula Dei Maiestatis 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 imago totum in se monstrans patâ—â—m the expresse image shewing the father all within himself by him I say by this Word mundus factus est reuolutions of ages the whole world was made not by him as appearing in flesh as man noâ— but by him as God Had you rather heare a Protestant speake then me His diuine nature hath no lesse then three to expresse it sonne brightnes and character and two to proue it the making and supporting all Agreeablie to these three we beleeue of him that he is consubstantiall as the sonne coeternall as the brightnes coequall as the character against the new heads of the old Hydrasprung vp againe in our daies Andr Serm. vpon this text Hebr. 1. you proceede Waf. So then as the Diuinitie of the sonne did manifest it self in the flesh he had the image of his fathers person engrauen in him so 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifies Be it that it signifies to engraue an image this grauing is not proper neither the Diuine not the humane nature is carued or graued properlie but metaphoricall signifying the expressing of an Image And what ChristiaÌ„ Diuine doubts but that the sonne of God being Verbum aeternae mentis is and from all eternitie an expresse image of his Father infinitelie more expresse more liuelie more cleare then the nature or soule or vnderstanding or arte of man as shewing the whole Diuinitie within it and comprehensiuelie representing God the Father Will you denie this Master Mirth will you denie that the Sonne of God did still represent his Father and that he is his eternal Image if you do you blaspheme and if your words as they are by you intended in way of answer be wel considered you do But we must on to your Conclusion which is Waf. Tell me then is this Image the same with the father whom it represents is God the sonne God the father is the second person the first or is the Diuinitie of the sonne as manifested in his flesh the person of the Father Birckbeck Featlies companion obiecteth that the signe and the thing signified cannot be the same in that verie respect and point wherein they are opposite If he meanes by that his manner of speach in that verie respect and point that the relations be distinct or not the same there is no question of it one relation is not the other If he meanes that the same thing in
to set downe the confirmations or shew the groūds of our tenet and for excuse pretends that it was against the lawes of the disputation wherein it was agreed as he relates that Master Featlie at that time should onlie oppose and D. Smith onlie a He should haue added that M. Featlie should answer another daie for this was likwise agreed vppon but he could not be brought to do it answer Whereas it was tould him thē that it hath been and still is the custome in Oxford for the Defendant to do that which my Lord would haue done and the Vniuersitie hath conceaued it to appertaine as indeed it doth to the Defendants part which M. Featlie cauilling at in the beginning shewed himselfe not willing to enter in to the combat with my Lord of Chalcedon if he could haue put it of and therefore being conscious of the weakenes of his cause thought the verie sight of our tenet as it appeares to Schollers would ouerthrowe his vtterlie and that euerie word by waie of preface was an argument to conuince it The same feare and in the experience of the first conflict much augmented he betraied againe afterwards when he was called vpon to be defendant according to promise as appeares by the end of the relation where the Reader will see with what tergiuersation he did shift it of And since that time also in England it self twice to my knowledge I can put the particulars downe when time serues he hath refused to meete my Lord in dispute Being himselfe in his Relation to tell the state of the Question he puts downe a discourse to make the simple Reader giddie to the end he see not on which side the truth stands and which of the Disputants haue the vpper hand whereas the state of the Controuersie is in it selfe cleere plaine The Catholikes hold and beleeue that in the holy Eucharist there is the bodie and blood of our blessed Sauiour trulie reallie and substantiallie Conc. Trid. Sess 13. can 1. condemning such as hold it to be there onlie as in a signe or in a figure or in vertue Ibidem a Ioan. 6. v. 55.56 1. Cor. 11. v. 24.25 Cōc Trid. sess 7. can 6. sess 1◠cap. 1. S. Tho. 3. p. q. 83 a 1. ad 2. a 2 ad 2 Decret de Consec Dist 2. c. 48. 