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
of the institution This is my Body are to bee taken in a tropicall and figurative sense is prooved 1. By testimonie of Scripture 2. By authority of Fathers namely Justin Martyr Irenaeus Clemens Alexandrinus Tertullian Cyprian Origen Athanasius Cyrillus Hierosolomitanus Ambrosius Epiphanius Hieronymus Cyrillus Alexandrinus Augustinus Chrysostomus Theodoretus Gaudentius Issidorus Oecumenius and Arnoldus Carmotensis 3. By the confession of our adversaries Gerson Gardiner Bellarmine 4. By force of reason NOw I will ascend from the troubled brooke to the spring from the Canon Law to the divine from Gratian to the Author of all grace Christ Jesus himselfe whose words This is my Body you lay as the ground whereon you build both your carnall presence and Transubstantiation and the sacrifice of the Masse and the adoration of the Host. But it will beare none of them nay rather as ground shaken by an earthquake it will utterly overthrow them all as may appeare by this Syllogisme If in this sentence This is my Body the meaning bee this Bread is my Body the speech cannot be proper but must of necessity bee figurative or tropicall But in this sentence This is my Body the meaning is This Bread is my Body Ergo this speech cannot be proper but must of necessity be figurative and tropicall and if so downe falls Transubstantiation built upon it and carnall presence built upon Transubstantiation and the oblation and adoration of the Host built upon the carnall presence In this Syllogisme the consequence of the Major is so evident that Cardinall Bellarmine affirmeth that it is impossible that bread should be called Christs Body otherwaies then by a figure for bread and Christs Body are things most divers and if disparate substances such as bread and Christs body are might be affirmed one of the other by the same reason wee might affirme something to bee nothing light to bee darkenesse and darkenesse to be light c. Bread is a substance inanimate Christs Body is animate bread of the figure of a loafe or wafer Christs Body of the figure of a man bread inorganicall or without orgaines or members Christs Body Organicall bread made of wheat flower Christs Body of Virgins blood bread therefore in propriety of speech can no more bee Christs Body then Christ himselfe a Vine or a Doore or a Way or a Rocke all which speeches our Adversaries themselves confesse to bee tropicall and figurative The Minor or Assumption is prooved foure manner of waies 1. By testimonie of Scripture 2. By the authority of Fathers 3. Confession of our Adversaries 4. Force of reason 1. The Text is plaine Christ tooke bread and blesseâ—… and brake and said This is my Body what hee tooke hee blessed â—…e brake hee gave of that he said This is my Body But hee tooke he blessed he brake he gave bread of bread therefore he said This is my Body When hee said Hoe or This hee pointed to something not to meere accidents as you confesse for then hee would have said hac not hoc these not this nor pointed he to his owne body sitting at Table for neither did the Apostles nor could they doubt whether the body sitting at Table were his body neither were there any coherence in the words take this bread breake and eate in remembrance of me for this is my body which you see sitting at table with you He pointed therefore to the substance of bread when he said hoc This and consequently the meaning of his words are This bread is my Body 2. You take an oath to expound Scriptures juxta unanimeÌ„ consensum Patrum according to the unanimous consent of Fathers and therefore unlesse you will incurre the censure of perjury you must allow of this interpretation of Christs words This is my Body that is This bread is my Body for so they are expounded by 1. Iustin Martyr The sanctified food which nourisheth our flesh and our blood by the change thereof into our nature we are taught to bee the flesh and blood of him that was incarnate for us Iesus Christ. 2. Irenaeus How did the Lord rightly if an other were his Father taking bread of this condition that is usuall amongst us confesse it to bee his body 3. Clemens Alexandrinus He blessed wine when hee said take drinke this is my blood 4. Tertullian So Christ taught us calling bread his Body 5. Origen Christ confesseth the bread to bee his body 6. Cyprian It was wine which Christ said to be his blood Epist. 76. Panem corpus suum vocat 7. Athanasius What is the bread Christs body 8. Cyrill Christ said of the bread This is my Body 9. Ambrose He delivered broken bread to his Disciples saying This is my Body 10. Saint Hierom. Let us heare that the bread which Christ brake and gave to his Disciples is his body as himselfe saith to salve his credit nay his faith First in this answer you contradict the Tenet of your Church and your selfe For if by hoc or this as the Fathers teach wee are to understand hic panis this bread and the sense of the whole is this bread is my body and bread here stands not for bread in substance but in appearance onely or in the exterior forme or that which is made of bread as your Chaplaine hath it then the words of institution are not taken in the proper sense but are absolutely and simply figurative which your selfe denies and Fisher the Jesuit of Transubstantiation Sess. 2. and Bellarmine of the Sacrament of the Eucharist the words this is my body ought to be taken and expounded properly not figuratively and Alfonsus a Castro and Sanctesius and Salmoron and Costorus and Gardinerus and Tonstallus and Panegyrolla and Roffensis and Suares and Uasques and other Papists named and confuted by Chamierus Secondly this your interpretation no better agreeth with the Fathers words then a wet mould doth with running mettall which makes it flie backe with a great force for instance Iustin Martyr in the words above cited by bread or food understandeth that whereby as hee saith our bodies are nourished quae mutata nutrit carnes nostras but that is not bread turned into Christs body for Christs body is no meate for the belly nor is it turned into our flesh Irenaeus speaketh of bread ejus conditionis quae secundum nos of bread that is usuall among us l. 4. c. 57. c. 34. of bread qui est c terra which is taken from the earth such is not super-substantiall bread or transubstantiated into Christs body Clemens by wine understandeth wine allegorically tearmed Christs blood 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 but that is not wine really turned into Christs blood for that is Christs blood in propriety of speech not by a Metaphor or Allegorie Tertullian as you expound him speaketh of bread which was vetus figura an antient figure of Christs body but that could not bee bread transubstantiated into his body
