Acceptum panem Corpus suum illum fecit the bread taken he made it his not anothers but his owne bodie e Serm. de Coen Cyp. Panis iste non effigie sed naturâ mutatus omnipotentia verbi factus est caro That bread being changed not in shape but in nature by the omnipotencie of the word is made flesh f Iustin Mart. Apol. 2. ad Ant. Imp. Those words in S. Iustine ex quo carnes nostrae per mutationeÌ„ aluntur be a description of the bread before consecration as in Tertullian those vetus figura 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 We are taught that the meate on foode bread and wine made Eucharist by the prayers words of consecration of the Word of God are his flesh and blood Breade and wine before consecration but after coÌ„secration flesh and blood This was the doctrine of that age D. Featley Heere D. Smith was forced to acknowledge a figure in the words of institution Answer This is false in that you say he was forced In the very g See p. first words of his answer when you had onely alledged the words of institution before you had vrged any thing he of his owne accord told you there was a figure but not an emptie figure which answer you haue hetherto beene impugning And in his answer to the next argument he of himselfe repeated it againe to shew that he did stand vpon the same grouÌ„d still which he knewe you could not vndermine Moreouer in saying he was driuen to it here you make your owne tale vncoherent for in this place of your relation the dispute as you put it downe is not about our Sauiours proposition as it is in the gospell This is my bodie but about an other made out of Tertullian The figure of my bodie is my bodie which wordes whether they be figuratiue or not figuratiue are not the words of institution D. Featly Thus they grewe to an issue M. Featly affirming that he demaunded no more then to haue him graunt there is a figure in these Words hoc est corpus meum Answer The issue of this argument was that you D. Featly could not proue Tertullian said our Sauiour made the breade an emptie figure of his bodie this Authour speaking there of an (a) Non intelligeÌ„s veterem istaÌ„ fuisse figuram Corporis Christi dicentis per Hieremiam c. Cited pag. 15. old figure before signifying our Sauiours bodie which figure he our Sauiour now as Tertullian saith turned into it Acceptum panem corpus suum illum fecit The bread taken he made it his bodie That there is a figure in the words but not an emptie figure was tould you in the beginning and you did vndertake then to disproue it if you be now contented with such an one and desire no more after all your labour then was before offered you gratis your aduersarie must haue the honout of making you change your minde D. Featly As for your distinction of a meere figure and not meere in speach it is nothing but a meere fiction of your owne braine As if you should say this is a shadow but not a (a) You shall reade in Scripture of shaddows which were not meere shaddowes And if shadows may positiuely be seene as you wil say you haue seene many they benot meere shaddowes AppareÌ„t nobis huiusmodi omnia nigra a quibus rarum paucum lumen repercutitur Atis Co. c. 1. meere shadow Answer Here at length the Doctour giues the reader notice of the distinction tould him in the beginning of a meere figure not a mere figure which being not able to disproue he sleightes calling it a meere fiction So leauing the reader to subsume that either the sonne of God whom the Scripture calls the figure of his Fathers substance is a meere figure void of being God without diuinity or that he is a meere fiction Nor doth he mend the matter much by contracting it to speach for his reader in that kinde also wil subsume and thinke that either the Scripture is a meere figure or hath no figure in it Because according to the Doctour a speach cannot be mixt in part proper and figuratiue in part Neither is it the same reason of a figure image or signe as of a shadowe in your sence for a signe an image a figure is not necessarily void of being as you conceaue a shadow to be Sacraments are signes and haue some being man is an image of God yet a substance the sonne of God according to S. Paul is the figure of his Fathers substance but not an emptie figure vnlesse that be emptie which hath in it a whole infinity of perfection He is the image of God and yet hath the Diuinitie all in him In like manner that whereof we speake the Eucharist is an image a figure a SacrameÌ„t of the body not emptie but such one as hath withall the bodie in it This was said at first since when you haue but gone a round and are now euen there where you beganne THE SECOND Argument taken out of S. Augustine D. Featley S. Augustine lib. 3. de doctrina Christ saith that speach of our Sauiour vâ—ses you eate the flesh of the sonne of man c. is figuratiue therefore the other this is my bodie is so too D. Smith I distinguish the * were it denied that S. August speakes there of SacrameÌ„tall eating the Minister could not proue it recondeÌ„dum in memoria c. Antecedent There is one eathing that is figuratiue both according to the thing and the manner too so the Fathers in the old law did eate Christ an other eating there is which is proper in regard of the thing but figuratiue in the manner because the thing eateÌ„ though it be taken into the mouth and let downe into the stomake is not brused and cutt according to the coÌ„mon manner of eating And such a figuratiue eating of the bodie of our Sauiour S. Augustine meanes and sayes that the speach â—oh 6. is figuratiue in this sence to witt according to the manner for else-where he saith that wee receaue with faithfull heart and mouth the mediatour of God and man Lib. 2. coÌ„t Aduers leg ca. 9. man Christ Iesus giuing vs his bodie to be eaten and his bloode to be drunke VVhere it is manifest that he speakes of proper eating of the flesh of Christ according to the thing eaten because he saith wee receaue the same flesh with the mouth which we receaue with faithfull heart and also because he doth adde presently that that our eating of the flesh of Christ and drinking of his bloode seeme to be more horrible then killing and shedding of mans blood whereas a meere figuratiue eating wherein the flesh of Christ it selfe is not eaten but the figure onely doth not seeme to haue any horrour as the eating of our Sauiours flesh which is receaued without all hurting of it seemeth to haue though indeede it haue not
I confesse contradicts himselfe D. Smith VVhy then doe you reliè on such authoritie let vs on to sure testimonies THE NOTES OF S. E. TO cleere this discourse wherein D. Featlie hath vrged two Authorities togeather I will speake of each apart That Gratian held the reall presence it is out of question In that Distinction which you cite he brings diuers places out of the Fathers to shewe the manner of it as that the body is there indiuisiblie by chang of bread into it citing to this purpose S. Ambrose S. Augustine S. Ierom S. Hilarie and others See can 35 41. 55. 69. 74. 77. 79. 82. 87. and not six lines before the place obiected he hath these words out of Prosper and S. Augustine directlie opposite to your tenet as p. 3 you put it downe Caro eius Christi est quaÌ„ forma panis opertaÌ„ in SacrameÌ„mento accipimus It is the flesh of Christ which wee receaue in the Sacrament couered with the forme of breade The words obiected were imperfectlie cited and them selues being read at large expound their authours meaning They be these As the heauenlie bread which is the flesh of Christ is after a sort called the bodie of Christ whereas indeed it is the Sacrament of the bodie of Christ I meane of that which being visible palpable mortall was put vpon the Crosse and as that immolation of the flesh which is done by the hands of the Preist is called the passion death and crucifixion not rei veritate in veritie of the thing but significante mysterio in signifâ—ing mysterie So the Sacrament of faith Baptisme I meane is faith The summe of Which analogie or coÌ„parisoÌ„ is this As the Eucharist is after a manner to wit mystice significatiue mysticallie significantlie the bodie crucifyed as crucifyed so Baptisme is faith after a maÌ„ner that is mystice significatiuè mystically significantlie Also as the actioÌ„ of vnbloodie immolation S Ambr. de Sacr. l. 4 c. 4. 5. videlicet consecration is the passion mysticè significatiue so the Sacramentall actioÌ„ Baptizing is faith mystice significatiuè He might haue added too S. Chry. HoÌ„ de prod Iud. Hom. 2. in 2 Ep. ad Tim. S. Hier. Ep. ad Heliod Conc. Trid. sess 6. c. 7. sess 7. can 6. that as the coÌ„secratorie action is signum practicum corporis sub aliena specie praesentis a practicall signe of the bodie present vnder another forme as making it so to be so the baptizing actioÌ„ is signum practicum fidei praesentis in baptizato a practicall signe of faith present in the baptized as making it so to be according to the fathers doctrine and beleefe of the Catholike Church Against this discourse it might be obiected that one and the same thing cannot represent it a The Manna as kept in the arke was a signe of it self as it fell in the desert selfe wherefore the bodie in the Eucharist cannot represent it selfe vpon the Crosse But this supposing the doctrine of the Gospell is not hard to be conceaued It being not hard to vnderstand how one the same thing being within two seuerall formes by the one may represent it selfe as in the other these references being not founded in the substance immediatelie but in the exteriour formes subiect to the eie which formes are distinct And in this case the forme wherein the reference of representation is founded is one with the other forme representatiuè in representation but the substance vnder the two formes is one and the same entitatiue in entitie or being The same indiuiduall bodie being reallie vnder both According to this discourse the sence of Gratians words as they are in him at leingth is this the heauenlie breade videlicet the flesh of Christ in the Eucharist is after a certaine manner videlicet representatiue the body of Christ as visible and it is also the same flesh identice couered with the forme of breade And if against this you should obiect that he denies the heaueÌ„ly bread to be the body of Christ in truth rei veritate I would tell you that you mistake him for his words are the immolation of the flesh by the haÌ„ds of the Preist that is to say Consecration and the rest which the Preist doth at Masse vnto the hoast as breaking of it is called the passion non rei veritate sed significante mysterio not indeed but in signifying mystery And certainely Consecration is not the passion of Christ rei veritate indeede and truely Neither was the Authour of the Glosse of your opinion but contrary for he held also the reall presence to the signes effected by transubstantiation In proofe whereof take these places out of him Ad prolationem istius hoc est corpus meum transubstantiatur panis in corpus Glossa de Consec dist 2. in can 35. Vpon the vtterance of these words This is my body the bread is transsubstaÌ„tiated into the body Vbi erat verus panis antè verum vinum modò sunt tantùm accidendia Ad can 41. where there was before true bread and true wine now there are onely accidents of bread and wine Ad prolationem verborum panis fit Corpus Christi vinum sanguis remanent tamen species panis vini sub quibus latent operiuntur caro sanguis ne in sumendo esset horror si species crudae viuae carnis crudi sanguinis appareret Ad can 55. At the vttering of the words the bread is made the bodie of Christ and wine the blood but the species of bread and wine do remaine vnder which species the flesh and blood do lie hid and are couered least there might be horrour in receauing if the species or shape of raw and liue flesh and of raw blood should appeare All these are the words of the Glosse whose authority you cited for your opinion with what conscience let the reader iudge In the words which are obiected he meant as the text which I haue expounded allreadie a CommeÌ„tatours aime is the meaning of his Authour though there be some thing therein also as appeareth by what I haue said in this place which he a Canonist did not accuratlie obserue My Lord Bishop in his answer to the words of S. Augustine whereunto Gratian pointed Epist 23. secundum quemdam modum Sacramentum Corporis Christi Corpus Christi est the Sacrament of the body of Christ is the bodie of Christ after a certaine manner said the Saint vnderstood them of that which is sacramentum tantùm a sacrament or signe onlie Against this Answer the Minister replied againe He had yet another explicatioÌ„ ready out of S Augustine too which the reader by this time doth reflecton grounding his argument on the words as he finds them in Gratian And it was answered and by comparing you shall find it true that Saint Augustines words are not in Gratian cited entirelie But suppose they were what then wherein do those Authours whom