72. We doe not denie that it is there virtute in vertue efficacie it hath vertue power there to worke in the Soule neither doe we denie that it is there as in a figure for the Eucharist is an image of the passion or that it is there as in a signe the exteriour species are a signe of that which is within It is a Sacrament also a Sacrament is a signe But wee denie a tatummodo vt in signe vel in figura aut virtute ex Can. 1. that the bodie blood are ther onlie so beleeuing that they are there according to the veritie and substance of bodie and blood The Sacramentarians for whom D. Featlie disputed against our tenet hold the contrarie vzt that the bodie blood of our Sauiour be not in the Eucharist truelie according to the veritie and substance of the thing signified by those names Cited by my Lord of Chalcedon in the Conference of Cath. Protest doct c. 10. a. 1. The Sonne of God is by the mysticall benediction vnited to vs corporally as man but as God spiritually with the grace of his spirit renewing our spirit to new life and participatiō of the diuine nature S. Cyrill Alexād li. 11. in Io. c 27. See Cardinall Perō again S. Ples Mornay Paris 1622. but that the Eucharist is a signe figure of it onlie Iewell it is not indeed Christs bodie Peter Martyr it is not properlie the bodie of Christ Musculus it is not the verie bodie Cartwright it is onlie a signe Perkins it is onlie a signe and seale of the bodie Zuinglius it is onlie a figure Beza it was meere bread and wine which our Sauiour gaue with his hands Caluin the bodie is exhibited according to the vertue not according to the substance And Featlie in his Relation pag. 3. Christ is not therein according to the substance of his naturall bodie and pag. 4. the words of institution are to be construed figuratiuelie and not properly according to the rigour of the letter And a little before not in the proper sence Against this Heresie of the Sacramentarians we oppose plaine Scripture and the direct affirmation of Iesus Christ whith the vnanimous interpretation of Antiquitie and general consent of the Church in whom the holie Ghost determines controuersies appertaining to diuine faith and hath determined this which was beleeued in all ages and generallie professed in all Christian Countreies when Luther who faine would but in conscience as a Epist ad Argentin he said could not contradict it did beginne to deuide himselfe from the Church D. Featlie opponent is to proue the Catholike tenet to be false and that in the Eucharist there is not flesh and blood according to the substance of the thing but a signe or figure of it onlie THE FIRST ARGVMENT DAn Featly The words of Christ This is my bodie are vnderstoode of a figure therefore not of the bodie it self Doctour Smith I distinguish your antecedent 1. Of a meere figure such as were the legall figures which the Apostle calles egena elementa Gal. 4. poore elements or such as statuaes are in regard of the thinges they doe represent I denie your Antecedent 2. Of a figure which hath the verity ioyned together with it in which kind the Sonne according to the Apostle to the Hebrewes Heb. 1. is the figure of his Fathers substance and a Kinge shewing in triumph how he did behaue himselfe in the warre is in this later action a figure of himselfe as in the former and breade exposed in the shop is a figure of it selfe as to be sold So I graunt your antecedent and denie your consequence D. Featly Tertulian lib. 4. contr Marc. c. 40. saith Acceptum panem distributum discipulis corpus suum illum fecit hoc est Corpus meum dicendo id est figura corporis mei The breade taken and distributed vnto his disciples he made it his bodie saying this is my bodie that is the figure of my bodie Therefore according to Tertullian those wordes are vnderstoode of a meere figure D. Smith You passe quickly from Scripture to the Fathers yet you are woont to say Collat. li. 2. ca. 22. that the Fathers though conspiring all together be not authenticall and infallible expositors of the Scripture wherefore your argument relying vpon the Fathers exposition is weakely grounded according to the tenet of your owne men To the place obiected I Answer Lactan. Instit diuin li. 5. c. 1. Hieron li. de Instit mon. ad Paul that Tertullian as Lactantius and S. Hierome haue well obserued
speakes very obscurelie and sometymes placeth his words so that it is hard to discerne amongst them which to which is referd In the place alleadged he doth not referre those words id est figura Corporis mei to Corpus meum but to Hoc And the sence or meaning of them is This which once was an old figure of my bodie is now my bodie And when Master Doctour Smith said he could bring out of Tertullian himselfe in the same place foure reasons prouing this was Tertullians meaning and withall cited other wordes of Tertullian wherein he doth after the same manner disorder the composition of the wordes Master Featlie would not suffer him to bring those reasons neither did he say any thing to the places wherein Tertullian had in like sort inuerted the order of the words but onely said the order of the wordes alleadged was vnusuall and that it followes not they are heere disordered by this Author because he had done the like elsewhere Doctour Smith answeared that this kinde of confusion of wordes and difficultie in expounding himselfe was not vnusuall in a Tertullianus creber est in sentetijs sed difficilis in eloquendo