is transmuted into Christ body saith in the same Oration that Christs humane nature is transmuted into a divine excellencie And Gregory Nazienzes saith that by Baptisme we are transmuted into Christ. Theophylact who upon the 6. of Iohn saith the bread is transelementated into Christs body 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 saith that we are transelementated into Christ. You see therefore that neither Cyrils 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 nor Nyssenâ—… 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 nor Theopylact's 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 come home to your 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 they import no more then a spirituall 〈◊〉 Sacramentall change Were they 〈◊〉 bee taken in the most proper sense for a substantiall change yet would they not helpe you a whit for in the conversion of water into wine or the transmutation of one element into another the formes and accidents are changed but the common matter remaineth the same whereas in your Transubstantiation the whole matter and substance perisheth and the accidentâ—… onelâ—… remaine Thirdly I proove that the Pronoune hoc this standeth for hic panis by confession of our learned Adversaries Gerson wee must say that the Pronoune hoc demonstrateth the substance of bread Gardiner Christ saith plainely This is my Body pointing to bread Bellarmine The Lord tooke bread blessed it and gave it to his Disciples and of it said This is my Bodie Fourthly I proove it by force of reason when this Pronoune hoc is uttered it must signifie something then existent but that could not be Christs body under the accidents of bread for vour selves teach that the bread is not turned into Christs body till the last instant in which the whole proposition is uttered it remaineth therefore that the Pronoune hoc stands for haec accidentia which yee all disclaime or hic panis this bread as then unaltered Hereunto you answer that hoc doth signifie and suppose not for that instant in which it is uttered but for the end of the proposition when the praedicatum is in being as when I say this is a crosse and make it withall the word this doth suppose for the crosse not which is when the word this is uttered but which is within the whole time that I speak so when I say taceo I doe not signifie that I speake not while I am uttering this word but that I am silent when I have done uttering So saith your Chaplaine in these operative speeches of our Saviour Lazarus come forth young man arise the words Lazarus and young man did not signifie persons existent then precisely when they were uttered but when the speeches were compleat If Sophistry were the science of salvation these knack and querkes of wit might be in high esteeme wheras they no more befit Divinity then it would become grave Cato to cut many a crosse-caper I might justly remand you your Chaplaine to the disputations in parvis where such cummin as this is tithed or rather such gnats streigned by puneys in Logick yet because you shall not say that I let passe any apex or title in your booke I will examine all these your instances To which I replie first in generall that you beg what you ought to prove and use a base fallacie in all this diâ—…â—…d petitio principij you take it for granted that these words of our Saviour This is my Body are practicall in your sense that is worke a substantiall and miraculous change which we denie and you will never be able to make good proofe of For first bare words as they are words have no operative power much lesse a vertue to worke miracles which cannot be effected without the imployment of the divine Omnipotencie Secondly words that are practicall that is used by God or men as instruments to produce any effect of this nature are imperative or uttered in the imperative mood as Be thou cleane receive thy sight Lazarus come forth young man arise sile obmutesce and the like not in the indicative as This is my Body This is my Blood Thirdly the words of themselves can no more proove the bread to bee turned into Christs Body then the accidents For certaine it is and conâ—…sed on all sides that when hee uttered these words This is my Body he pointed to that which he held in his hands which was a substance clothed with the accidents colour quantity tast and the like But your selves confesse that by vertue of these words This is my Body the accidents are not turned into Christs Body therefore neither can it be prooved that by vertue of these words Thâ—… is my Body the substance of bread is turned into Christs Body In particular to your first instance in a Crosse which at the same instant you make and say this is a Crosse. I answer first that if you could proove Christ had a purpose to make his Body in your sense as you have to make a Crosse when you say this is a Crosse and make it withall this instance of yours were considerable but till you proove the former 't is nothing to the purpose Secondly either you have made the Crosse with your fingers before or at the instant when you say this or els your speech this is a Crosse if it be true is figurative the present tense est being taken pro proximè futuro that is for the time immediatly ensuing upon the uttering of your words To your second instance in the word taceo I hold my peace I answer that if you will make a proposition of it you must resolve it into ego sum tacens I am silent and then the subject I is in being when this word I is uttered and likewise the praedicatum silent is in being as soone as the word is uttered Howbeit in ordinary and vulgar speech taceo is taken for jam nunc tacebo I hold my peace thaâ—… is I will utter not a word more To your third instance in Lazarus and the young man I answer that either Christ by a Metonymie partis pro toto called Lazarus his soule or his body by the name of the whole Lazarus or if Christs speech be proper that both Lazarus and the young man at that very instant when Christ called them were persons existent their soules being returned to their bodies For though the one came not forth out of his grave nor the other arose till after our Saviours speech was compleat and ended yet I say and you shall never be able to disproove it that at the same moment when Christ called Lazarus Lazarus was in being and so likewise the young man and the damsell In a proposition every part or word is vox significativa as soone as it is uttered as you may learne out of Aristotles booke de interpretatione and S. Austin his Dialogue with Adeodatus therefore as soore as this Pronoune hoc is uttered it must then signifie something then being A proposition is a complexum like to a heape or a number
to be the Symbole or Sacrament of his body as also why hee rather chose wine then any other licour to bee the embleme and memoriall of his blood we can assigne certainely no other reason then his meere will Tertullian his guesse is but probable that Christ in the institution of the Sacrament in the formes of bread and wine had an eye to the Prophecy of Ieremy or Iacob But be it probable or necessary it matters not seeing it is confessed on all hands that bread is a figure of Christs body though not now a Legall Type yet an Evangelicall Being both it makes the stronger for this glosse of Tertullian this bread is my body that is a figure of my body But here S. E. helpes you at a dead lift alleadging a testimony out of Tertullians booke de resurrectione carnis for the carnall presence of Christ in the Sacrament The words of Tertullian are these The flesh is washed that the soule may be cleansed the flesh feeds upon the body and blood of Christ that the soule may be fatted by God Of this place of Tertullian he is as proud as Pâ—…lius in the proverbe was of his sword not observing that the point of it lyeth against himselfe for if hee expound these words according to the rule of the Fathers the signes have usually the names of the thing signified by them then hee confirmes our figurative interpretation understanding by the body of Christ the Symbole or signe thereof