the subiectum which is signified by the praedicatum when I saie homo est animal rationale a man is a reasonable creature yet the sence is not this homo est homo a man is a maÌ„ Because the manner of signifying is diuers and the thing is conceaued and signified another waie by the praedicatum then it was signified and conceaued by the subiectum though the thing signifyed be the same wherefore the sence of the proposition This is my bodie is this This thing is my bodie and the sence of the other This calice c. is this This drinke is an authenticall signe of my last VVil in my blood VVich sence though it be identicall according to the thing signified as the sence of euerie true proposition wherein it is said This is this ought to be yet is it not identicall according to the manner of signifying for the same thing is signifyed but vnder another conceit which diuers conceit doth not suffer it to be resolued into such a proposition as is identicall both according to the manner of signifâ—ing and according to the thing signified too as that is the bodie of Christ is the bodie of Christ THE NOTES OF S. E. THe dispute here is not about that inner sentence or decree whereby our blessed Sauiour disposed to such as perseuer In calicis mentione testamentum constituens sanguine suo obsignatum substantiam corporis confirmauit Tertull. li. 4. coÌ„ Marc. c. 40. a Kingdome Luc. 22. 29. that of heauen but about an exteriour signe of the foresaid inner Will and the question is Whether the mysticall cup be such a testament or no. Not whether it be our Sauiours inner will that is not in question but whether it be a signe of it and such a signe as may be called a testament as a mans Will written in parchment is commonly called by that name testamentum Other propriety then is there wee looke not after Doctour Featly striues to proue it is not which if he (a) Liceâ— metaphora non sit admitteÌ„da in verbis consecrationis circa substantiam eius quod Deus in eo esse voluit tameÌ„ in aliis verbis quae potius sunt epitheta ipsius saÌ„guinis metaphoram admittere nullum incommoâ— dum est Si enim semel coÌ„stiterit verum sanguinem suum in sacramento nobis reliquisse quid poterit obesse hunc sanguinem vocare nouum testamentum vel quid aliud per metaphoram Vasq 3. p. Disp 199. n. 42. VVhere he hath another answer to this argument And you remember what hath beene said aboue to this purpose p. 54. c. could doe the tenet he vndertooke to disproue would notwithstanding subsist and still might be confirmed yea proued vnanswerably out of this place of Sainct Luke here obiected wherein wee are tould that this thing in the chalice was shed FOR VS and if FOR VS it was not wine but blood The name also testamentum taken and vnderstood in the sence aboue mentioned agrees vnto this thing very well For that authenticall signe or instrument whereby the Testator doth signifie his last Will is in that acception or sence well and fitly called testamentum and this is such a signe or instrument ordained by our Sauiour to signifie his last Will. Moreouer he our blessed Sauiour as S. Luke cap. 22. and S. Paul 1. Cor. 11. doe testifie and their testimony is true did affirme it to be the new testament wherefore since the speach may be vnderstood properly in the sence aboue specified wee must vnderstand it so The Doctour first is discontented as it seemes for hauing any figure at all graunted him as it was graunted in the answer D. Featly What priuiledge haue you more to set a figure vpon the words of consecration of the cup then we vpon the like of the breade Answer That of calix is a figure expounded in the same place by funditur is shed and elswere the thing is deliuered in proper termes hic est sanguis meus This is my blood Marc. 14. Neither did wee put it there the Euangelist did put it On the other words which are plaine and proper you saie you put a figure and it is such a one as takes away the veritie Wee may not be so bould with Scripture The word testamentum is taken properlie in the sence aboue mentioned and because that is not the first signification but a secondarie it was tould you it is taken satis proprie properlie enough D. Featlie No substantiall part of any testator is properlie his testament blood is a substantiall part of Christ ergo Answer The Maior is contrarie to the Gospell This drinke is my testament which drinke is shed for you Is shed FOR VS it was blood blood a testament and blood is a part you confesse 1. Replie Luc. 22 That in the calice was not blood Answer Euen now I proued it was for it was the thing shed for vs wherefore in substance it was not wine wine was not shed for vs but it was blood If you conceaue not this argument which is cleere take the thing immediatlie on our Sauiours word he is God and cannot lie This in the chalice is my blood Mar. 14.2 Replie That in the chalice which our Sauiour said was blood is not a testament Answer Our Sauiour saith it is and I beleeue Him 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 This cup is the nâ—w testament 1. Cor. 11. Heere therefore is blood a testament blood not in forme of blood in propria specie but in aliena specie in forme of wine D. Featlie Will you saie that Christs blood needed his blood to signe it Answer Blood in propria specie in it's owne forme was not the testament nor to be confirmed with the blood that is with the reall death of the testator Blood in aliena specie in forme of wine was our Sauiours testament and to be confirmed with the blood that is with the reall death of him the testatour D. Featlie It is tautologie if that which is the testament be blood Answer No more then this Featlie is a man though that which the subiectum doth signifie be the same reallie with that which is signified by the praedicatum vnlesse I be mistaken and you be not reallie a man Neither is it all one to saie Featlie is a man and to saie a man is a man or Featlie is Featlie He hath not yet vnderstood Logick that cannot distinguish one of these propositions from the other D. Featlie The signe of Christs will is no more his will If testamentum be taken for the inner decree it is calix and sanguis testamenti if it be taken for an instrument signe of that decree it is calix testamentuÌ„ then the signe of his bodie is his bodie Answer The dispute is heere about our Sauiours words and he did not saie of that in his hand this is a signe or figure of my bodie but this is my bodie howbeit the
thus in his Iuie bush that you may sucke sacke from thence After this M. Waferer enters into the matter of transubstantiation which matter was not handled in the Conference He might haue saued himself the labour he takes and looseth in talking of it had he as he might and should haue obserued but that he was willing to confound Questions and runne out of one into another that which my Lord in the beginniâ—â— gaue the auditorie then present to vnderstand Confer pag. 7. See also Featli Pag. 288 That the Conference was to be not of Transubstantiation but of the reall presence onlie which by order of disputatioÌ„ ought to be first and so it was agreed and nothing said of that matter What he brings against it is ordinarie stuffe and the manner of deliuering it worse then ordinarie The authors which he cites are Caietan Scotus who notwithstanding as is well knowne to Schollers that are able to read their books do maintaine and defend and that Caiet 3. p. q 75. Scotus in 4. d. 10. 11. The words obiected against vs out of him to proue the doctrine of transsubstantiation to be new be these d. 11. qu. 3. where he speakes of the Lateran Councell Quicquid ibi in Concilio Lateranensi dicitur esse eredendum tenendum est esse de substantia fidei hoc post illam declarationem factam ab Ecclesia Et si quaeras quare voluit Ecclesia eligeâ—e istum intellectum ita difficilem huius articuli cum verba scripturae possent saluati secundum intellectum facilem veriorem secundum apparentiam de hoc articulo Dico quod eo Spiritu expositae sunt Scripturae quo conditae Et ita supponendum est quod Ecclesia Catholica eo Spiritu exposuit quo tradita est nobis fides spiritu scilicet veritatis edocta ideo hunc intellectum elegit quia verus est Non enim in potestate Ecclesiae fuit facere istud verum vel non verum sed Dei instituentis sed intellectum a Deo traditum Ecclesia explicauit directa in hoc vt creditur Spiritu veritatis He that well considers these words will easilie perceaue there is in them no occasion giueÌ„ to pretend that he denies the doctrine to be auncient since he affirmes it to be contained in the Scripture that the Church by directioÌ„ of the Holy Ghost whose assistance the Catholicks beleeue found it there Eo Spiritu expositae sunt Scripturae c ideo hunc sensum elegit quia you will not I hope accuse the Scripture of noueltie See Saint Augustine Contra Epist fundam c. 4. Epist 118. de bapt l. 2. c. 4. 9. l. 5. c. 17. Contra Crescon Gram. l 1. c. 33 Scripturarum in hac re tenetur veritas cum hoc facimus quod vniuersae iam placuit Ecclesie c. It is the Church that is to teach vs the meaning of the Scripture docete and the holy Ghost directs her in it docebit vos larglie and professedlie both the Realâ— preseÌ„ce which was the matter of the Conference 〈◊〉 transubstantiatioÌ„ which matter he would faine runne into to make a further demonstration of his ignorance and vnsufficiencie Next he saies the churches of Asia and the Greeke churches dissented that is denied transubstantiation He might aswell haue tould his Reader that wee do they hauing as fullie declared them selues in their Profession bookes and Councels And that verie Councell of Florence wheÌ„ce he would against the whole streame of authoritie make good his rash assertion in the Instruction of faith giuen to the Armenians which was made in publick session sacro approbante concilio that verie yeere he speakes of 1439. doth ackowledge it in these wordes Ipsorum verborum virtute substantia panis in corpus Christi substantia vini in sanguinem conuertitur ita tamen vt totus Christus continetur sub specie panis totus sub specie vini sub qualibet quoque parte hostiae consecratae vini consecrati separatione facta totus est Christus by vertue of those verie words of consecration the substance of bread is turned into the bodie and the substance of wine into the blood yet so that whole Christ is contained vnder the species of bread and whole vnder the species of wine and also whole Christ is vnder euery part of the consecrated hoast and consecrated wine when there is a separation or diuision made See Cardinall Peron his booke against P. Mornay pag. 812. sâ—qq and Censu Eccles Orient Respons 1. ad German c. 13. Responso 2. c. 4. He saies pag. 47. and most ignorantlie that the Churches tenet of a substantiall change vnder the species which change wee call transubstantiation was a thing not knowne or taught for 1215. yeeres after Christ which is a lie many times confuted by our Deuines Bellarmine Peron Allen Gualterius and others yea and by your owne too Master Mirth your owne men Protestants confesse that Damascen taught it that Gregorie and Austine brought it into England that it entred early into the Church Cited in the Protest Ap. tract r. sect 7. subd 4. See also sect 2. subd 2. Reade the discourse of M. Brierley p. 184. Least you should outface such as want bookes some few of those which held the change shall for their sakes be represented on the by I told you that Protestants coÌ„tradict your assertion and your frind Crakâ—â—thorps also Birkberks learned kinsman whoÌ„ you cite in your margine But I come neerer pag. 232. this your Doctors frind Birckbeck will admit and with his aduise that it was publiklie taught in England by Lancfranc long before the time you speake of So will I come neerer yet Master Waferer of Alban-Hall and with the same Doctors approbat Who saith pag. 48. so soone he forgot himself your transubstantiation is no better then the coynage of the monk Damascen who liued anno 730. This I note by the way only to shew your ignorance and temeritie in your assertions and how little your word is to be regarded The point it self I do not heare examine because I will not leaue the matter of the Conference as you striue to do Non de nomine Quaestio est sed de re substantiarum nempe distinctarum ordine sub iisdem accidentibus sub quibus ante consecrationem sit natura vel substantia panis post consecrationem verum D. N. corpus Celebratum est Lateran ense Concilium saeculo 13. In ore duoâ—um vel trium testium stabit omne verbum Matth. 18. Seculo 12. Petrus Blesensis Epist 140. Pane vino transubstantiatis virtute verborum coelestrum in corpus sanguinem Christi accidentia quae priús ibi fuerant fine subiecto remanent apparent Petrus Lombard 4. d. 11 Post consecrationem non est ibi substanitia panis vel vini licet species remaneant est enim ibi species panis