S. Hieron loc cit Tertullian bringing instance thereof said withall that he did not inferre that Tertullian heere did speake so because he had done the like in other places but because he doth affoord in this very place foure seuerall reasons why he must be so vnderstoode whereof one he produced presently out of the words obiected For quoth he since Tertullian sayes that our Sauiour made breade his owne bodie he was not so forgetfull as immediately to adde that the Eucharist is a meere figure of his bodie This he seconded with another as that Tertullian presently after the foresaid wordes saith it had not beene a figure c. figura autem non fuisset by which wordes he shewes that he speakes of the figure which was before our Sauiour said hoc est corpus meum this is my bodie And the booke of Tertullian being brought he shewed a third reason out of other wordes ensuing Vt autem sanguinis veterem figuram in vino recognoscas aderit Esaias c. and that thou mayest acknowledge in the wine an old figure of blood Esaie c. Out of which wordes he proued that when Tertullian spake of breade he spake of an old figure because he saith of the wine plainely that it was an old figure of blood and connecting this his proofe videlicet that wine had beene an old figure of blood with the former of breade he saith vt autem sanguinis veterem c. VVhere the particles autem and show that in both he speakes of a like that is to say an old legall figure and that he meāt that both wine was an old figure of our Sauiours bloode and breade an old figure of his bodie Now if Tertullian speake as hath beene proued of an old legall figure it is certaine he could not referre the word figure to the attribute or praedicatum Corpus meum my bodie for our Sauiour did not say that the Eucharisticall breade was an old and legall figure of his bodie but onlie to the subiect He was readie to vrge also had D. Feat permitted that which immediately followes in the same place Cur autem panem Corpus suum appellat non magis peponem quem Marcion cordis loco habuit non intelligens veterem fuisse istam figuram Corporis Christi dicentis per Hieremiam aduersum me cogitauerunt cogitatum dicentes venite conijciamus lignum in panem eius scilicet crucem in corpus eius Itaque illuminator antiquitatum quid tunc voluerit significasse panem satis declarauit corpus suum vocans panem But why he calleth bread his bodie and not a pōpiō rather which Marcion had in place of a heart not vnderstanding that it was an old figure of the bodie of Christ saying by Ieremy they haue conspired against me saying come let vs cast wood on his bread to wit the crosse on his body The Illuminator therefore of antiquities hath declared sufficientlie what he would haue bread thē to haue signified calling his bodie bread In which wordes Tertullian speakes plainely of an old figure as appeares by veterem and tunc Moreouer Tertullian in all that booke proues that our Sauiour did fulfill diuers figures of the old Testament amongst others these of breade and wine which in the old lawe were figures of his bodie bloode Therefore whē he speakes of them of breade and wine as figures he speakes of old figures and so would not say that our Sauiour made breade to be a figure of his bodie for it is certaine that he did not make bread an old legall figure but that he made breade which was an old legall figure his bodie as Tertullian himselfe there speaketh In fine Master D. Smith tould Master Featley that of curtesie he would admitt the word figura figure to be referd to the word Corpus bodie that his argument might runne on and he make the best he could of it but the minister would not make vse of this his free offer And this was the issue of the first argumēt THE NOTES OF S. E. BY this discourse it doth appeare manifestly that Tertullian in the words obiected doth not oppose but approue our doctrine auouching a change in that which of old was a figure of our Sauiours bodie to wit bread into the same bodie our Sauiour by this meanes making it present in the shape of the figure which it doth fulfill and euen to the mouth and * Caro Corpore Christi vescitur De Resur carnis flesh according to the same author in another place Master Featleyes discourse of S. Cyprian calling Tertullian Master putts me in minde of some wordes after cited by my Lord in his answer to the 5. argument which the reader may take from one of the same age to let Antiquitie interprete Antiquitie as a further Comment vppon the meaning of Tertullian Serm. de Coena apud Cyp. Panis iste non effigie sed natura mutatus omnipotentia verbi factus est caro sicut in persona Christi humanitas apparebat latebat diuinitas ita Sacramento visibili ineffabiliter diuina se infundit essentia That bread being changed not in shape but in nature is by the omnipotence of the Word made flesh and as in the Person of Christ the humanitie did appeare and the diuinitie lie hid so heere a diuine essence doth vnspeakeablie poure it self into a visible Sacrament Behold a presence brought about by change of the Substance or nature of that which was before according to Scripture a figure into the flesh or bodie the exteriour shape of the figure breade remayning and containing in it the foresaid holy substance as in our Sauiour God who is inuisible is really in the shape of man Neither is our cause any thing hurt by the placing of