upon which our flesh seeds when we receive the Sacrament but if he understand the words of Tertullian properly as if our very flesh or stomach turned Christs Body into corporal nourishment and so really fed upon it to fatten or cheare our soules he makes Tertullian blaspheme and hee gives the lie to his Lord your selfe who page 65. in expresse tearmes affirme that in the Fucharist there is no violence offered to Christ his flesh in it selfe nor is it eaten to the end our bodies may thereby be nourished To affirme that the substance of our mortall body is nourished or increased by the flesh of Christ taken in the Sacrament is to make the Eucharist cibum ventris non mentis the foode of the belly not of the soule then which grosse conceit nothing can bee more absurd in the judgement of your owne Cardinall Bellarmine Tertullian disclaimes this carnall fancy in the very words alledged by your Chaplaine ut anima saginetur the flesh saith the Father feeds on the Body and Blood of Christ that the soule may bee fatted the soule not the body If hee demand how can the soule bee satisfied or fatted by the bread in the Sacrament if it bee not turned into Christs Body I answer out of the former words of Tertullian even as the soule is cleansed in Baptisme by washing the body with water though that water be not turned into Christs blood You have heard that Tertullian doth not so much as lispe in your language heare now how lowd hee speakes in ours The sense of the word saith he is to be taken from the matter for because they thought his speech hard and intolerable unlesse ye cate the flesh of the Sonne of man c. as if hee had appointed his flesh truly and in very deed to bee eaten of them he premised it is the Spirit which quickneth and a little after appointing his Word to be the quickner because his Word is spirit and life he called the same his flesh for the Word was made flesh therefore to be desired with an appetite to give and maintaine life in us to be eaten by hearing to be chewed by understanding to be digested by beleeving These words are so plaine that you cannot mistake the meaning of them and if you should goe about to draw them to any carnall sense or eating Christ with the mouth he will checke you in the words following where he saith that Christ used an allegorie in this place now an allegorie is a figure in which an other thing is to be understood divers from that which the words import taken in the usuall and proper sense Doubtlesse he who held the bread at the Lords Table to be a representation of Christs body and the wine a memoriall of his blood beleeved not that the bread was turned into his body or the wine into his blood for no picture is the life it selfe no memoriall is of a thing present but absent But Tertullian called bread that whereby Christ represented his owne body taking the word represent in the same sense which Saint Bernar doth As Christ after a sort is sacrificed every day when we shew forth his death so he seemeth to be borne whilest we faithfully represent his birth As the figure signe or that whereby any thing is represented or set before the eye is not the thing it selfe so neither a monument or a memoriall of our friend is our friend the wine therefore which Tertullian saith Christ consecrated for a memoriall of his blood cannot bee his very blood The same Father in his booke of the flesh of Christ smiled at the heretickes who imagined Christ to have flesh hard without bones solid without muscles bloody without blood c. They saith he that fancy such a Christ as this that deceiveth and deludeth all mens eyes and senses and touchings should not bring him from heaven but fetch him rather from some jugglers box I trow hee meant not your Popish Pix yet sure such a flesh it encloseth hard if it bee so without bones solid without muscles and bloody without blood for you say Christs blood is there and shâ—…d too and yet tear me your Masse an unbloody sacrifice I take you to be so ingenuous that you would not belie your senses I am sure you will confesse that you see nothing in the pyx but the whitenesse of bread in the Chalice but the rednesse of wine no flesh or blood colour in either You tast nothing but bread in the one and the sapour of wine in the other you touch no soft flesh with your hand nor quarrie blood with your lips or tongue But I inferre out of Tertullian You must not question the truth of your senses lest thereby you weaken the sinewes of our faith lest peradventure the heretickes take advantage thereupon to say that it was not true that Christ saw Satan fall like lightning from heaven that it is not true that he heard a voice from heaven but the sense was deceived Were not the senses competent judges of their proper objects even in the case we are now putting viz. the discerning Christs true body Christ would never have appealed to them as hee doth Behold my hands and my feet that is I my selfe handle me and see for a Spirit hath not flesh and bones as you see me have I have given a touch hitherto but upon singâ—…e testimonies as it were
single strings now in the close listen to a chord So Christ hath revealed unto us calling bread his body whose body the Prophet prefigured in bread Christ is our bread because Christ is our life and life is our bread I am saith he the bread of life as also because his body is accounted for bread taking the bread he said this is my body when therefore we pray for our daily bread we desire to continue in Christ and never to be severed from his body And against Marcion So God revealed in your Gospell calling bread his body And againe why doth hee call bread his body c. But I assume bread cannot be Christs body in the proper sense because disperate substances cannot properly bee predicated one of the other therefore when Christ spake these words This is my Body which Tertullian constantly and perpetually silleth up thus this bread is my body he used a Metonymie called signatum pro signo or figuratum pro figura which quite overthroweth your carnall presence and beateth you out of your strongest fort the words of Christs holy institution which you would have to be taken according to the letter Thus you see Tertullian is clearely against you and you are foyled in the first argument PAR. 10. Thirty three allegations out of S. Austin against Transubstantiation vindicated and all objections made by the adversarie out of him answered SO are you also in the second which you propound amisse Saint Austin in his third booke de doctrina Christiana saith that speech of our Saviour unlesse you eate the flesh of the Sonne of man Iohn the 6. c. is figurative therfore the other this is my body is so too Quem recitas meus est o Fidentine libellus Sed malè dum recitas incipit esse tuus The argument was mine but by your mis-reporting it and mis-applying the consequent to the antecedent you make it yours Thus I connected this argument to the former there are two Texts in the Gospell upon which you relie either principally or onely for your carnall presence of Christs body in the Sacrament under the formes of bread and wine The former Mat. 26. 26. I have proved out of Tertullian yeelds your doctrine no support and you are driven in effect to confesse as much subscribing with your owne hand Ego agnosco quod in his verbis hoc est corpus meum est figura I acknowledge the words of Institution to be figurative Now I will prove that in like manner the words of our Saviour Iohn 6. 