Eleutherius told d. See M. Broughtons Eccles Historie of great Brittaine 2. Age c. 14. Lucius that He the king was Gods Vicar in his kingdome Ergo one of the two if not both was a Protestant would haue subscribed to the 39. Articles Policrates and the Easterne Churches contradicted Victor who was in the e. Victoris sententiam probauerunt pp. CoÌ„cilij Nicaeni vt patet ex Euseb l. 3. de Vita Constant Et deinceps Haeretici habiti sunt qui contrarium senserunt vt pater ex Epiphan haer 50. Aug. haeres 29 Bell. li. 2 de Pont c 19. Irenaeus victorem ne tam multas Ecclesias omnino propter traditionis ex antiqua consuetudine inter illas vsurpatae obseruationem à corpore vniuersae Christi Ecclesiae penitus amputet appositè conuenienter admonet Euseb l. 5. Hist c. 24. right about the time of keeping Easter Ergo they were Protestants and would haue subscribed to the 39. Articles Irenaeus held the Apostles Creed and saies too that the Scriptures are in their kind f. Vnum quodque maximè tunc est perfectum cùm propriam virtutem est consecutum maximé secundum naturam sicut circulus tunc maximè secundum naturam est quando maximè circulus est Arist 7. Phys â— 18. Yet is Irenaeus for Tradition verie full l. 3. aduers Haeres c 3 Maximae antiquissimae omnibus cognitae à gloriosissimis duobus Apostolis Petro Paulo Romae fundatae Ecclesiae eam quam habet ab Apostolis traditionem annunciatam hominibus fidem per successiones Episcoporum peruenientem ad nos indicantes confundimus omnes eos qui quoquo modo vel per vanam gloriam vel per coecitatem malam sententiam praeterquam oportet colligunt Ad hanc enim Ecclesiam propter potâ—ntiorem prâ—ncipalitatem necesse est omnem conuenire Ecclesiam hoc est â—os qui sunt vndique fideles in qua semper ab his qui sunt vndique conseruata est ea quae est ab Apostolis traditio And in the next chapter Quid antem si neque Apostoli quidem Scripturas reliquissent nobis nonne oportebat oâ—dâ—nem sequi traditionis quam tradideruntiis quibus committebant Ecclesias cui ordinationi assentiunt multae gentes Barbarorum eorum qui in Christum credunt sine charactere vel atramento scriptam habentes per Spiritum in cordibus salutem veterem traditionem diligenter custodientes c By the way obserue what he thought of the Vniuersalitie of Iurisdiction which the Church of Rome hath Necesse est omnem EcclesiaÌ„ c. and his reason propter potentiorem principalitatem· The words of Eusebius if they be well lookt into import the same ne à corpore Vniuersae Christi Ecclésiae penitus amputet vt supra perfect that our Sauiour taking g. Accipiens panem suum corpus confitebatur how the Euangelist declares Iesus tooke bread and blessed iâ— c and said take eate This is my bodie Mat. 26. temperamentum calicis sui sanguinem confirmauit this is my blood of the new testament which is shed for many vnto remission of sinnes Ibiâ—em â— Iraen li. 4. c. 57. Our Sauiours words the words of consecration were practicall and did inferre what they signifie as you see by Antiquitie confessed Suprà pag. 479 seq where this Father is also amongst the rest And that he did vnto he change require omnipotencie as principall you may know by his owne wordes also li. 4. c. 34. Quomodo constabit â—is he speakes of Hereticks who denied our Sauiour to be omnipotent eum pâ—nem in quo gratiae actae sunt esse corpus Domini sui calicem sanguinis eius si non ipsum Fabricatoris mundi filium dicant id est Verbum eius per quod lignum fructificat c. bread into his hands said Hoc est corpus meum the words of consecratioÌ„ that the Gâ—osticks vsed Heatheriâ—h rights towards h Artes magicas operantur ipsi Carpocratiani incantationes philtra quoque â—hâ—titesiâ— c dicentes se porestatem habere â—d dâ—mâ—â—aÌ„dum iam principibus fabricatoribus mundi huius S. â—ren lib. 1 c. 24 Gnosticos autem se vocant etiam imagines quasdam quidem depictas quasdam autem de reliqua materia fabricatas habent dicentes formam Christi factam à Pilato illo tempore quo fâ—i Iesus cum hominibus has coâ—onant proponunt eas cum imaginibus mundi Philosophorum videlicet cum imaginibus Pythagorae Platonis Aristotelis reliquorum reliquam obseruationem circa eas fimiliter vt Gentes faciunt Ibidem imâ—gâ—s that the Disciples of Basilices vsed inchantments and called on i. Vtuntur qui sunt à Basilide imaginibus incantationibus reliqua vniuersa paâ—erga nomina quoque quaedam affingentes quasi Angelorum annunciant hos quidem esse in primo coelo hos autem in secundo deinceps nituntur 365. ementitorum coelorum nomina principia Angelos virtutes exponere S. Iren l. 1. c. 23. The Church did not thus yet she honoured the good Spirits as by one of the same Age S. Iustine whoÌ„ you cited as a Protestant you may knowe He speakes in the name of Irenaeus and Polycarp and the whole Church of that time Sed illum Deum Patrem eius Filium qui venit nosque haec docuit aliorum sequentium similiumque bonorum Angelorum exercitum Spiritum Propheticum 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 colimus atque adoramus verboque re seu veritate veneramur idque omnibus qui discere volunt vt docti institutique sumus copiosè tradimus Apológ 2. ad Anton. Spirits but the Church not that there is no way to be saued but by beleeuing in Iesus Christ Neither is there saluation in any other for there is no name vnder heauen giuen amongst men whereby wee must be saued Acts 4. v. 12. Ergo he was a Protestant and would haue subscribed to the 39. Articles Melito putting downe the bookes of the old Testament saies l. The Scriptures themselues were not fullie receaued in all places no not in Eusebius his time He saith the Epistles of Iames of Iude the second of Peeter the second and third of Iohn are contradicted The Church of Syria did not receaue the second Epistle of of Peeter nor the second and third of Iohn nor the Epistle of Iude nor the Apocalyps The like might be said of the Churches of Arabia VVill you hence conclude that those parts of Scripture were not Apostolike or that wee need not receaue them because they were formerly doubted of Bilson in his Suruey pag. 664. See Couel against Burg. 87. seqq Tbe Protest Apol tract 2. c. 2 sect 10. subd 2. nothing k Simon dicebat secundum ipsius gratiam saluari homines sed non secundum operas iustas S. Iren. l.
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
as if wee were to eate the flesh of Christ after the same manner as we doe eate the flesh of beasts boiled or rosted cut and mangled In which sence if the letter be vnderstood it doth kill as Origen saith and as S. Augustine in the place aboue cited it imports a crime But seeing our Sauiour saith his flesh is truelie meate Ioan. 6. and that his words are Spirit and life they are to be vnderstood so that they be expounded both properlie and also Spirituallie or mysticallie VVhich thing wee rightlie doe when we say they are to be expounded properlie according to the substance of the thing eaten because that substance which in the Eucharist wee eate is the verie substance of the bodie of Christ and also spirituallie according to the manner because wee do not eate cutting and mangling it but without hurting it at all no otherwise then if it were a Spirit THE NOTES OF S. E. HEere D. Featly without taking notice of what was tould him out of S. Augustine and S. Cyprian repeates againe that the Capharnaiticall manner of eating was the same with our eating of the flesh in the Sacrament whereas the difference is most cleere (a) S. Au. enar in Psal 98. They thought our Sauiour would cut of some peeces from his bodie and giue them to eate (b) Ser. de coena Cyp. They imagined they were taught to eate it boild or rosted and cut in peeces Wee beleeue teach that it is receaued c work entire vnder the forme of bread And that Origen did admit and beleeue this our manner of receauing it these his words declare plainely When thou takest that holie and vncorrupted banquet Origen Hom. 5. in diuersa loca Euang. See D. Andr. Serm p. 476. Euerie MaÌ„ carries one of these houses about with him and the Mâ—ster of it is his soule when thou doest enioy the bread and cup of life eatest and drinkest the body and blood of our Lord then our Lord doth enter vnder they roofe wherefore humbling thy selfe imitate the Centurion and say Lord I am not worthey that thou come vnder my roofe For where he enters vnworthily there he goes in to iudgment to the receauer Here Origen declares that he beleeued our Sauiour all to be in the blessed Sacrament and will haue vs speake vnto him there as the Church doth in the Masse Domine non sum dignus c. Lord I am not worthy thou enter vnder my roofe He doth not call bread Lord acknowledging himselfe vnworthy it enter but Him that is in the exteriour forme of breade And herein he doth consent with S. Augustine before alledged who saith that wee receaue the Mediatour with our month and whith Tertullian Supra p. 78. Caro vescitur Christi corpore Flesh eateth the Bodie of Christ Moreouer suppose the soule be wicked notwistanding He Christ goes in this Authour saith but in whither not into the soule by meanes of faith that way you haue shut vp therefore you must confesse he goes in to the bodie at the mouth as S. Augustine tould you Who said also that Iudas receaued the price of our Redemption not with the minde sure Supr ap 79. he was then a Traitour but with the mouth D. Featly Should we eate with the mouth the flesh of man we should runne vpon the point of S. Cyrills reproofe In expos anath 11. Doest thou pronunce this Sacrament to be man-eating and doest thou irreligiousty vrge the mindes of the faithfull with grosse and carnall imaginations Answer The grosse and carnall conceit of eating mans flesh he reiects the Sacramentall manner we speake of he did beleeue EueÌ„ in that anathematisme which you mentioÌ„ A 〈◊〉 1â— and which he there defeÌ„ds he saith the thing proposed on the altar 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that which is before the Preist is our Sauiours 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 his owne body So neere he tnought our Sauiours body was to the communicant Againe he saith that by meanes of the benediction coÌ„secration the Sonne of God as man is vnited to v◠〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 corporally Li. 11. in Ioan. c. 27. Ibid. Li. 10. c. 13. And that We doe receaue the Sonne of God corporally and substantially In an other place he saith the power of benediction doth bringe to passe that Iesus Christ dwelleth in vs corporallie with the coÌ„munication of the flesh of Christ. And the manner of compassing it is as he doth also teach (a) Epist ad Calo. In Answer to your marginall note about Bereng See the Answer to Bels challeÌ„g ar 2. c. 5. by conuerting breade and wine into the verity of flesh and blood D. Featly Doe those words nisi manducaueritis carnem vnlesse you eate the flesh sound after the Capharnaiticall straine Answer To flesh and blood they did and doe but the holy Ghost hath taught the Church an other way of eating flesh not in the proper but in another shape Mat. 26. Doe but harken and you shall heare the Ghospell mention eating a mans bodie in the forme of breade Take and eate this in my hand is my body THE FOVRTH ARGVMENT D. Featlie S. Augustine in Gratian dist 2. can hoc est saith As the heauenlie bread which is Christs flesh is after a sort called the bodie of Christ when as in truth it is the Sacrament of the bodie of Christ the Glosse addeth The heauenlie Sacrament which truelie doth represent the flesh of Christ is called the bodie of Christ but improperlie wherefore it is said in a sort but not in the truth of the thing but in a signifying mysterie D. Smith Gratian first See Bellar Descriptor Eccles is not an authenticall Authour amongst vs much lesse the Glosse Secondlie I oppose other words of S. Augustine in the same place of Gratian where he saith that the Sacrifice of the Church doth consist of two things the visible forme of elements and the inuisible flesh and blood of Christ both of a Sacrament and re Sacramenti that is to saie the bodie of Christ as the person of Christ doth consist and is made of God and man Thirdlie I answer that S. Augustine in those words vnderstood that which is Sacramentum tantùm a Sacrament only D. Featlie S. Augustine speakes of that breade which he saith is the flesh of Christ but that which is Sacramentum tantùm is not the flesh of Christ therefore he doth not speake of that which is Sacramentum tantùm D. Smith The words of S. Augustine are not cited entirelie for epist 23. if that be the place Gratian meanes This place is quoted in the margine of Gratian he saith that the Sacrament of the bodie of Christ is the bodie of Christ after a certaine manner and it is not inconuenient to say that that which is Sacramentum tantùm is the bodie of Christ after a certaine manner according to which manner he saith baptisme is faith D. Featley Indeed Gratian
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
Eucharist being and by our Sauiours institution a Sacrament and a Sacrifice commemoratiue it is also a signe and a representation of his bodie as existent in propria specie in it owne shape as aboue you were tould But of the cup he said This chalice is the new testament And since wee may we must also take the word properlie not for his inner Will or decree it is that onlie significatiue significantlie but for an authentike signe of it as hath beene said before THE SEVENTH ARGVMENT D. Featlie Christ Math. 26. said the chalice is the fruite of the vine euen after consecration therefore the consecrated chalice is wine indeed D. Smith Those words were spoken by our Sauiour of the legall cup which he and his disciples dranke before consecration as S. Luke doth teach cleerelie cap. 22. And since it doth not appeare that our Sauiour repeated the same words of the Eucharisticall cup which he had said before of the Legall though S. Mathew relates them after he had related the consecration of the Eucharisticall cup there is more reason to saie that S. Matthew did not obserue order in relating our Sauiours words then to vnderstand those of the Eucharisticall cup which S. Luke doth teach plainelie to haue beene spoken of the Legall or common cup and S. Matthew telleth not expressie of which they were spoken but only relates them as I said after he had related the consecration of the Eucharisticall cup. Compare these Euangelists together and you wâ—ll see that one of the two in diuers other things doth not obserue the order in the relation Since therefore as I did insinuate before it is not verie likelie that the same words were spoken of both cups since that S. Luke teacheth plainelie that they were spoken of the common cup whereof S. Mathew makes no mention it is more likelie they were spoken of the common cup onelie and related by S. Mathew out of order D. Featlie Innocentius the Councell of VVormes and others expound the words of the Eucharisticall cup. D. Smith I answer that for the authoritie of some Fathers that opinion is probable and according to their exposition those words are to be vnderstood in the same manner as aboue wee haue expounded some Fathers that saie In the answer to the 5. arg bread is the bodie to wit bread changed in nature c. and so wee saie the fruite of the vine is the blood of Christ but the fruite changed not in shape but in nature the supersubstantiall fruite c. Moreouer many Fathers expound it of the common cup as