wee haue declared to be auouchers of chang of bread and transubstantiation seeme to fauour you D. Featlie Meere accidents of bread which are Sacramentum tantùm cannot be termed heauenlie bread this which the Glosse and Gratian speake of is called heauenlie bread wherefore they do not speake of meere accideÌ„ts or that which is Sacramentum tantùm I Answer to the maior they cannot be called heauenlie bread properlie but they may be so called as the Glosse tould you improperlie and as S. Augustine speakes with a restriction secundum quemdam modum after a certaine manner For after Consecration they are signa Corporis Christi a As the same Authors teach in the same place praesentis signes of the bodie of Christ present so are heauenlie breade and Christs flesh in their kinde that is significatiué But you will aske me how they can be called coeleste Sacramentum a heauenly Sacrament I answer that they may be so called in regard of their reference to our Sauiours bodie which they couer which reference is founded in a supernaturall and heauenlie action to wit consecration A relation you knowe takes it's nature or species from the terminus the thing which it relates vnto and from that which is ratio fundandi the reason of founding it if those be sacred or heauenlie the relation is esteemed so too THE FIFT ARGVMENT D. Featlie In those words hoc est corpus meum the subiect Hoc stands for bread therefore the speach cannot be proper D. Smith I denie the Antecedent D. Featlie I proue it first out of the Fathers that saie bread is the bodie of Christ. D. Smith I answer that they vnderstand it as they interprete themselues of super-substantiall breade S. Aug. serm 28 de verbis Domin Serm. de Caen. Cypr. of bread which being changed not in shape but in nature is by the omnipotencie of the word made flesh of breade whereinto the diuine essence doth ineffablie poure it selfe Ibid. euen as in Christ vnder humane nature the diuinitie laie hid finallie of bread which saith our Sauiour Ioan. 6. is my flesh for the life of the world Now this breade is breade onelie in name and exteriour shape but in substance it is our Sauiours bodie D. Featley Secondlie I proue it by reason for when hoc signifieth the bodie of Christ is not there therefore as then it cannot stand for it D. Smith I answer that hoc doth signifie and suppose when it is vttered yet not a As in this proposition This is my precept that you loue one another c. Ioan. 15.12 the pronoune this doth relate vnto the precept not as then extant because not vtteded and demonstrate it And was to be verified by it not before for that instant but for the end of the proposition when the praedicatum is in being for subiects are such as their attributes permit then to be And in the end of the proposition there is our Sauiours bodie That bread is bread before the SacrameÌ„tall words wheÌ„ Consecration comes of bread there is made the flesh of Christ S. Ambr. l. 4. de SacraÌ„ c. 4. wherefore that I may answer thee it was not the body of Christ before CoÌ„secration but after CoÌ„secration I tell thee that it is now the bodie of Christ Ibidem As when I saie This a Crosse make it withall the word this doth suppose for the Crosse not which is when the word this is vttered but which is within the whole tyme that I speake So when I say taceo I doe not signifie that I speake not while I am vttering this word but that I am silent when I haue donne vttering it And if our Sauiour had changed water into wine by saying this is wine the pronoune this had signified and supposed for wine not which was whilst the said pronoune was vttering but which was within the whole time of the proposition D. Featley Christ could not change water into wine by saying this is wine D. Smith That â—s strange he hauing made the world of nothing with a word Howbeit this is another busines I brought it onelie for examples sake THE NOTES OF S. E. Iren. l. 4. cont Haer. c. 34. Tert. l. 4. coÌ„t Marc c. 40. Hier. ep ad Hedib q 2. August serm 28 verb Dom. Epiph. in Anc. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Cyril Hier. at cc. 4 THe Authours which D. Featlie cites to proue the Eucharist is ordinarie and common bread are Ireneus Tertullian Athanasius so he names the work Ierom Austen Epiphanius Cyrill Theodoret and Gerson but these will not admit of his interpretation as you may see by their owne words S. Irenaeus It is not common bread Tertullian he made it his owne bodie S. Ierome it is panis qui de caelo descendis bread which came from heauen Saint Augustine it is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 supersubstantiall bread S. Epiphauius though for the exteriour forme there be no similitude yet he that beleeueth it not to be as our Sauiour said his bodie 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 falls from saluation Theod. dial 1. 