53. are to be taken in a figurative and improper sense and consequently that the proper eating Christs flesh with the mouth cannot be inferred from them For proofe of the antecedent I produced in the first place a passage out of Saint Austins third booke de doctrinâ Christianâ cap. 16. But if that Scripture seeme to command a sinne or an horrible wickednesse or to forbid any thing that is good and profitable the speech is figurative for example when he saith unlesse ye eate the flesh of the Sonne of man and drinke his blood ye have no life in you he seemeth to command a sinne or horrible wickednesse there is a figure therefore in the words commanding us to communicate with the Lord his Passion and sweetly profitably to lay it up in our memory That his flesh was crucified and wounded for us Here said I three things are very remarkeable to the point now in question 1. That Saint Austin maketh choice of these words of our Saviour as of a most knowne instance of a figurative speech 2. That he not onely affirmeth it to be a figurative speech but confirmeth it also by a strong argument figura est Ergo it is therefore a figure 3. That he sheweth what figure it is end expoundeth the meaning of our Saviour in this figurative speech conformably to the doctrine of the Protestants and contrarie to all Romish glosses upon it To this allegation you answered partly by glancing at Saint Austins argument partly by glossing upon his conlusion First said you it is not a horrible thing to eate mans flesh unlesse it be eaten in the proper shape for it appeares in Mumme that mans flesh may be eaten without horrour when it is not eaten in the proper shape Secondly you distinguished of a figurative speech according to the thing eaten and according to the manner of eating it and said that the speech of Christ Iohn 6. according to Saint Austin was figurative according to the manner of eating to wit in the proper forme but that it was proper according to the matter viz. the substance of Christs flesh 1. Against your first answer to Saint Austins antecedent I replie 1. That whereas you pretend Saint Austin to bee for you you should not have disabled his argument but have defended it rather Now you evidently overthrow it For if it be not a horrible thing to eate mans flesh though under an other shape Saint Austins Ergo therefore our Saviours speech concerning eating his flesh must needs be figurative is a plaine non sequitur 2. Saint Cyril maketh good this argument of Saint Austins choaking his adversarie with this interrogatorie Dost thou pronounce the Sacrament to be a man eating and dost thou irreligiously urge the mindes of the faithfull to grosse and carnall imaginations You would have instructed Saint Cyril to have interrogated more warily dost thou pronounce the Sacrament to be the eating of a man in his proper shape Otherwise to eate a man under an other shape you would have whispered him in the eare is a schoole delicacie no carnall and grosse imagination 3. I affirme that it is an horrible thing to eate mans flesh and drinke his blood though in an other shape for it is not the disregard of the countenance of man or the disfiguring his shape which makes Anthropophagie or man eating so horrible a sinne but the making the flesh of one man the food of another and the belly a sepulcher This I make appeare by foure instances 1. Suppose at Rome or Venice on the day of your carnivals when many murthers are committed by men in disguised habits that one of the masquers or mummers slaine should be boyled or rosted and served in at table in the habit of a whiffler or masquer were it not a horrible wickednesse think you to eate of this mans flesh his head for example though with a vizard upon it and so I returne you a mummer for your mumme 2. If according to Iustins storie or Ovids fiction the members of a sonne were baked in a pie in the likenesse of venison with the proportion of a Deere printed on the crust were it not a horrible wickednesse for a Father to eate wittingly of his sonnes flesh though under another shape 3. What though a mans body in some fight were so mangled and battered that it had lost all humane shape would you warrant an
for before his Incarnation hee had no body into which bread could bee then turned Cyprian speaketh of bread made of many cornes or graines and of wine pressed out of many grapes Ambrose speaketh of bread broken but super-substantiall bread or turned into Christs body is not broken bread Saint Hierome likewise speakes of broken bread and consequently not of the heavenly bread which is Christs flesh Epiphanius speakes of that which is of a round figure and without sense and such is bakers bread but not that bread which Christ said Iohn the 6. He would give us to wit his flesh for the life of the world Gaudentius speakes of bread consecrated before he gave it or said This is my Body but it was not according unto your doctrine turned into Christs body before the words this is my body are uttered neither â—…oth the Priest consecrate Christs body but the bread for consecrare is ex communi sacrum facere of a thing common before to make a thing Sacred or a Sacrament Saint Chrysostome and Saint Austin both speake of terrestriall bread or as you call it bakers bread not of transubstantiated or coelestiall bread for both of them observe in the bread and in the wine a representation of Christs mysticall body which is one consisting of many members as a loafe of bread is â—…c yet made of the flower of many â—…res or cornes and the cup of wine is one â—…ough made of the juyce of many grapes â—…int Isidore speaketh of bread which â—…engtheneth the body and therefore of â—…ead in substance and not in appeaâ—…nce onely Lastly Arnoldus Carmoâ—…nsis whom you mistake for Saint â—…yprian saith not that bread is called â—…hrists flesh because it is turned into it â—…t because the thing signifying and â—…ing signified are called by the same â—…ames Now to the shreds of sententes of Fathers which your Chaplaine takes from your bulke I will returne as short answers in the order as he hath laid them Irenaeus saith that the bread in the Eucharist is not common bread so say we also for it is consecrated to a holy and heavenly use Tertullian saith that hee made the bread his owne â—…ody that is as he expoundeth it himselfe in the same place the sigure of his â—…ne body Saint Hierom Epist. ad He dib q. 2. saith the bread came downe fâ—…om heaven but hee meaneth Christ himselfe not the Sacramentall bread for that came not downe from heavâ—… but was made of wheate growing upâ—… the earth Saint Austin as you quoâ—… but indeed Ambrose 15. de Sacram. c. speaketh of super-substantiall bread 〈◊〉 thereby he meaneth Christs flesh or thâ—… heavenly Manna not that bread 〈◊〉 eate in the Sacrament with the mouth as he admonisheth in the next wordâ—… it is not the bread which goeth in the body but the bread of eternall 〈◊〉 which supporteth the substance of 〈◊〉 soule with whom Saint Austin him selfe accordeth Ser. 29. de verb. Doâ—… Thy Shepheard and thy giver of life is thâ—… meate and eternall bread learne and teach live and feed what is sufficienâ—… for thee if thy God bee not Epiphanius saith that he who beleeved not thâ—… bread to bee as our Saviour said his body falleth from salvation 't is true hee that beleeveth not the bread to be our Saviours body as our Saviour