S. Ierom S. Hier. in c. 26. Mat. Beda Theophil in c. 22. Luc. S. Bede and Theophilact He added afterwards that it was much to be admired why wee should gather what the Eucharist is out of words which it is vncertaine whether our Sauiour spake of the Eucharist or no rather theÌ„ out of those words which it is most certaine he did speake of the Eucharist as these This is my bodie this the cup c. As also out of those words which he did not vtter to tell vs what the Eucharist was but that he would not drinke any more either of that or of the common cup rather then out of those which he spake to no other end but to a Practicè simul efficieÌ„do neither did they or could they signifie the Eucharist is the bodie but making it withall for before the bodie was not in that forme or species signifie what the Eucharist is How much better doe Catholikes who out of words which it is certaine Christ spake of the Eucharist and spake them to the end onelie to signifie practice what the Eucharist is rather then out of other words which he spake to another end and which it is not altogether certaine he spake of the Eucharist doe gather what the Eucharist is and make these words the rule of expounding all others about the Question of the Eucharist THE NOTES OF S. E. HEre are two cleere solutions of D. Featlies argument according to the two seuerall opinions about the cup our Sauiour spake of Against the later he doth not make any new reply but amplifies onely what he had obiected The former he saith he did that is he thinkes he can in fringe as followeth D. Featly In those words in S. Mathew this fruite of the vine the demonstratiue this must haue relation to the cup of which S. Mathew spake before Answer It cannot if the fruite of the vine be taken for wine properly the reason whereof is euident by the words spoken of the Eucharisticall cup which immediatly goe before this is my blood of the new testament which is shed for many vnto remission of sinnes wine properly was not shed to remisssion of sinnes the eucharisticall cup was as the Euangelist after our blessed Sauiour doth here affirme Quotidie in Sacrificits eius Christi Domini de genimine verae vitis vinea Sorec quae interpretatur electa rubentia musta calcamus S. Hierom Epist ad Hedib q. 2. and another yet more expressely 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 This the chalice which is shed FOR you Therefore the Eucharisticall cup was not wine properly D. Featly Should I take a cup and after I had drunke of it say I would drinke no more of this you would vnderstand me of that which I dranke of last Answer Did I see the whole action I should iudge according to that I saw no doubt and S. Matthew seeing our Sauiours action did conceaue it well enough But should one or two tell me that D. Featly at the table hauing drunke beere and wine said he would drinke no more of this beere I had no reason to thinke he meant wine though wine were mentioned last before Now by the relation of S. Mathew and S. Luke if you attend vnto it well and remember all which they as the Organs of one infallible speaker the Holy Ghost deliuer it appeares that our blessed Sauiour dranke of two seuerall cups and that he called the one of them the fruite of the vine the other his blood and his testament auouching it to be shed for men Both were on the table before him and he did in one speach demonstrate the one telling what it was a strange cup for the contents S. Chrysostome cals it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the twice dreadfull chalice THIS the chalice the new testament in my blood c. in the other speach he demonstrated the other telling what that also was and distinguishing it by a short description from the other which was his testament his blood saying I will not drinke from hence foorth of THIS fruite of the vine D. Featly Will you make S. Mathew to write non sence to relate Christs words I will drinke no more of this and no where to expresse of what he spake or to what this this is to be referd Answer It is to be referd to the fruite of the
nothing els as to the communicantes after faire promises of the bodie and blood of Christ present by (a) VVafer pag. 8â— Mor. p. 135. Gods omnipotence changing the exteriour elementes and penetrating into our soules according to the substaÌ„ce of flesh and blood you giue nothing but meere bread and wine Apologist Doctor Smith should haue proued that the same proposition may be true in a natiue genuâ—ne and proper sence though the wordes be vsed in a peregrine figuratiue and impropre sence Censure It was ridiculous enough to challeng at buckler onlie as he did who came into the feild to answer distinctions but to be an andabatarian in such a combat not daring to open his eies to behold his enemies so blunt a weapon is superlatiuelie absurde His populus ridet The word questioned for improprietie is corpus in this proposition hoc est corpus meum This word corpus doth directlie signifie if we speake as the chiefest Science doth conceaue it the (a) Fit conuersio totius substantiae panis in substantiam corporis Christi Conc. Trid. sess 13. c. 4. Ex vt sacramenti quantitas dimeÌ„siua corporis Christi non est in hoc sacrameÌ„to S. Tho. 3. p. q. 76 a. 4. proinde neque ea quae sequuntur quantitatem Ex vt realis concomitantiae est in hoc sacramento tota quantitas dimensiua corporis Christi omnia accidentia eius Ibidem vide eundem 1. p. q 76. a. 4· ad 1. substance or part of substance which requires three dimensions leingth breadth and thicknes according to which notion it is in the words of institution taken properlie and the proposition proper by the possessiue meum this word corpus bodie was determined to a mans not whose soeuer but our Sauiours The same word Corpus Bodie both in the apprehension of the vulgar as you may learne by present experience when you please and according to the Philosopher as heereafter shall appeare doth import withall the naturall manner of being of such a substance which manner is to be a thing extended according to the foresaid dimensions and a mans bodie to be a thing figured and visible which manner of being naturallie flowes out of that kind of substance and vsuallie comes into the conceit with it And in regard of this manner the proposition is improper for such an extension imported also commonlie by the word corpus is not there It is improper I say if you regard the manner of being vsuallie imported also by the word corpus bodie but proper if you regard the substance of the thing directlie signified by the same word If you regard the substance of the thing directlie signified the wordes are taken in their natiue genuine and proper sence and the proposition is in that kind natiue genuine proper If you regard the manner of being imported also vsuallie by the word the attribut is not taken properlie nor the proposition proper Had you opened your eies to look vpon the distinction which you answer RelatioÌ„ pag. 39. you might haue seene that in these wordes This is my bodie there is a figure not a meere or naked one voide of truth and proprietie because although they signifie that the Eucharist is the bodie of Christ trulie reallie and properlie according to the thing yet they doe not affirme it to be the bodie of Christ after such a corporall and naturall manner as other thinges are the thinges which they are sayed to be but after a spirituall inuisible mysticall sacramentall manner and such a one as doth figuratiuelie shew and represent the naturall manner of being of the same bodie in another place Now though for words to be taken in their natiue sence and not to be taken in their natiue sence as long as it is secundum idem be contradiction yet to be taken in their natiue sence according to the substance of the thing directlie signified and not to be taken in their natiue sence according to the manner of being vsuallie imported also by them is not secundum idem nor any contradiction Apologist Good Master Doctor take notice that since a propâ—r speache is when wordes are taken in their genuine sence and a figuratiue when they are translated or taken from their genuine sence that to be taken in their natiue sence and not in their natiue sense besides that it is a meere fiction is a plaine contradiction because the sence would be natiue and not natiue Censure Against whom do you fight good Andabatarian who tould you that the speach was proper absolutè simpliciter and figuratiue or improper absolutè simpliciter that the wordes were taken in their natiue sence and that they were not taken in their natiue sence that secundum idem they were and were not This is a fiction of your braine a chimericall goblin that your ignoraÌ„ce hath made for your argument to fight against Those against whoÌ„ you preteÌ„d to deale haue noe such thing they doe not saie the speach is proper absoluté simpliciter and that it is absolutè simpliciter figuratiue they say onlie that it is proper absolutè simpliciter and figuratiue or improper secundum quid Which you will proue to be a contradiction when you proue this to be so Aethiops est niger Aethiops est albus secundum dentes and haue demonstrated against the logick rule that an argument holds well from secundum quid to simpliciter Open your eies braue challenger and read in great letters what they defend THE SPEACH IS ABSOLVTè TO BE SAID PROPER AND FIGVRATIVE ONLY SECVNDVM QVID By this time hauing beene distempered with a giddines of vnderstanding so that you could hardlie peceaue what you were to doe you are reeld ouer the entrie into the matter of the first argument where you beginne to shew your Diuinitie and will reade a lesson to my Lord and S. E. before you know what it is your self My L. had said figures some were not meere figures as were the legall but had the veritie ioyned with them of which kind he brought 3. the first an increated figure the sonne of God who is according to the Apostle the figure of his fathers substaÌ„ce 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and hath it also with him yea and in him heereunto M. Mirth as followeth Apologist I graunt since the Diuiné essence was incarnat that the sonne is essentiallie the same with the Father who though quoad hypostasim in respect of his filiation he be a distinct person from his father yet quoad naturam according to his essence he is equallie sharer of the same godhead and is not an other but the same God But I pray Sirs take notice that these wordes are spoken of the Sonne as his Diuinitie manifested it self in his humanitie so then as the Diuinitie of the sonne did manifest it self in his flesh he had the image of his fathers person ingrauen in him so 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifies tell me then is this image the same with the
sanguinis vt autem sanguinis veterem figuram recognoscas aderit Esaias quis inquit qui aduenit de Edom rubor vestimentorum eius ex Bosor c. multo manifestius Genesis in benedictione Iudae ex cuius tribu carnis census Christi processurus iam tunc Christum in Iuda deliniabat â—auabit inquit in vino stolam suam in sanguine vuae amictum suumistolam amictum carnem demonstrans vinum sanguinem ita nunc sanguinem in vino consecrauit quitunc vinum in sanguine figurauit Tertull. adu Marcion lib. 4. c. 40. Vide Cyprian lib. 2. Epist 3. distributum discipulis corpus suum illum fecit Hoc est corpus meum dicendo id est figura corporis mei and the rest recited in the margent Out of which wordes M. Featlie did argue for such a signe as had not the veritie ioyned with it Apologist It is most plaine that Tertullian in those wordes meanes to interprete himselfe against transubstantiation for if he had held his bodie to be trulie and substantiallie in the bread why would he haue added to these wordes he made it his bodie this interpretation that is the figure of his bodie Censure The words figura corporis mei are not an interpretation of corpus in that speach corpus suum illum fecit as you may easilie know not onlie by the Authors discourse but also euen by the Syntaxis of the wordes Panem fecit corpus suum id est fecit figura corporis is no congruitie in Latine And againe that mei which followes doth repugne to the construction which you make panem fecit corpus suum id est panem fecit figura corporis mei Suum id est mei this is so vntoward that you will neuer be able to perswade a man Tertullian meant it should runne so The words id est figura corporis mei are an exposition of the subiect hoc as your Doctor was told in the Conference and the Authors intention was to say that our Sauiour by the wordes of consecration hoc est corpus meum turned an old figure bread into his bodie Acceptum panem corpus suum illum fecit Wherein he is so so farre from interpreting himself against transubstantiation that he doth auouch and teach it Apologist T' is meere Sophistrie to attribute those wordes that is a figure of my bodie to the subiect this Censure This is all which is returned in answer to four seuerall reasoÌ„s demonstrating and out of this Authors owne wordes that his meaning was by these words id est figura corporis mei to interpret and declare what before that thing was which our Sauiour now by Consecration turned into his bodie Some thing he saith our Sauiour made fecit and by speaking these wordes Hoc est corpus meuÌ„ Fecit hoc est corpus meum dicendo the thing he made it of was bread AcceptuÌ„ panem c. The Question is Whether coÌ„cerning this bread TertulliaÌ„ would say that of no figure he made it a figure or Whether he would saie that being before a figure of his bodie he now turned it into the same bodie the wordes are Acceptum panem corpus suum illum fecit dicendo hoc est corpus meum the interpretation is id est figura corporis mei Which interpretation