2. Gers l Serm. de coen Dom. It is not Eucharist till the coÌ„nsecration be coÌ„pleate and theÌ„ it is no more bakers bread omnipotencie hath turned it to verifie our sauiours words Hocest c. Conc. Nic. can 14. Theop. in c 6. Ioan. 26. Mat. S Cyril◠〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. that which seemes bread is not bread notwithstanding that the tast esteemes it so but the bodie of Christ Theodoret there is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a change made by grace or supernaturallie The mysticall signes are adored as being reallie according to the inner substance the things which they are beleeued to be videlicet the flesh and blood of Christ Gerson bread is transubstantiated into the true bodie of Christ I omitted to bring the testimonie of S. Athanasius whose mind is knowne well enough out of the Councell of Nice wherein he was because the Commentaries which you cited are not his but Theophilact's who would be comming in too with his 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 if he were called vppon The reason why the Fathers call the bodie of our Sauiour as being in Sacrament bread but supersubstantiall and heauenlie you had giuen you before videlicet because it is in that exteriour forme and by consecration made of bread Ioan. 6. 1. Co. 10 Mar. 16. Gen 3. Ioan. 2. Exod. 7. So you find in Scripture Angels called men man called dust wine called water and a serpent then when it was indeed a serpent called a rodde D. Featlie Corpus Christi cannot properlie be affirmed of bread for they be substantiae disparatae Answer Of common bread it cannot of consecrated and super-substantiall bread it may These are not disparata sundrie things 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 super-substantiall bread and Caro Christi the flesh of Christ are in substance all one D. Featlie
corradere c. cum ergo obijciunt locum Malachiae de Missae Sacrificio ab Irenaeo exponi oblationem quoque Melchisedech sic tractari ab Athanasio Ambrosio Augustino Arnobio breuiter responsum sit eosdem illos Scriptores alibi quoque panem interpretari corpus Christi sed ita ridiculè vt dissentire nos cogat ratio c. Caluin l. de vera Eccles Reform p. 389. In this Section as appeares by the Synopsis which Waferer himself sets before it be many thinges both impertinent to the Argument which was of the signification of the word Hoc and without order packt together As. 1. Of the sixt chapter of Saint Iohn whether it speakes of the Sacrament which Question he concludes negatiuè so cashcering one of his owne Doctors Arguments 2. Of transubstantiation where he would haue the Reader know from him yes that the Fathers speake hyperbolicallie when they saie bread is changed by the power of omnipotence not in shape but in nature that the nature it self is changed that it is transelemented And hauing said for explication of those places that in transelementation the materia prima which is an element or principle of the thing aswell as the forme doth remaine he tells vs the Fathers meane a change in office Your greatest Protestantish polemicks come in fine to the same Expectu eadem a summmo mâ—â—â—moque as if that office to represent or signifie the flesh of Christ came in place of the nature or forme of bread or that a substantiall forme or element were turned into an ens rationis which is in a Ministers emptie braine 3. Of adoration where he would ridiculouslie perswade the Reader that the Councel of Trent will haue latria bestowed vpon meere accidentes for being Sacramentum tantum sacred and Sacramentall signes onlie as if the Church esteemed that a motiue of Diuine and highest worship 4. Of Omnipotencie where he professeth not to meddle with Gods absolute power and yet denies things which we maintaine to be donne onlie by that power 5. Of the Incarnation where he saith that since our Sauiours manhood is inseparablie vnited to his Diuinitie in that sence it may be said to be euerie where present to it and that the vnion of our Sauiours maÌ„hood to the Deitie is extended as far as thâ— Deitie 6. Of miracles Where he saith that that which is onlie spirituall he meanes inuisible such as the changes made in the elements bread and wine by consecration or by the Sacraments in our soules or by God in his Saincts is wrought no where but in the mind These effects and other spirituall created things S. Hier. ad Ctes all if this tenet hold are imaginarie Non necesse habet conuinci quod sua statim professione blasphemum est I spare paper to some other better purpose what neede I spend it Ibidem Sententias vestras prodidisse superasse est This Euripus homo Wauerer in his discourse doth saie and vnsaie and interprete himself when some