said it to bee his body endangereth his salvation for hee questioneth the truth of our Lord but Epiphanius saith not that Christs words are to bee take litterally nay in that very place heâ—… proveth the contrary for the breaâ—… 〈◊〉 round and without sense but our Lord 〈◊〉 know is wholy sensitive or rather all sense Saint Cyrill saith that which seemes bread is not bread but Christs body but hee in the words going before and in his Catech. plainely sheweth his owne meaning Come not therefore as unto simple bread and wine or â—…are bread and wine The bread after the calling upon of the Holy Ghost is no more common bread as the ointment after benediction is no more common ointment but chrisme Yet oyle after benediction still retaineth the substance of oyle and so doth the bread after consecrasion the substance of bread The Author Decaen Dom. who is so much in your Bookes that wee finde him almost in every Section is not the blessed Martyr Saint Cyprian as Bellarmine proveth by many arguments but a farre later Writer by name Arnoldus Carmotensis as the Epistle Dedicatory to Pope Adrian who sate Anno 1154. extant in All-Soules Library in Oxford testifieth but bee hee Cyprian or Arnoldus who wrote the Treatises de cardinalibus Christi operibus hee is no friend to your carnall presence or Transubstantiation for in the Chapter cited by you hee hath these words wee whet not our teeth to eate but by sincere faith wee breake the holy bread And in the words immediatly following those words which you alleadge hee saith that Christ powreth his divine Essence into the Sacrament even as in Christ under the humane nature the divinity lay hid therefore according to this Author there remaineth the substance of bread together with Christs Body Sacramentally united as in Christ the humane and the divine nature remaine united hypostatically And moreover that when hee saith the bread is changed not in shape but in nature and by the Omnipotencie of the Word made flesh that hee speaketh of a Sacramentall change and not substantiall and that by nature hee meaneth the naturall and common use not the essence of bread appeareth by his owne words a little before in this Tract of the Supper of the Lord. That although the immortall food delivered in the Eucharist differ from common meate yet it retaineth the kinde of corporall substance And in the Treatise following Our Lord saith he at the Table in his last Supper gave bread and wine with his owne hands and on the Crosse hee gave up his body to bee wounded by the hands of the Souldiers pray take speciall notice that hee gave bread at the Table and his body on the Crosse not his body at the Table no more then bread at the Crosse that hee might expound to the Nations how divers names or kindes are reduced to the same essence and the things signifying and signified are called by the same names If Cyril would be comming in as your Chaplaine speaketh with his Conversion and Nyssen with his Transmutation and Theophylact with his Transelementation they shall be met with and repayed all three in their owne coyne Cyril who in his Epistle to Colosyrius if it bee his whereof Vasques doubteth in his 180. Disputation upon the 3. part of Thomas his summes saith the bread and wine are changed into the veritie of Christs flesh in his second booke upon Iohn Chap. 42. saith that the waters of Baptisme are by the operation of the Holy Ghost changed into a divine nature Nyssen who saith that bread
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
both he his Lord and Fisher and Weston have answered foâ—… treatises set out by the Author pag 25. PARAG. 6. Of the novelty of Popery and the true occasion oâ—… Author his conference with D. Smith at Paris pag. 30 PARAG 7. Of the Conditions of this Conference and how they 〈◊〉 kept on both sides p. 34. PARAG 8. The state of the question is truly set downe five pâ—… wherein we differ touching the Reall presence are 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 p. 41. PARAG. 9. Twelve passages out of Tertullian against Transubstant on vindicated all objections out of him for the caâ—… p. esence answered p. 57. PAR. 10. Thirty three allegations out of S. Auâ—… against Traâ—… stâ—…tion vindicated and all objections made by the verâ—…ie out of him answered p 78. PAR. 11. Twelve testimonies out of Origen against Transubstant on vindicated all objections out of him answered p. 〈◊〉 PAR. 12. â—…hteene places out of Gratian the Father of the Canoâ—…ists against Transubstantâ—…n vindicated and objectiâ—…ns out of him answered p. â—…38 PAR. 13. â—…at the words of the Institution This is my Body are to be taken in a tropicall and figurative sense is prooved 1. By testimonie of Scripture 2. By authority of Fathers namely Iustin Martyr Irenaeus Clemens Alexandrinus Tertullian Cyprian Origen Athanasius Cyrillus Hierosolomitanus Amâ—…rosius Epiphanius Hieronymus â—…yrillus Alexandrinus Auâ—…stinus Chrysostomus Theodoretus Gaudentius Issidorus Oecumenius and Arnoldus Carmotensis 3. By the confeâ—… on of our Adversaries Gerson Gardiner Bellarmine 4. By force of reason p. â—…54 PAR. 14. â—…at in the words of the institution of the cup this cup is the New Testament in my blood there are divers figures is prooved by unavoidable consequences and the confessâ—… on of our Learned Adversaries Salmeron Baradius and Iansenius p. 190. PARAG. 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 testimony of Origen Clemens Alexandrinus Cyprian Austin Chrysostome Druthmarus the Author of the book de Ecclesiasticis dogmatibus Iansenius Maldonat the counsell of Wormes and Pope Innocentius and D. Smith and his Chaplaines evasions refuted pag. 198. PARAG. 16. Of the Bishops Chaplaine and Champion S. E his cowardly Tergiversation base Adulation shamelesse Calumnia tion and senselesse Scurrility pag. 209. PAR. 17. A serious exhortation to D. Smith otherwise Bishop of Chaâ—… cedon to returne home to his dearest mother the Church of England and famous Nurse the University of Oxford p. 229. Perlegi hunc librum Cui Tituâ—… est An encounter with Richaâ—… the Titularie B. of Chalcedoâ—… c. in quo nihil reperio sanae 〈◊〉 ctrinae aut bonis moribus contrariuâ—… quo minus cum utilitate publicâ iâ—… primatur ita tamen ut si non inâ—… 5. menses proximé sequentes tyâ—… mandetur haec licentia sit omnâ—… irrita Ex Aedibus Lambethan Octob. 28. 1637. Reverendissimo in Christo Paâ—… Dom. D. Arch. Cantâ—… Sacellanus Domesticâ—… GVLIEL BRA Errata Page 11. in marg reade Binium p. 41 line 14â—… Chaâ—… p. 42. l. 20. r. implicita p. 47. in marg r. exhiberi p. 57. l 10. 〈◊〉 fidell r. reprobate p. 60. in marg r. sic p. 63. in marg r. adâ—… and l 25. r. you conster p. 65. in marg r. Cordis loco p 66. marg 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 l 13. r 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 p. 77. in marg r prophete 94 l. 25. r. consecrat p. 117. l. 22. dele that p. 118. in marâ—… pâ—…nitus quantitas auferatâ—…r p 123 l. 13. r. invisible p. 189. l. Sacramentall p 194. l. 26 r is without p. 283. in marg r. 