if you ioyne to the subiect hoc it makes the later of the two senses if you ioyne it to corpus the predicate it may be drawne to the former placing it thus hoc est figura corporis mei this is my bodies figure putting insteed of corpus figura c. Which your owne men Chamier Hooker and others will not endure and with reason for the word which is the predicate corpus signifies the thing crucified as appeares by saint Paul This is my which is broken for you you cannot put figure there insteed of bodie say this is my figure which is broken for you whereupon they take corpus properlie 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 And allthough our tenet would suffer no preiudice by admitting that the Eucharist is a figure and consequentlie by saying that our Sauiour by consecration made it so for you were told there is a figure though not an emptie figure and in the Conference my Lord told your Doctor that of curtesie he would admit the word figura pag. 22. figure to be referd to the word corpus bodie that his argument might runne on yet certain it is that Tertullian doth intend the later sence and not the former For the figure which he speakes of was before and our Sauiour did not you you confesse make by consecration that which was before Figura autem non fuisset Non intelligens veterem istam fuisse figuram quid tunc voluerit significasse panem Birkbeck pag. 61. doth make a Syllogisme whereof if you chang the minor puttng this But bread was an old figure of Christs bodie His Argument is answered He translates there also figura non fuisset a figure it could not be to make it serue iâ— turne Vt autem sanguinis veterem figuram in vino and the rest which you find in the Relation Apologist In other places he makes bread the subiect in this proposition as in these panem quo ipsum corpus representat bread by which he representes his verie bodie Againe panem corpus suum appellans calling bread his bodie and presentlie after corporis sui figuram pani dedisse he gaue to bread to be the figure of his bodie in which places he is easelie vnderstood to meane that bread represents Christs bodie as a figure not to be sustantiallie the same Censure It doth not follow out of the affirmation of a figure that the substance of the bodie is not heere Plane de substantia Christi putant hic Marcionitae suffragari Apostolum sibi quod phantasma carnis fuerit in Christo cum dicit quod in effigie coÌ„stitutus non rapinam existimauit pariaâ—i Deo sed exhausit semetipsum accepta effigie serui non veritate in similitudine hominis non in homine figura inuentus homo non substantia id est non carne quasi non figura similitudo est effigies substantiae quoque accedant Benè autem quod alibi Christum imaginem Dei inuisibilis appellat Numquid ergo hic qua in effigie eum Dei collocat aeque non erit Deus Christus vere si nec homo vere fuit in effigie hominis constitutus Vtrobique enim veritas necesse habebit excludi si effigies similitudo figura phantasmati vindicabitur Quod si in effigie in imagine qua filius patris vere Dei praedicatus est etiam in effigie imagine hominis qua filius hominis vere hominem inuentum nam inuentum ratione posuit id est certissime hominem quod enim inuenitur constat esse Tertull. li. 5. aduo r. Marc. c. 20. Faciliùs intelliges
quod in hac sententia obscurum est si legas hoc modo numquid ergo hic quia in effigie eum Dei collocat aeque non erit Deus Christus vere si nec c. postea vere Deus predicatus this being not a meere emptie signe or figure but such a one as hath in it the substance of the thing signified and represented as your Doctor was told in the beginning And according to this Author our Sauiour turning the substance of bread into his bodie did by this meanes put the veritie within the figure and so left it such a figure as we speake of not emptie as before in Ieremies tyme but full The very same is imported by the the wordes which you cite in the first place representare is rem aliquam praesentem sistere to exhibite a thing present And our Sauiour by turning the substance of bread into his bodie doth thereby exhibite his bodie present vnder the figure of bread and so properlie doth represent it In this signification Orators Lawiers and Deuines vse the word and Tertullian himself very frequentlie as where he saith that our Sauiour a. Tertull de Resurr car represented the thinges foretold by the Prophets that the b. Ibid. generall Iudgment shall consist of a representation of all mankind that God (c) li. 4 con MarcioÌ„ See store of testimonies of this kind in Card. Peron pag. 211. 212. representing Christ said This is my sonne c. itaque iam representans eum And this is the natiue and proper signification of the word To exhibite a thing present in a signe or figure is not so properlie rem sistere praesentem as is the other exhibition of the thing in it self wherefore that signification is lesse proper yet in this sence also the word is heere verified for the Sacrament is a signe or figure of the bodie and it hath also the bodie in it Our Sauiour himself who did institute it was the figure of his Fathers substance and had his Father in him suprà pag. 178. The second place you bring is this panem corpus suum appellans where you suppose the word panem to be the subiect and to be taken properlie SubiectioÌ„ est in Grammaticae prior nominatinus de quo aliquid dicitur Grammatici vocant suppositum vocatura nonnullis antecedens quia in ipso sensu debet semper antecedere etsi in oratione interdum sequatur Deus erat verbum 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 nobilitas sola est atque vnica virtus Keker ex Melancth which if it could be proued would not yet serue your turne for we could easilie expound the wordes by others of the same Author before cited panem corpus suum fecit dicendo hoc c. The calling would I then say was practicall such as turned the bread into his bodie dicendo hoc est c. corpus suum illum fecit Dixit factum est he made it to be so and he made it dicendo Call to minde the Speaker and you will not think the thinge to him hard or difficult It is he per quem omnia facta sunt He that sendeth forth light Baruc. 3. and it goeth calleth it againe and it obeieth with trembling The starres haue giuen light in their watches and reioyced they were called and they sayd we are heere and they haue shined to him with cheerfullnes that made them Benedictâ—one etiam natura ipsa mutatur S. Ambr. de myst init c. 9. Ante verba Christi Calix est viui aequae plenus vbi verba Christi operata fuerint ibi sanguis efficitur qui plebem redemit Idem Sacram. l 4. cap. 5. Inuenimus Calicem mixtum fuisse quem Dominus obtulit vinum fuisse quod sanguinem practice dixit S. Cypr. li. 2. Ep. 3. Sacrificium verum plenum tunc offert Sacerdos in Ecclesia Deo Patri si sic incipiat offerre secundum quod ipsum Christum videat obtulisse Ibidem And had there beene in this Father any obscure speaches touching this matter the diuine Prouidence hath not left vs without meanes to learne his minde for together with his booke there is come into our hands from Antiquitie such a comment Sermo de Coena that wee neede not studie long to finde it out Panis non effigie c. Did the word panem stand for Bakers bread I would say that this bread was by the wordes of consecration changed panem corpus suum fecit dicendo hoc est c. and so no more bakers bread after consecration though before it were it is afterwards the bodie of Christ supernaturall heauenlie bread the bread of life 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 it seemes bread it is in the shape of bread but in substaÌ„ce it not bread Cyrill Qui est à terra panis 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 percipiens vocationeÌ„ Dei iam non communis panis est sed Eucharistia ex duabus rebus constans terrena c Caelesti the bread which hath being from the earth receauing the call or inuocation of God is now not common bread but Eucharist consisting of two things the earthlie and the heauenlie Iren. lib. 4. c. 34. This answer you see is readie if that supposition of yours could be made good But your obiection is not so farre aduanced as to require an answer and you are engaged in a further busines being to proue that when the consecration is donne the bakers bread remaines according to this Author which is contrarie to his words before alleadged corpus suuÌ„ illum panem fecit the bodie of Christ is not you know bakers bread and by consecration our Sauiour did this Hoc est corpus meum dicendo By the order of the wordes you cannot get aduantage as before I did insinuate now confirme it by this that indifferentlie he puts either first lib. 3. contra Mar. c. 19. Panem corpus suum appellans and lib. 4. cap. 40. corpus suum vocans panem See the margent aboue pag. 191. Wherefore omitting that dispute which is not heere materiall let vs inquire what the word panem be it the subiect or the predicate doth signifie in that propositioÌ„ Whereunto it is easelie answered out of the same Author that it signifies not proper but mysticall not earthlie but Heauenlie bread The veritie of which answer appeares by the scope of his discourse He is expounding an obscure place of antiquitie found in Ieremie the Prophet Mittamus lignum in panem eius which wordes are vttered in the person of the Iewes By lignum he meanes the Crosse that eius is referd to our Sauiour of whom the Iewes spake mittamus lignum let vs cast wood vpon let vs crucifie panem eius the word panem and that word onlie is obscure If it be taken for earthlie bakers bread the seÌ„se would be let vs crucifie bakers bread which could not be the sence What bread then is this which they threaten
vpon it as it is in it self altogether The first part of the sense is this Profiteor panem vinum post consecrationem non solùm Sacramentum sed etiam verum corpus sanguinem D.N.I.C. esse I professe that the bread and wine be after consecration not a sacrament only but also the true bodie and blood of our Lord Iesus Christ Heere is I do not say all the wordes but one part of the seÌ„ce importiÌ„g that the coÌ„secrated bread wine be a Sacrament not onlie a Sacrament but also the true bodie and bloud of our Lord Iesus Christ so that vnder the name of consecrated bread it is the like of consecrated wyne Berengarius in this Confession comprehendeth two thinges the visible Sacrament by which he meanes the species and the bodie which is inuisible Non solùm Sacramentum sed etiam corpus you know the force of the particles and can resolue the proposition I suppose according to the rules of Logick The like you haue in the Canon Hoc est which afterwards the Doctor obiecteth Contendimus Sacrificium Ecclesiae duobus confici duobus constare visibili elementorum specie inuisibili D. N.I. C. carne Wee contend that the Sacrifice of the Church doth consist of two things the visible species of the elements and the inuisible bodie of our Lord Iesus Christ And in ould Irenaeus Qui est à terra panis percipiens vocationem Dei 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 iam non communis panis est sed Eucharistia ex duabus rebus constans terrena coelesti The bread which hath being from the earth receauing the inuocation of God being consecrated is now not common bread but Eucharist consisting of two things the eartlie the species and the heauenlie the bodie And another ould Father before cited Panis iste non effigie sed natura mutatus omnipotentia Verbi factus est caro That bread being changed not in shape there is the species remaining but in nature is by the omnipotencie of the word made flesh there is the inuisible substance the flesh or bodie of our Sauiour Iesus Christ If you finde in authors teritur with corpus otherwhile you finde a caution with it Sub vtraque specie sub vtriusque speciei particula singula totus est Christus Iesus sumitur residens in coelo sedens ad dextram Patris ipse verè est in hoc Sacramento deÌ„tibus teritur secundum species integer manet Manducatur non corrumpitur Immolatur non motitur Stephan Eduen lo. de Saciam Altar c. 15. vixit circa annuÌ„ 950. Credimus terrenas substantias quae in mensa Dominica per sacerdotale ministerium diuinitus sanctificantur ineffabiliter incomprehensibiliter mirabiliter operante superna potentia conuerti in essentiam Dominici Corporis reseruatis ipsatum rerum speciebus quibusdam aliis qualitatibus ne percipientes cruda cruenta horrerent vt credentes fidei proemia ampliora perciperent ipso tamen Dominico corpore existente in coelestibus ad dextram Patris immortali inuiolato integro incontaminato illaeso vt verè dici possit ipsum corpus quod de Virgine sumptum est nos sumere tamen non ipsum ipsum quidem quantum ad essentiam veraeque naturae proptietatem atque virtutem non ipsum si spectes panis vinique speciem caeteraque superius comprehensa Hanc fidem tenuit à priscis temporibus nunc tenet Ecclesia quae per totum diffusa orbem Catholica denominatur Lanfrancus Archiepiscopus Cantuar. li. de Eucharist Vixâ— circa annum 1059. cum Bérengario disputauit I proceede vnto The second part of the sence Profiteor panem eundem sensualiter non solùm Sacramento sed in veritate manibus sacerdotum tractari frangi fidelium dentibus atteri I professe that the consecrated bread is sensiblie touched with the bands of Priests broken and by the faithfull chewed not in sacrament onlie but in verie deed This is the second part of I do not saie the words but the sence wherin you will haue more adoe to finde a difficultie then I shall haue to finde the solution The QuestioÌ„ is not what other men say of them but what is contained manifestlie in them which the wordes if they be supposed to stand thus offer of themselues That the Preist doth touch the consecrated bread with his hand and his mouth and his