bodie it seemes warned him of his grosse errours against the CommoÌ„ Creede no better in effect then if hauing said it is I should adde for explication that is Quo teneas vultus mutainteÌ„ protea nodu it is not wanting discretion to leaue out what he had not wit enough to mend The Obiections which he brings such as he picks heere and there out of others he thrusts together in a bundle without order like sticks in a fagot which if it were caried to Carfox and set on fire would illuminate the four quarters of the Vniuersitie Will you heare some recited and obserue in him whilst from his extaticall throne or pulpit he scatters Oracles to sanctifie the attentiue eares of astonished Pupils an example of sweete ingenuous faire ciuill gracious comportment Credite me vobis folium recitare Whist he speakes Apologist let me see what you would haue this bread in the Sacrament to be Such say you as whereunto the Diuine essence doth ineffablie power it self euen as in Christ vnder humane nature the Diuinitie lay bid And finallie such bread of which our Sauiour saith it is my flesh for the life of the world O most insufferable dotage First because the blasphemous comparison of putting Christ so in the bread shaps as his Diuinitie was in his humanitie as if he were personallie vnited to them as he was to the humane nature 2. you would against sense as well as the condition of a Sacrament make an inuisible thing namelie Christ inuisible vnder the accidens of bread to be a signe of a visible thing namelie of Christ visible on the Crosse and so make either two Christs or els the self same bodie to be at the same time both eating and eaten visible and inuisible Censure Who bolder then blind bayard who more furious in charging men with errour and dotage then those who be most ignorant and haue least wit I told him before of his temeritie but the Ethiopian will not change his skinne nor the Leopard depose his spots The Holie Ghost saies of Heretickes and wee finde the experience of it that they are a. 2. Tim. 3. elati superbi criminatores proterui tumidi b. Epist Iust Hi autem the scriptures saies of them quaecumque quidem ignorant blasphemant c. 2. Tim. 3. As Iannes and Mambres withstood Moyses so do these also resist the truth men of corrupt minds reprobate concerning the faith but they shall proceede no further for their follie shall be manifest to all as the others was It is a peece of stupid ignorance in a writer of polemicall bookes to think and an vnsufferable calumnie it were to report that wee beleeue two Christ or that he whom wee beleeue is vnited hypostaticè personallie to the bread shapes To iustifie that wee saie by you recited and so deeplie charged I neede do no more but pray the Authours themselues to come foorth and againe speake it ouer before your face When you see parties peraduenture you will blush 1 Cor. 11. Iesus Christ our Redeemer God and man Take and eate this in the forme of bread is my bodie which is broken Ioan. 6. giuen for you The bread which I will giue is my flesh for the life of the world my flesh is meate indeed c. the Comment you shall haue anon out of S. Ierom. The Authour of the Sermons in Saint Cyprian and of the same age Motton pag. 25. Serm. de Coena whom all know your Patron sayes to be a Catholicke Father That bread being changed not in shape but in nature is by the omnipotencie of the Word made flesh These two places the one out of S. Iohn the other out of the SermoÌ„ that is in S. Cyprian Waferer tooke notice of and in his waie there were more Cyrill Catech. 4. Canon Hoc est as that of S. Cyrill That which appeares breade is not bread but the bodie and of the Canon
is not to be so wise as you that your neighbour and you were substantiallie distinguished that his substāce was not yours nor your substance his by something which is in you substantiall you are distinguished from a stock and by something which is in you substantiall you are distinguished from an asse and by something which is in you substantiall you are distinguished from your neighbour you will not denie this what these are Called euerie Punie can tell you Apologist T 's an infallible axiome that one numericall substance can haue but one manner of b. Mirth I hope can distinguish betwixt an accidentall presentialitie and a substantiall subsistence subsisting Censure If you meane naturallie this axiome is nothing to purpose heere nihil ad rhombum wee talke of that which God hath supernaturallie effected If you meane supernaturallie it is a meere begging of the Question to call that an axiome which no man yet euer auouched and your aduersaries do denie Where did you euer reade vnles it were in some of your pufellowes lying pamphlets that the same indiuiduall substance could not haue supernaturallie diuers accidentall manners of being or that an indiuiduall nature could not haue an other manner of subsisting then naturallie it hath The humanitie of our Sauiour hath another manner of subsisting then