〈◊〉 p. â—…0 in marg r 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 TO RICHARD SMITH Dr. of the Sorbone intituled by the Pope B. of Chalcedon and Ordinarie of England and Scotland D. F. wisheth a better 1. Title 2. Cause 3. Advocate PAR. 1. Of the empty and ayerie title of Bishop of Chalcedon NO men Omen The style wherwith the Pope graceth you seemes to me ominous and to bode you a meere titularyâ—…gnity â—…gnity and a blinde Diocesse For I read in Strabo and Plinie that the inhabâ—… tants of Chalcedon were by the Oracâ—… of Apollo antiently tearmed blinde meâ—… because they could not see to build theâ—… City upon the more commodious siâ—… of the shore And I finde that at thâ—… instance of the Emperour Marcianâ—… the Fathers in the fourth generall couâ—… cell advanced this City to the title of Metropolitan See yet without thâ—… priviledges belonging thereunto juâ—… as his Holinesse sent to you from Roâ—… the shadow of a Mitre without the suâ—… stance and conferred on you the title 〈◊〉 Ordinary of all England and Scotlaâ—… without any revenue to mantaine and support your Port and State Wheâ—… at notwithstanding the Benedictineâ—… Jacobines and Jesuits so barke aâ—… bawle in print that not onely Englaâ—… and Ireland but also France and Roâ—… her selfe rings of them And althougâ—… the most celebriâ—…us University of Paâ—… hath let flie two fierce 〈◊〉 to â—…ake these curres and the Arch-Biâ—…ops and Bishops of France have laid 〈◊〉 them amaine with their crozure â—…ves and the faculty of Sorbon with â—…r battone yet they will not be quiet 〈◊〉 strange thing to heare those who â—…ast so much of Catholike unity to â—…ndie the tearmes of Schismatike and â—…eretike so familiarly one to the other 〈◊〉 Sorbonists to the Jesuites and the â—…suites by back-racket againe to the â—…orbonists and yet a stranger to see â—…erius revived in Ignatius Loyolae and puritane buds to sprout out of a Iesuites stocke Geneva was wont to be branded for denying the necessity of confirmation by a Bishop or of a Bishop at all in the Church but now S. Omers hath justified Geneva Thus errours run in a ring and though diametrally opposite at first yet meet at the last in the Center In the meane while what doth Monsieur Le-Pape eitherlike Nero he singeth a Poem of his oâ—… making to his Thearbo when he seeâ—… dangerous fire kindled within the waâ—… of Rome or like Gallio Deputie in 〈◊〉 Acts Chap. 18. Ver. 15. he accountâ—… these controversies which yet toâ—… not onely all Bishops Miters but 〈◊〉 Triple-crowne also to be questions words and names and will be no judge such matters and letteth the Monk take Sosthenes and other chiefe Râ—… lers of the Romish Synagogues and beâ—… them before his judgement seate and 〈◊〉 reth for none of these things Nâ—… certes his Holinesse is doubly to blaâ—… First to reward your eminent paâ—… both naturall and morrall improved 〈◊〉 learning and travell and emploâ—… wholy to the advancement of the Paâ—… cie with no better a guerdon then 〈◊〉 emptie title of a hungry Greeke 〈◊〉 shoprick Next when he saw his Brâ—… come short of his intendment and yoâ—… hopes not to
second No signe Sacrament figure or memoriall of Christs body and blood is his very body and blood for signum signatum the signe and the thing signified the type and the truth are relatively opposed and therefore no more can the one be the other then the Father bee the Sonne or the Master the Servant or the Prince the Subject or the Husband the Wife in so much that Saint Chrysostome concludeth that Melchizedeck could not be a Type of Christ if all things incident to the truth that is Christ himselfe were found in him And Saint Austin apparantly distinguisheth betweene Sacramentum and rem Sacramenti and affirmeth that every signe signifieth something els then it selfe And that it is a miserable servitude of the soule to takâ—… the signes for the thing themselves For the signe of truths are one thing 〈◊〉 themselves and signifie anâ—…ther They are visibâ—… Seales but things invisible are honoured in them But that which we take at the Lords Table is a Mystery a Sacrament a Signe a Figure a Memoriall of Christs Body and Blood Ergo that which wee receive in the Lords Supper is not the very Body and Blood of Christ after your sense Touching the third If the words which our Saviour spake concerning the eating of his flesh and drinking his blood recorded by the foure Evangelists and Saint Paul are to be taken Sacramentally Spiritually and Figuratively and not in the proper sense which the letter carrieth nothing can be from them concluded for the eating the very flesh of Christ with the mouth for so to eate the flesh of Christ is to eate it corporally not Sacramentally carnally not spiritually properly not figuratively wheras to believe in Christs Incarnation to bee partaker of the benefits of his Passion to abide in him and to be preserved in body and soule to eternal life which are the interpretations Saint Austin giveth is not to eate Christ flesh properly but onely in an allegoricall sense But the words which our Saviour spake concerning the eating of his flesh in the judgement of Saiâ—… Austin are to bee taken Sacramentally Spiritually and figuratively For the words which our Saviour spake of this argument are either the words of the institution related by the three Evangelists and Saint Paul or they are set downe by Saint Iohn Chap. 6. The former Saint Austin affirmeth to bâ—… 〈◊〉 spâ—…llyâ—…d â—…d Sacramentally 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 booke against 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 12 and in his Commentary upon the 98. Psalme and in his 23. Epist. to Boniface and in his 33. Sermon upon the words of ouâ—… Lord the latter he expoundeth in like sort figurativeâ—…y in his 3. book de doct Christi c. 16. in his 2. Sermon of the words of the Apostle and in his 33. Sermon de verbis Dom. And in his 25. and 26. Tractats upon Saint Iohn All these passages are wel knowne to the Learned and although you cast a mist before some of them yet it will easily bee dispelled and the beames of truth in this holy Fathers Writings discover themselves so clearely that they will dazle all your eyes What words can be more conspicuous then those of this Father I coulâ—… interpret that precept of not eating blood figuratively understanding by blood that which it figureth for our Lord doubted not to say This is my Body when hee gave the signe of his body Here the antecedents possem dicere hoc praeceptum in figurâ positum esse and the words non dubitavit clearely demonstrate Saint Austins meaning to bee that though it might seeme harsh to call the bread which is a signe of Christs body his body as the blood of a beast slaine the soule yet by a figure Christ made no scruple so to tearme it Doubtlesse the blood of any beast slaine is neither properly the soule of that beast nor a signe of a soule present in it no more by Saint Austins comparing these Texts together is bread Christs body nor a signe of his body present in it but onely a Sacrament and memoriall thereof The next passage is as cleare You are not to eate that body which you see nor to drinke that blood which they will shed who crucifie me I have commended unto you a certaine Sacrament or mystery which being spiritually understood will quicken you And although it ought to be celebrated visibly yet it ougâ—…t to be understood invisibâ—… Put the parts of the sentence together and the meaning of the whole will be evidently this that which you are to eate and drinke is not my very body which you now see and the Jewes shall pierce and crucifie but a visible Sacrament thereof Which yet received with faith in my bloody death through the power of the Spirit shall quicken you If there could bee any obscurity