tongue euerie one knowes and our Sauiours bodie being therein reallie in rei veritate not in signo tantuÌ„ he doth also touch it more then the woman touched it who toucht immediatlie but his garment yet you can not denie but that indeede and trulie she did touch it Some denied then that any had donne it and our Sauiour himself confuted them and affirmed and proued it The historie is in the Ghospell A woman that had a bloodie flux came behinde our Sauiour and touched his garment the border of it he demaunded who it was that had touched him they denied that anie had done it Negantibus omnibus c. he stood in it still that it was so And a woman came behind him and touched the border of his garment and immediatly her isâ—ue of blood stanched And Iesus 〈◊〉 who touched me When all denied Peter and they that were with him said Master the multitude throng thee And Iesus said somebodie hath touched me for I perceaue that vertue is gonne out of me And when the woman sawe that the was not hid she came trembling and falling downe before him she declared vnto him before all the people for what cause 〈◊〉 had touched him Luc 8. tetigit me aliquis and proued it nam ego noui virtutem de me exijsse where vpon the woman fell vpon her knees at his feete and confest it It is not necessarie when wee saie wee touch or see a thing that euerie thing in it euerie essentiall part be according to it self an obiect of the sense or that the sense perceaue euerie part of it that is sensible He who lookes you in the face saith he sees you though the rest of your bodie be within your cloathes and if you being an 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 cataphract in your protestantish 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 should for feare pull downe your beuer before you come into the list your Aduersarie for all that might light vpon your vnlesse you bring with you Giges his ring so to make your self inuisible as other of your Champions it seemes did manie hundred yeares together for none of them appeared vnles it were to Swinglius one Ater an albus he knew not and an other to Luther With a great voice I see a man yet my eie doth not discerne the substance of his soule or his matter or his sauour and by touching him I doe not feele his colour or discerne his forme from his matter Wee should end manie controuersies in Philosophie soone if soules could be seene
quod Christus fecit vt maiori Charitate nos astringeret vt suum in nos ostenderet desiderium non se tantum videri permittens desiderantibus sed tangi manducar f Idem in eadeÌ„ Hom. Why doth he adde which we break this in the Eucharist wee may see not vpoÌ„ the Crosse but quite otherwise you shall not bruise a bone of him But what he suffered not vpon the Crosse that he suffers in the oblation the Masse g Idem Hom. 26. in Matth. Then what sun-beames had not that hand need to be more pure that breaketh vp this flesh that mouth which is filled with this spirituall fier that tongue which is embrued or sprinkled with this wonderfull blood h Idem de Sacerdotio l 3. O the miracle o the benignitie of God! he that sitteth aboue with the Father is touched at the same time with euerie ones hands i Idem de Sa. cerd l. 6 Dare you Mirch Featlie Morton publiklie call your coÌ„munion bread so when he the Priest hath inuocated the holy Ghost and celebrated the most reuerend and dreadfull Sacrifice touching dailie with his hands the Lord of all I demaund of thee in what rank or order wee shall place him k Idem Hom 46 in Ioa. Who would grauÌ„t to vs to be filled with his flesh this Christ hath donne to oblige vs vnto him with more loue and to demonstrate his affectioÌ„ to vs suffering himself not onlie to be seene of such as desire it but to be touched also and eaten Reflect on this Christ himself the Lord of all he that sitteth aboue with the Father this is not bakers bread is touched with hands and * Et dentibus carni suae infigi Ibidem teeth also l Cyrill Hier. Catech. myst 5. Accedens ad communionem non expansis manuum volis accede neque cum disiunctis digitis sed sinistram veluti sedem quandam subijcias dextrae quae tantum regem susceptura est concaua manu suscipe corpus Domini Approaching to the communion come not with the palmes of thy hands spred out nor with thy fingars parted but holding thy left hand as it were a resting place vnder thy right haÌ„d which is to receaue so great a king that with the hollownes of thy hand thou maiest receaue the bodie of our Lord. Before you heaâ—d Saint Augustine saie that wee receaue the Meditatour Supra pag. 45. God and man with our mouth If against these Fathers you should obiect that the flesh of Christ is impassible in it self and that our Sauiour vnder the consecrated species doth not appeare in his owne forme to our eies they would Answer that yet notwithstanding he may be seene and touched with hands and mouth according to the Sacramentall forme wherein he is God in himself is impassible but because he was in the forme of man he might suffer and be nailed vppon the Crosse and this without driuing the nailes as you seeme to conceaue through the Diuinitie And according to the same humane forme he was trulie seene though the mens eies discouered him not according to the diuine forme within For had they knowne it they would hot haue crucified the Lord of glorie If secondlie you obiect the Capharnaites interpretation the Reader by that which hath beene said before out of S. Augustine will take notice of your willfull errour in that behalf and acquit these great Schollers heere cited from so foule an imputation Wee neither eate not touch with mouth or hands the flesh of our Sauiour according to it's proper forme which was the Caphernaietes errour but in the forme of bread we touch and eate it The bread which I will giue is my flesh Ioan. 6. Mat. 26. 1. Cor. 11. My flesh is meate indeede take with your hand and eate with your mouth this in forme of bread is what my bodie 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 this is my bodie which is broken for you Apologist To that part of the section where he mistakes S. Augustine to maintaine a corporall eating when he affirmes that Iudas receaued the price of our Redemption not by his faith for that was shut he being reprobated therefore into his bodie I answer that there are two kinds of eating in the Sacrament one both corporall and spirituall wherein the bodie feeds on the outward elements corporallie whilst the soule receaueth the true bodie and blood of Christ by faith the other onlie corporall wherein the receauer partakes onlie the outward signe and not the bodie signified So I say Iudas receaued the last waie onlie and not the first though his faith had shut out Christs bodie yet his mouth was open to let downe the Sacrament of his bodie He as all the wicked receaued paneÌ„ Domini the bread of the Lord Sacramento tenus according to the visible signe the other eleuen as all the faithfull did also reuera indeed partake panem Dominum of bread which was the Lord. Censure It is well you confesse that your Answer is but to part of the discourse it hath hetherto beene your manner the rest is such as you know not how to cauill at it The words of S. E. which you pick out be these Iudas according to S. Augustine receaued the price of our Redemption not with the mind sure he was then a traitor but with the mouth The substance of your Answere is that he receaued bread and wine the signes or elementes but not the bodie and blood which answer is so farre from satisfying the place of S. Augustine that it is directlie coÌ„tradictorie S. Aug. Epist 162. his words are Tolerat ipse Dominus Iudam Diabolum furem venditorem suum sinit accipere inter innocentes Discipulos quod fideles nouerunt precium nostrum Our Lord himself suffers Iudas a deuill a thiefe who sould him he lets him receaue amoÌ„gst the innocent Disciples that which the faithfull know our price That which the faithfull the Apostles knew to be the price of our redemption that he Iudas tooke what was that wine or blood non corruptibilibus auro vel argento redempti estis saith our Pastor sed pretioso sanguine quasi agni immaculati Christi 1. Pet. 1. You were not redeemed with corruptible things gold and siluer but with the precious blood of Christ as of a lambe without spot or blemish And the Saints in the Reuelation Apoc. 5. Redemisti nos in sanguine tuo thou hast redeemed vs in thy blood This is the price of our Redemption as the faithfull know and this Iudas though he was a traitor did receaue amongst the rest of the Disciples not with deuotion nor with faith neither not corde no he was one of those qui non crediderunt but ore tantum with his mouth onlie whereas the other both with heart Aug. l. 2. con Aduers leg c. 9. and mouth into themselues did receaue it And so did the Church in S. Augustines time Wee
dead Creatio est ex nihilo Viuificatio est rei prius mortuae aut non viuae So you inuoluing your credit in a difficultie out of which you will neuer extricate your self till you beleeue as we do But there is a prayer to resume that argument for the Readers sake supra quae propitio sereno vultu respicere digneris c. True there is indeed such a prayer the quae that is in it which word you catch at reflects on things otherwise and more then you imagine Haec quotiescumque feceritis vnde offerimus supra quae propitio sereno vultu respicere digneris accepta habere sicut vt quotquot ex hac altaris participatione repleamur per Christum See the like and withall the meaning of it in the Liturgie of S. Iames Respice in nos ad nostrum hoc rationabile obsequium idque accipe vt Abel dona accepisti ita quoquee manibus nostris qui peccatores sumus recipe Apocalyps a Prophecie which thou hast beene pleased to inspire and suggest vnto one of his Disciples wee reade that an Angel came and stood before the Altar the Altar of thy mercie d. Apoc. 8. with a golden censer and that there was giuen vnto him much incense that he should offer of the prayers of the Saints and that the smoke of the incense ascended from his hand before thee ô God And wee though not yet Saints be coÌ„secrated vnto thee in the blood of thy deare Sonne wherefore let our incense our prayers ascend too Iube haec perferri per manus sancti Angeli tui in sublime altare tuum in conspectu Diuinae Maiestatis tuae vt quotquot ex hac Altaris participatione sacrosanctuÌ„ filij tui corpus sanguinem sumpserimus omni benedictione coelesti gratia repleamur per eundem Christum Dominum nostrum Commaund o God these things to be brought by the hands of thy holy Angell vnto thy holie Altar in the view of thy Diuine Maiestie that wee as many of vs as by this participation of the Altar shall receaue the most holy bodie and blood of thy Sonne may be replenished with all heauenlie blessing and grace through the same Christ our Lord. So the prayer which you speak of in the Canon of the Masse I haue staid so long vpon it that Waferer who sent me to looke vpon the place of Gratian will think I haue for feare taken Sanctuarie and dare not appeare to answer it against his Master Featlie who hauing â—got the Canon readie is leuelling it against our cause and since now I am defending it against me The Minister by a stratagem hath gotten me iust before his Doctor and I may not without losse of honour steppe back or runne away Well stand I must But is this thinne paper my poore armour Canon-proof the bullets will flie thorough thorough or I shall be blowne away out of rerum natura If I be killed Master Mirth you le singe my Dirgeâ— and laugh a peale or two I leaue you this writing for a remembrance of me and for your greater comfort will tell you mine that if I die in this cause I shall neede no more Canonizing Your aime is M. Featlie to proue that our Sauiours flesh is not vnder the species or accidentes of bread after Consecration I am directlie opposite I saie it is there Giue fire to your Canon Featlie Gratian hath these wordes As the Heauenlie bread which is Christs flesh after a sorte or maÌ„ner is called Christs bodie whereas indeed it is the Sacrament of his bodie and the sacrifice of the flesh of Christ which is donne by the Priests hands is said to be his Passion death and crucifying not in the truth of the thing but in a signifying mysterie Thus Gratian Answer And well had it not beene your misfortune shall I mitigate your action by that word to corrupt the text by omitting that substantiall and intrinsecall part of the senteÌ„ce which answers directlie to that argument you made out of it as will appeare in the ensuing citation and discussion In regard whereof in the other a. See the CoÌ„fer pag. 68. and Feat Relat. pag 295. Conference where you did obiect the same words as vnanswerable you broke of the citation before you came to them which was no great argument of faire dealing in the triall of so great a cause Was it not this which Waferer meant when he said Featlies argument was b. VVafer pag. 50. mincinglie produced If the Canon thus corrupted do chance anon to burst and and the peices flie about your eares each enough to confound you thank your self To the text of Gratian so alleaged you ioyne wordes out of the Glâ—sse which are cited aboue in the Catholicke Relation pag. 68. and shall be brought againe when their turne comes The text must go first Featlie In this allegation vnlesse you will taxe Gratian with false quoting there is a threefold Cable which cannot easilie be broken first Saint Augustines authoritie out of whom S. Prosper collecteth this sentence secondlie S. Prospers who in effect relates it and approues it and thirdlie Gratians who inserts it into the bodie of the Canon-lawe and citeth both for it Answer We shall be held hard to it it seemes with this triple Cable this mustering of men together to make good the breach which the Canon you presume will make in our Cause makes a great noise amongst the vnlearned who expect by this time when the mountaines will bring foorth Featlie The words of Gratian and the Glosse heere are so cleere against your reall presence of Christs bodie vnder the accidentes of bread and wine Brutum Fulmen that neuer any Protestant spake more expreslie and directlie against it Answer Implerunt cornua bombis Featl pag. 62. I think I must bid you as Master Musket did Frame your argument out of those wordes Featlie Gratian heere speakes of the bread after consecration for before it is consecrated it is not Coelestis panis heauenlie bread much lesse caro Christi Christs flesh by your owne confession But heere he saith this heauenlie bread is but after a sort Christs bodie and not indeed as the opposition betwixt suo modo after a sort and reuera indeed plainlie sheweth as if I should saie that picture is after a sort or in some sence Caesars it being indeed the true picture of Caesar Therefore after consecration the Sacrament is not in truth Christs bodie but onlie in a signifying mysterie Answer If you take the bumbast out of this Argument it will be more in fashion though not altogether The Sacrament consisteth you were told before of two things the one visible the other inuisible the Controuersie is not whether all this be the bodie the species or shape of bread may signifie but cannot be a mans bodie but whether the bodie be reallie according to the substance within that accideÌ„tall shape whether it be