ours it subsisteth in the Word is this naturall or supernaturall and accidentallie wee shall be changed when this corruptible shall haue put on incorruption and this mortall haue put on immortalitie is not this likewise aboue nature or is the state of a glorious bodie naturall to the bodie or impossible that Master Waferers Axiome forsooth may stand and in the sence wherein it were to serue his turne One numericall substance can haue but one manner of subsisting Apologist Though place and quantitie be not in the essence of a bodie yet it is a contradiction in it's existence to be without either and consequentlie to create Christ such a bodie in the Eucharist which is not indiuiduall is a meere contradictorie fiction Censure I doubt I shall be thought a foole for disputing with such an one as you are Master Mirth who told you that the bodie which is in the Eucharist is not indiuiduall who spake of such a bodie who told you that it had not there quātitie or that it was no where or do you dreame if you did not and that the matter were not impertinent to this argument I might hap to aske you touching those your imaginations how you proue it a contradiction for a bodie to be without quantitie or a bodie hauing quantitie to be without a place I learned once from Aristotle that quantitie is not substance nor substance quantitie which being supposed and the thing is certaine in it self you will haue much adoe to inferre a contradiction out of these two propositiōs Substantia est Quantitas non est or these other Quantitas est Substantia non est Contradiction being affirmatio and negatio eiusdem de eodem and secundum idem you cannot Master Waferer much lesse can you proue it is a contradiction for a bodie to be without a place Locus is a. 4. Arist 4. Phys t. 41. continentis terminus immobilis primus as the Philosopher defines it who tels you likewise that b vniuersum non est in loco the vttermost heauē or bodie whateuer it be is not properlie in a place No other bodie doth containe it if it did this were not vttermost Yet wee saie not that our Sauiours bodie is no where or that it is not in the Church or that it hath not quantitie or that it is not indiuiduall these are aegri somnia they be your dreames Master Mirth who vnderstand not this mightie argument which you tooke out of your Master Featlie in whom I will go see for I cannot learne of you what the meaning of it is Alia sunt in loco secundum potentiam alia verò secundum actum Vnde cùm continuum quidem sit quod est similium partium secundum potentiam in loco partes sunt cum vero separata sint quidem tangunt autem se sicut collectio secundum actum sunt Et alia quidem per se sunt vt omne corpus aut secundum loci mutationem aut secundum augmentum mobile alicubi perse existit coelum autem sicut dictum est non est alicubi totum neque in quopiam loco si quidem nullum ipsum continet corpus secundum autem quod mouetur sic locus est partibus altera enim alteri adhaerens partium est Alia verò secundum accidens sicut anima coelum partes enim in loco quodammodo omnes sunt in eo enim quod circulariter sunt continet alia aliam vnde mouetur circulariter solum quod sursum est Omne autem non alicubi est quod enim alicubi est ipsum aliquid est adhuc aliud quiddam oportet esse extra hoc in quo quidem continetur extra autem omne totum nihil est Aristot 4. Phys t. 45 Terra quidam in aqua haec in aëre hic verò in aethere hic verò in coelo coelum autem non amplius in alio est Ibidem t. seq Simul autem manifestum est quod neque locus neque vacuum neque tempu◠est extra coelum Quapropter neque quae illic sunt nata sunt in loco esse neque tempus ipsa facit senescere neque vlla transmutatio vllius eorum est quae super extima disposita sunt latione sed inalterabilia impassibilia optimam habentia vitam per se sufficientissimam perseuerant toto aeuo Lib. 1. de Coelo t. 99. 100. Huiusmodi substantiae separatae dicuntur a Philosopho esse ibi id est extra coelum non sicut in loco sed sicut non contenta nec inclusa sub continentia corporalium rerum sed totam corporalem naturam excedentia S. Tho. Ibidem Vide eundem in 1. d. 37. q 3. a. 1. ad 4. Non reputo inconueniens quod Angelus sine loco possit esse c. De quo plura Caietanus Nazarius alijque He proposeth it against Master Wood and will needs proue the bodie if it hath diuers Sacramentall presēces such as wee beleeue it hath is therby diuided in se in itself so that it is no more one and the same but diuers bodies this he striues to conclude out of the distinction of the Sacramentall presences Featlie pag. 134. seqq wherof one is at Rome for example and another is at Paris But he striues in vaine for the Dualitie is of presencies not of bodies there are two presences in one and the same bodie and these two presencies which are accidentes separable from the forsaid bodie relie vpon it as their subiect and presuppose it in being euerie moment wherein themselues be so farre they are from destroying it Neither of them is the