in this passage it is cleared in the next When Easter is neare saith he we say tomorrow or the day following Christ suffered whereas hee suffered but once and that many yeares agoe so wee say on the Lords day this day the Lorâ—… rose whereas many yeareâ—… are past since hee rose why is no man so foolish as 〈◊〉 charge us with a lie in sâ—… speaking but because weâ—… call these daies according 〈◊〉 the similitude of those daies in which these things were done and say thâ—…s is such a day which is not that day but in the revolution of time is like unto it and that is said to be done that day by reason of the celebration or mysterie of the Sacrament which was not done that day but long before Was not Christ once offered in himselfe and yet in the Sacrament he is not onely offered at Easter but every day neither doth he lie who being asked shall answer that he is offered For if Sacraments had not a resemblance of those things whereof they are Sacraments they should not bee Sacraments at all Now in regard of this resemblance for the most part they take the name of the things themselves As therefore the Sacrament of Christs body after a sort is Christs body the Sacrament of his blood is his blood so the Sacrament of faith hee meanes there Baptsime is faith But I assume Good-Friday last past was not the very day of Christs Passion nor the last Lords day the day of his Resurrection nor the celebration of the Sacrament the very offering of Christ on the Crosse nor Baptisme the very habit or doctrine of faith but so tearmed onely by a figure to wit a Metonymie therefore neither is that of which Christ said This is my Body his body in propriety of speech but onely so tearmed by a figure because it is the Sacrament and resemblance of his body For all these speeches Saint Austin in this Epistle makes to bee like I know not what can be more plaine except the words of the same Father Christ gave the Supper consecrated with his own hands
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
be to little purpose to reason with you by arguments drawne from reason for you will make good any absurdity in reason by your faith What answer you to the words of your owne Masse which you say every day M. F. After the Priest hath consecrated and elevated the Host he saith Wee offer unto thee O Lord of thy guifts a pure and holy Host upon which vouchsafe to looke with a benigne and propitious countenance and to accept them as thou didst vouchsafe to accept the guifts of thy child Abel the righteous command that these things be carried by the hands of the holy Angel into thy high Altar into the sight of thy divine Majâ—…sty by Iesus Christ our Lord by whom thou dost alwaies create sanctifie blesse these good things unto us D. B. What do you urge me with the Canon of the Masse M. F. You a Masse-Priest and not able to defend your owne Masse are you not affraid of that thundering Canon if any man say that the Canon of the Masse containes any errors in it let him be acoursed I should think my selfe much disparaged if I should refuse to maintaine our owne Church Liturgie Let this be noted that M. D. will not answer to the words he readeth every day in the Masse doe you make as little reckoning of the customes of the ancient Church as you did of the Canons and Constitutions of the present Church of Rome set downe in the Masse D. B. What an idle thing is this in you to urge the customes of the Church a morall argument in a theologicall controversie M. F. Your exception were plausible if I purposed to urge a morall or civill custome I make an inference upon religious customes of the ancient Church whereby a man may as certainely gather what their opinion and judgement was touching this point as by their words Evagrius saith that at Constantinople they called children from the schoole and distributed the remainder of the Sacrament among them Hesychius l. 2. in Levit c. 8. speaketh yet of a more strange custome of casting it into the fire D. B. What collect you from these customes M. F. That they thought not the Sacrament to be Christs very body but only a mysterie of it D. B. I see not any force in this consequence conclude Syllogistically M. F. That which the ancients distributed to children cast into the fire they beleeved not to be the body of Christ farther then in a mysterie But the remainder of the Sacrament after the Communion they disposed of as above Ergo they beleeved it not to bee the very body of their Lord and Saviour farther then in a mysterie D. B. I make doubt of your Major M. F. I marvaile how you can make any doubt of it for if they had beleeved as you do the Sacrament to be the very body of Christ by way of Transubstantiation they had grievously sinned against their conscience in thus using or rather abusing the Lords body D. B. How proove you that M. F. It is a sin to give Christs body to children that cannot discerne it a greater sin by farre to cast it into the fire I say to cast the remainder of the Sacrament into the fire holding it to be the very body of Christ in your sense otherwise holding it to bee but the figure or Sacrament of Christs body they might burne it without sin in imitation of the Israelites who by the commandement of God burnt the remainder of the Paschall Lamb which was a figure of Christ. D. B. You answer your selfe as you say the Iewes burnt the remainder of the Paschall Lambe to prevent worse inconveniencies so the ancient Church might cast Christs body in the Sacrament into the fire in a reverence to it M. F. A strange kinde of reverence to throw a man especially alive into the fire D. B. If the figure of Christ might bee burnt in reverence his body might with greater reverence M. F. I scarce beleeve M. D. that you thinke a man should doe you a greater reverence to cast you into the fire then to burne your picture I see by my watch that the two houres allotted for me to dispute are neare past and therefore I knit up the foure arguments which I purposed to prosecute at large in three breefe questions 1. What doth the mouse eate that lighteth upon a piece of bread or drop of wine consecrated D. B. The forme of bread returneth againe by a miracle M. F. Peter Lombard propounding this doubt quid ergo mus comedit answereth Deus novit God knoweth Aquinas resolveth it against you And so doth your church saying si mus corpus Domini comederit if a mouse eate the body of Christ. D. B. What tell you me of Aquinas M. F. I must be briefe that I may not defraud the Auditorio of your arguments My second question is what is that you call the consecrated Host the bread is not the Host because it is not offered the body of Christ is not the Host and I trust you will not say the accidents are the Host. D. B. Christs body is the Host. M. F. Christs body is not offered therefore it is not the Host. D. B. It is offered M. F. That is offered which is consecrated Christs body is not consecrated therefore it is not offered D. B. I denie your Major M. F. I had thought you had held that you offer a thing consecrated What is consecrated sith Christs body is not D. B. The bread M. F. The bread remaineth not after consecration and Christs body you confesse is not consecrated by the Priest therefore you have no consecrated Host. D. B. The bread is consecrated to be offered because it is consecrated to bee made Christs body which is offered M. F. Your answer in a word to my third demand What becommeth of Christs body in the stomack doth it remaine there still then you have Christs body at this time within you And what need you often receive his body if you have it still within you doth it goe out of the stomack when and which way Is it turned into the substance of our body or evaporeth into ayre or is it altogether annihilated D. B. None of all these But it ceaseth to be as the soule in a part of the body that is cut off from the rest M. F. Chius ad Choum I speake of a body you answer of a soule The soule of a man because it is a spirituall substance may in an instant invisibly disfuse it selfe through the whole body and contract it selfe in like manner when a part is cut off or rather stay her influxe into that part but a bodie that hath parts of quantity and soliditie of substance cannot penetrate another body nor quit the former place but by a true locall motion visible and divisible and that in time D. B. Christs body is more spirituall then our soule M. F. What according to the substance