contained as the Councell speakes in the Sacrament Conc. Trid. Sess 13. Suprà pag 182. seqq Suprà pag. 73. You haue beene tould also that a thing may represent or signifie that which according to the substance is within it and that a substance vnder two seuerall formes may by the one signifie it self as in the other The Doctours Argument out of the Canon doth touch vpoÌ„ these two points wherefore I am to see whether it doth affirme or denie them 1. Whether the bodie be or be not in the Sacrament 2. Whether by the Sacramentall forme be signified the naturall forme or shape as it was vpoÌ„ the Crosse the substance vnder them both being the same In his Minor for his Argument is an ill fauoured kind of Syllogisme he hath imposed for these words this heauenlie bread is but after a sort Christs bodie and not indeed what euer meaning they might haue be not in the text seuerall peices be deceitfullie patcht together for aduantage That the Reader may see and iudge I will represent heere the Canon it self VVafer p. 50. by parts for the Doctors engine may be taken in peices at leingth because the Apologist complaines this Argument was mincinglie produced The first part Hoc est quod dicimus hoc modis omnibus adprobare contendimus Sacrificium scilicet Ecclesiae duobus confici duobus constà re visibili elementorum specie inuisibili D. N. I. C. carne sanguine Sacramento re Sacramëti sicut Christi persona constat conficitur Deo Homine cuÌ„ ipse Christus verus sit Deus verus homo quia omnis res illarum rerum naturam veritatem in se continet ex quibus conficitur conficitur autem Sacrificium Ecclesiae Sacramento re Sacramenti id est corpore Christi Est igitur Sacramentum res Sacramenti id est corpus Christi It is this wee say this it is which wee labour by all meanes to proue namelie that the Sacrifice of the Church is made and doth consist of two things the visible species of the elements and the inuisible and blood of Christ And this is that mincha that cleane oblation as the Fathers tell vs which is offered by the Church euerie where according as the Prophet Malachie did foretell I come now to the second part of the Canon wherein the difficulties that might occurre about this be dissolued our cause more confirmed and yours directlie contradicted Caro eius Christi est quam formá panis opertam in sacramento accipimus sanguis cius quemsub vini specie sapore potamus Caro videlicet carnis sanguis Sacramentum est sanguinis carne sanguine vtroque inuisibili intelligibili spirituali significatur visibile Domini N. I. C. corpus palpabile plenum gratia omnium virtutum Diuina Maiestate His flesh it is which in the Sacrament wee receaue couered with the forme or species of bread and his blood which wee drink vnder the species sauour of wine The flesh indeed is a Sacrament of the flesh and the blood is a Sacrament of the blood By flesh and blood both inuisible intelligible spirituall is signified the visible palpable bodie of our Lord Iesus Christ full of the grace of all vertues of Diuine Maiestie You see how it saith first that our Sauiours flesh is couered in the Sacrament with the exteriour forme of bread the like of his blood which is in the forme of wine Caro eius est quam forma panis opertam c. with what face then could you saie that Gratians words are cleere against the reall presence of Christs bodie vnder the accidentes or exteriour forme of bread or Featlie pag. 61. that this heauenlie bread according to the substance is not indeed Christs bodie but a signe onlie SecoÌ„dlie it saith which ruines vtterlie all Waferers sillie discourse against S.E. vpoÌ„ this occasion that the flesh heere is a Sacrament of flesh and the blood a Sacrament of blood Caro videlicet carnis sanguis Sacramentum est sanguinis in explication whereof it saith Thirdlie that the inuisible and spirituall flesh which is heere couered with the exteriour forme or accidents of bread doth signifie the visible and palpable bodie of our Lord Iesus Christ and the like it is of the inuisible and spirituall blood carne sanguine vtroque inuisibili intelligibili spirituali significatur visible c. Whereby wee are instructed against Featlie when he saith pag. 63. that GratiaÌ„ doth not oppose moduÌ„ modo Featlie pag. 63. the manner to the manner when he compares the consecrated bread to the ble bodie but modum rei verae and veritati rei the manner to the truth of the thing and that therefore in saying it is suo modo there Featlie Ibidem he implieth that it is not there trulie or in the truth of the thing visiblie or inuisiblie for the text of Gratian doth affirme the flesh to be there inuisiblie couered with the forme of bread and that this inuisible spirituall flesh of Christ is a signe of or doth signifie his visible bodie as hath beene obserued from the wordes before cited After which ensue those which Fealie stands vpon being the third part of the Canon in this tenour Sicut ergo Coelèstis panis qui vere Christi caro est the Doctour perchaunce according to the coppie which he did vse leaues out verè suo modo vocatur corpus Christi cùm reuera sit sacramentum corporis Christi how so if it be verè corpus Christi it followes and exactlie according to the doctrine of the former part carne inuisibili significatur visibile corpus illâ—us videlicet quod visibile palpabile mortale in cruce suspensum this Featlie conninglie left out whereas it is indeed the solution of his Argument Hetherto one 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of a comparison now followes another Vocaturque ipsa immolatio carnis quae Sacerdotis manibus fit Christi passio mors crucifixio non rei veritate sed significante mysterio now comes the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 common to them both sic SacrameÌ„tum fidei quod baptismus intelligitur fides est As therefore the heauenlie bread which indeed is the flesh of Christ is after a sort called the bodie of Christ whereas in truth it is the Sacrament of the bodie of Christ I meane of that which being visible palpable mortall was put vpon the Crosse and as that immolation of the flesh which is donne by the hands of the Priest is called the passion death and crucifixion not rei veritate in veritie of the thing but significante mysterio in a signifying mysterie So the Sacrament of faith Baptisme I meane is faith The force and life of which comparison you haue in S.E. pag. 72. Heere breeflie I obserue that this text in the double 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 speakes of two things the one is the flesh of Christ in
cum ista loqueretur videbant tract 101. in Ioan. In the coelestialls no flesh but simple and bright bodies which the Apostle calls spirituall He that conceaues what is said before of the manner of defining which the b. Supra pag 301. seq naturall Philosopher doth vse will vnderstand this easilie and this heere affirmed by these learned Fathers according to the maÌ„ner which the Scripture also doth frequent in speach is a double confirmation of that Philosophie Featlie Gratian opposeth not modum modo but modum rei verae and veritati rei Answer This is answered allreaâ—ie In the first part of this 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 he doth oppose modum modo he doth oppose the inuisible flesh conuâ—red wâ—th the forme of bread to the same flâ—sh as it is visible and saith that the former is a signe of the lather Which I haue plainelie shewne by the text it self and haue produced the words wherein this is euidentlie affirmed In the second part of the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 he doth oppose one action to another or one manner of immolation to another manner of immolation affirming the Consecration or act of vnbloodie immolation to be the bloodie passion not in rei veritate to consecrate is not to crucifie but significante mysterio as hath beene also tould you Moreouer the confounding of these two thereby to conclude the flesh not to be there in the Sacrament according to the truth of the thing visible or inuisiblie so you speake hath beene detected for à grosse corruption repugnant to the text Featlie And now hauing brandished the sword of the text of Gratian let vs see how you can ward a blow with the scabbard the Glosse Answer The lightning of your sword was like the thundring of your Canon Surely Doctor it was a violent Obiection this Belli ferratas portas vectesque refregit Warrs iron gates it hath burst vp and Barrs Featlie ex Glossa Dicitur Corpus Christi impropriè suo modo non rei veritate vt sit sensus vocatur corpus Christi id est significatur Answer If Souldiers wheÌ„ the sword cannot pierce nor the Canon make a breach should giue an onset with their scabbards what Elogium befits them Doctour the scabbard too should be fit for the sword the commentarie should be according to the text or neither is good Who told you that Deuines were to be directed in the vnderstanding of matters purelie Theologicall by a Canon Lawier or that the Author of the Glosse did fullie comprehend the text which as you haue seene and so much he sawe too contradictes the fond Heresie of emptie signes and bakers bread moreouer the Glosse it self in plaine tearmes affirmes as you find cited in S. E that bread is transubstantiated into the bodie Suprà pag 75. that where before was bread and wine there is now after consecration the accidents of them onlie that vnder those accidents the flesh and blood of Christ doe lie hid and are couered and the reason least there might be horrour in receauing if the shape of raw flesh and blood should appeare And yet forsooth if wee beleeue you the words of Gratian and the Glosse heere in the scrappe you cite perchance are so cleare against the Reall presence of Christs bodie vnder the accidentes of bread and wine that neuer any Protestant spake more expreslie Featl pag. 61. as if an Atheist out that place Dixit insipiens in corde suo non est Deus should cite for himself onlie the later part non est Deus and then auouch that neuer Atheist did speake more expreslie Is this your sinceritie is this faire proceeding in the tryall of Religion must the presse groane vnder this the monument of the greate Disputant must it be built vpon these pillars and his Statua be adorned with a garland of these flowers O ConscieÌ„ce ô Religion In the Relation set foorth by S. E. Doctor Featlie is said to haue acknowledged that Gratian did contradict himself Pag. 70. who then can excuse this his vrging of the place againe in a second Disputation and printing of it afterwards twice still pressing the place against the Reall presence once anno 1624. in diuulging one Conference and againe anno 1630. in the publishing of another who caÌ„ saie that in vrging these mens Authoritie he did not impugne a knowne truth or if he did not knowe it if he could not vnderstand their words what mist was there in his vnderstanding what ignorance in so great a Rabbin But heare his Eccho in the Apologie In this Section wherein the place of Gratian and the Glosse are discussed so far as Doctor Smith and his Antagonist argue VVafer pag 50. if you peruse the places you shall find the arguments though so mincinglie heere produced vnsatisfied where you are forced to put a trick on Doctour Featlie and make him confesse against Gratian least his Lordship should be non-plust I can not but pittie such slender pollicie But for satisfaction concerning Gratian if you but please to reade Doctor Featlie on another occasion in his Conference with M. Musket pag. 61. c. you shall finde him insteed of yeilding that Gratian contradicts himself prooue that he oppugnes your transsubstantiation Thus innocentlie the godlie sincere Brother Cui nec Ara nec I now returne to the wordes obiected putting you first in minde which Featlie doth acknowledge was told him in the Conference Featl pag. 29â— that three thinges in a Sacrament are to be considered as Diuines note 1. that which is Sacramentum tantùm 2. that which is res Sacramenti tantùm Vide Suar. 3. p. to 3. disp 1 Sect 3. Tria distingnuÌ„tura Theologis in Sacramentis novae legis res tantum c. Et disp 42. Sect. 1. 3. 4. Magist in 4 d. 8. S. Tho. 3. p. q 73. a. 1. Ibidemque CoÌ„mentatores 3. that which is both res Sacramentum that which is heere Sacramentum tantum be the species of bread wine which are signes but are not reallie either of the thinges by them signified that which is res Sacramenti tantum is grace which is signified by the Sacrament as you may know by the generall definition but it self not being visible is no signe of this S. Bernard speakes in the place cited by Waferer pag. 49. rem Sacramenti nemo percipit nisi dignus that which is both Sacramentum and res Sacramenti as signifying and being also signified is the bodie of our Sauiour in the signe According to this distinction commonlie receaued and knowne when the Glossatour made his exposition it was answered that he spake of that which is Sacramentum tantum to wit the specie which are not reallie and properlie the bodie and blood of Christ but improperlie and significatiue onlie to which meaning his owne words would haue directed you Sacramentum scilicet species visibilis the Sacrament that is the visible species and species panis sub qua