we reade in the book of Tobia which you receive for Canonicall that the Angell did eate and drinke with Tobia and yet all this was but done in a vision nay the same word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 standing by me is used by S. Luke Act. 16. 9 there stood a man of Macedonia and prayed him c. and yet hee speakes of a vision in the night D. B. S. Luke saith Act. 23. 11. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which is the very word S. Paul useth Act. 22. 13. where he speaketh of Ananias comming unto him 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 But Ananias truly stood by S. Paul not in vision only Ergo Christ likewise stood by him and did not onely appeare so to do M. F. The same word in divers places of Scripture may be diversly taken according to the diversity of the matter and circumstances of the Text. Ananias was a man that could not otherwise present himselfe to S. Paul then by comming to him visibly standing by him Christ by his divine power might Besides Ananias was not in heaven but upon earth therfore he might stand by S. Paul visibly locally without any miracle or apparition But Christ as we are both agreed was at this present in heaven sitting at the right hand of the Father therfore could not otherwise be present with S. Paul then in spirit or by vision which I am induced to beleeve the rather because the Text saith this was done in the night the most proper time for a vision The night following the Lord stood by him and said c. D. B. This is petere principium you suppose that which is in question to wit that Christ could not at the same time be really present in body in heaven and in earth M. F. I never heard that an answer could petere principium in dissolving an Argument Petere principium in my understanding is to beg that to be granted to a man which he ought to prove A respondent as a respondent is not to proove but to hold and maintaine his own grounds against contrarie oppositions The burthen of prooving lieth now upon you M. Doctor refell mine interpretations if you can or make it appeare by some other argument that Christ since his Ascention hath beene truly upon earth in body D. B. S. Paul truly saw him and heard him Acts 9. 22 â—…6 And that with his bodily senses Otherwise he could not have beene an eye witnesse of the Resurrection Chap. 26. Ergo Christ since his Ascention hath beene truly present in body upon the earth M. F. The Argument followeth not S. Paul truly saw Christ therfore Christ was truly upon earth D B. S. Paul being upon earth could not see Christ in heaven Ergo if he truly saw Christ he saw him upon earth if he truly saw him upon earth he was truly upon earth M. F. S. Paul being upon earth might see Christ in heaven as well as S. Steven Act. 7. v. 55 56. Steven being full of the Holy Ghost looked stedfastly into heaven and saw the glory of God and Iesus standing at the right hand of God and said behold I see the heavens opened the Son of man standing at the right hand of God D. B. S. Stevens might be a vision I proove my proposition The senses of our bodie cannot apprehend an object so farre distant as is the heaven from the earth therfore S. Paul being upon earth could not see Christ in heaven with his bodily eyes M. F. Do we not see the Sun in the heaven and it is said that the face of Christ in his transfiguration shone like the Sun but my direct answer to your proposition is that howsoever the eyes of S. Paul and S. Steven by the strength of nature could not apprehend Christ sitting at the hand of his Father in heaven yet being miraculously enlightened elevated as the Schooles speake by divine vertue they might easily Heere M. D. Bagshaw at the first undertook to proove that sense elevated could not discerne a thing so farre off But afterwards perceiving it to be a matter of too great difficulty to proove took advantage of a Popish Gentlemans speech that helpt him out with a falshood saying the proposition to bee prooved was not that sense elevated could not apprehend an object so farre off but that S. Pauls senses were not elevated which though it were an untruth as many there present testified yet M. Featley to graâ—…fie M. D. Bagshaw left of his hold and gave M. D. Bagshaw leave to proove the proposition he desired to wit that S. Pauls senses were not elevated which he endevoured to do after this manner D. B. S. Paul saw Christ as the other Apostles 〈◊〉 Cor. 15. v. 5 6 7 8. He was seene of Cephas and then of the twelve after he was seene of more then 500. brethren at once after that he was seene of â—…ames then of all the Apostles last of all he was seene also of me But the other Apostles saw Christ with their senses not elevated Ergo S. Paul saw him without any elevation of sense M. F. S. Paul though his senses were helped saw him as truly as any of the other A man by helpe of a perspective may discerne an object farther off yet sees as truly and more certainly then without the same D. B. The same word is used in all the former verses Ergo S. Paul saw Christ altogether after the saâ—… manner M. F. One and the selfe same word may be 〈◊〉 versly taken not onely in divers verses but in 〈◊〉 same verse as for example In mundo erat mundus per eum factus est mundus eum non cognoâ—… he was in the world and the world was made 〈◊〉 him and the world knew him not Your own Eâ—… positors take the word mundus here in athreefâ—… sense But I need not make use of this observatiâ—… For I take the word seene in all these places the same sense S. Paul saw Christ sensibly and trâ—… ly with his bodily eyes both when he was upâ—… earth by the elevation of his senses and without also as we may probably collect when he was râ—… in the third heaven D. B. That was not in body but in spirit M. F. That is more then you know or S. Paâ—… either for he saith he knowes not whether it were 〈◊〉 the body or out of the body but I stand rather to 〈◊〉 former answer which clearely dissolveth your argument D. B. I will retort your owne argument upon yoâ—… The words Hic calix est novum testamentum 〈◊〉 meo sanguine are not figuratively to be taken firâ—… there is no figure in Calix for calix or poculum signifieth that which is in the chalice without any figurâ—… as it is manifest by that verse of Virgill Pocula sunt liquidi fontes M. F. As if it were a strange thing for a Poet to use a common figure doth not the same Poet that calls