be called a Sacrament Waferer They do not signifie by institution Answer That institution which brings in the bodie vnder them doth also make them to containe it so comes relatio continentis Could a man put more wit into your head In ad aliquid non est morus Contingit enim altero mutato verum esse alterum nihil mutans quare secundum accidens motus horum est Arist 5 Phyâ—â— tex 10 Motus non est per se in ad aliquid sed solum per accidens S. Th. ibidem the relation would follow without other trouble When your meate is in your bellie who makes the relation when how by what meanes looke on Aristotle 5. Physicorum cap. 3. Waferer the pronounce hoc in the words of Consecration doth not signifie these accidentes therefore these accidents cannot get a relation by vertue of the words of Consecration Answer He that fills a cup or chalice doth not make it yet the relatio continentis ad rem contentam followes vpon that his action his action brings wine into the cup and consecration brings our Sauiours bodie into the forme of bread which donne the relations be not wanting Waferer The bodie is not produced by consecration nor the species therefore the relation of one of these to the other followes not vpon the consecration Answer Whether the bodie be produced or be not produced by consecration is not the matter heere disputed but whether it be present Neither would your argument conclude if wee supposed your antecedent to be whollie true When you fill a chalice you neither produce the cup nor the wine yet the relation of continencie doth follow and so doth it when you fill a place though you produce not your self that are in it Waferer Relations following vpon actions are onlie betweene the agent or efficient and the effect or thing it makes Answer You see this to be false in the example before specified could not you and I be neerer one to the other vnles the one of vs be made againe or is the Sunne made a new as oft as it is vnder a new signe the moone perhaps you will saie is because there be new moones Thus farre concerning the four arguments of your dislike VVafer p. 61. which you conclude with this iyngling clinch that becomes your cap well So much meÌ„d that word much and put so little you must not commend your self for Doctor Featlies Illation against your Relation One thing more I must note before wee leaue this Section that whereas in it you haue shewed your self much offended with S. E. for saying the species were also signa corporis Christi praesentis your conscieÌ„ce would not let you make an end before you had granted it in these words VVafer pag 62. I le graunt you that the outward signes are signa corporis praesentis signes of the bodie present after consecration yet to shew your self still replenished with the spirit of contradiction you tell vs you denie that it is there after the manner wee define how then M. Waferer is it obiectiue onlie Ibidem as the thing beleeued is said to be in the beleeuer or as the men you looke vpon are in your eie or as the thing you loue is thereby said to be in you or you rather in it heare a mysterie T is not corporallie but mysticallie and Sacramentallie VVafer Ibidem and yet so as besides the intellectuall presence by faith and loue there is also a reall and exhibitiue presence of the bodie I suppose in respect of donation on Gods part and reception on mans part But what it this great Apollo Is the bodie antecedentlie to the effectes which follow the reception reallie exhibited and reallie receaued more then intellectuallie do men with their bodilie mouthes receaue heere that which is in heauen onlie no neerer Quid tanto dignum feret hic promissor hiatu Your Master Caluin hath lead you it seemes into the clowds to mount there for a banck is to low for you Non solum beneficiorum Christi significationem habemus in Coena sed substantiué participes in vnam cum eo vitam coalescimus and Cited in Morton pag 151. Ergo in Coena miraculum agnoscimus quod naturae fines sensus nostri modum exsuperat Quod Christi caro nobis fit communis nobis in alimentum datur Wee haue in the Supper not a signification of the benefits onlie but being made substantiallie participant wee do become one life with him Wherefore wee acknowledge in the Supper a miracle that transcends the bounds of nature and compasse of our reason to wit that the flesh of Christ is made to vs commoâ— and giuen vs for our nourishment So hee Now Waferer mount you though wee heard you once alreadie 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Euerie Punie can tell you that though bread seeme onlie bread to the eie VVafer pag. 34. and in substance be nothing els yet in it's spirituall vse and signification it 's the bodie of our Sauiour this your Punies you saie know what is there in it more hark and learne not that Christs bodie is present vnder the accidentall formes of the elementes though it be therewith sprituallie And what hath Morton more then bread with certaine references which be not reall a signe a seale an instrument what answers heere to these three names à parte rei more then bread eaten this were Papistrie take heede of it but what or how then This I confesse to be a Mysterie but if you demaund what it is He answer you as Octauius did Caecilius when he did expect to heare him describe what God was Nobis ad intellectum pectus augustum est ideo sic Deum digne aestimamus dum inaestimabilem dicimus c. so if you expect to heare exactlie what this mysterie is I answer it is a mysterie and if I could perfectlie disclose it's secretes and shew you what it were then t were no mysterie So then besides the benefit of grace which is the effect of due receauing and besides the intellectuall presence which is by faith those that will must beleeue a mysterie aboue mans apprehension vnexplicable incomprehensible Will you now see the mouse The bread is a signe of our Sauiours bodie and the communicants take it in their hands S Hier. Epist ad Ctes and eate it with their moutheS Ecclesiae victoria est vos aperiè dicere quod fentitis The Fift obiection was that Hoc stands for bread because the Fathers sometimes call the Sacrament by that name and the pronoune relates to nothing els The Answer was that Hoc whose signification of it self is confused relates vnto the thing which is vnder the species when the forme is whollie vttered and that this thing is Heauenlie bread and by the Fathers so called Solemne ost istis nebulonibus so the modest man calls the Catholike Deuines quicquid in Patribus vitiosum est
moueri per accidens secundum esse quod habet in hoc Sacramento in quo non est sicut in loco Out of these words I take an instance to declare the solution which I gaue to your Argument whereby you would proue that if our Sauiours bodie were in seuerall dimensions sacrameÌ„tally it might be moued froÌ„ it self so be substaÌ„tiallie diuided in it self The Answer is that diuision in it self followes not out of that motus per accidens My Soule whilst I write is moued per accidens from it self but yet remaines one It were ridiculous to think that I cannot moue my fingers without diuiding an indiuisible and destroying that immortall thing on which the motion it self dependeth As for the termini à quo and ad quem they be those that be the termini of the motus per se When your bodie is in London in your Chamber per se your soule is there in eodem loco your chamber per accideÌ„s the place is one but the manner of being in it is diuerse Per se and per accidens distinguish the manner WheÌ„ your bodie is in motion thither to your chamber per se your soule is moued thitherwards too to the same terminus ad quem your chamber per accidens Suppose you be sitting in your studie at your table holding your right hand on the one end and your left hand on the other end When you moue your hands to the middle of the table and put them there together the termini a quibus in these two motions be not your soule which is and was in either hand but the two ends of the table where your hands were be the termini from whence you moued them and the terminus ad quem is not your soule which is in your hands now being together but the middest of the table is the terminus ad quem You must now keepe your haÌ„ds there together still for feare least at parting them againe you diuide your soule substantiallie into two by mouing it from it self whilst you moue the right hand wherein it is all from the left wherein it is likewise all or put of your too melancholie imagination of a contradiction to ensue in case a thing should per accideÌ„s be moued from it self or be in two dimensions whereof one is locallie moued from the other Of distance or resting it is the same Whilst your hands or armes do moue one from the other your breast and other parts may rest and the soule in the right hand is neerer to the same soule in the left wheÌ„ they be ioyned then is the a Of it self and by it self it caÌ„not be distaÌ„t from it self soule in the feete Neerer how per accideÌ„ that is it is in a part that is neerer moued how per accidens that is it is in a part of dimension which is moued resteth how per accidens that is it is in a part that doth rest Of it self it is not the subiect of these corporall accidents or affections as I told you before Applie this to the bodie existing according to the manner of a spirit after a more eleuated high manner theÌ„ that of the soule more incontracted more indetermined more independent of locall affections in seuerall dimensions some testing some moued some neerer some farther of and when any man offers to conclude a contradiction Some learned Deuines haue thought it probable that an angel can be naturallie in two places at once as in two seuerall assumed bodies and you will haue much adoe to demonstrate against them Celarent looke neere whether there be affirmatio and negatio eiusdem de eodem and secundum idem according to the same dimension and you will mile at their ignorance who by their wits do striue to put Gods omnipotencie to the non-pâ—us Apologist The next tedious busines is about this proposition This is my bodie wherein that substantiall change which is aimed at is attributed to the power of that practicall proposition Censure That the proposition is practicall was the tenet of the first of those witnesses which your Doctor cited as for himself in those words which he cited Acceptum parem corpus suum illum not illud as in Featlies margine fecit how so Hoc est corpus meuÌ„ dicendo if by saying those words Hoc est corpus meuÌ„ he made it his bodie those words were practicall the like maÌ„ner of speach and more expresse too you shall find in other a. Per orationem Verbi Dei ab ipâ—o EucharistiaÌ„ That factum â—ibum â— illius carnem sanguinem esse edect sumus S. Iustin Apol. 2. Qui est à terra panis percipiens vocationem Dei iam non est communis panis sed Eucharistia ex duabus rebus constans terrena coelesti S Iren. l. 4 c. 34 Benedictione etiam natura ipsa mutatur S. Ambros de myst init c. 9. Quòd si tantum valuit humaná benedictio de miraculis loquitur per Moysen aliosque patratis quid dicemus de ipsa consecratione Diuina vbi verba ipsa Domini Saluatoris operantur Ibidem Vide eundem l. 4. de Sacram. c. 5. Panis per Verbum Dei orationem sanctificatur non quia comeditur eo progrediens vt verbi corpus euadat sed statim per Verbum in corpus mutatur vt dictum est à Verbo Hoc est corpus meum S. Greg. Nyssen Orat Catech c. 37. Vox illa hoc est corpus meum semel quidem dicta est sed per omnes mensas Ecclesiae vsque ad hodiernum diem vsque ad eius aduentum Sacrificio praestat firmitatem S. Chrysost de Prod. Iudae vide eundem Hom. 2 In 2. ad Tim. Panis noster calix certa consecrations mysticus fit nobis non nascitur S. Aug. l. 20. cont Faust c. 13. Absit vt de his quicquam sinistrum loquar qui Apostolico gradui succedentes Christi corpus sacro ore conficiunt S. Hier. epist ad Heliod Transformatur arcanis verbis panis iste per mysticam benedictionem accessionem Spiritus S in carnem Domini Theophilact in c 6 Ioan. Virtute Spiritus-S per Verbum Christi fit sanguis Domini Paschal lib. de Corp. Dom. c. 12. Per eius virtutem prolatum ab eo Verbum quae videntur tam sanctificata sunt vt cunctum carnis sensum excedunt I sich l. 6. in Leuit. c. 22. Auncients whom you will not I suppose yet I haue cause to feare the contrarie but you should not I am sure offer to controule That which was aimed at or disputed of was not the change but the Read presence as you haue beene oft put in mind though it be true also that those words do serue to proue there is a change of substance For that which was vnder them before consecration was bread S Cyril Hier. and that which is vnder them after consecration is not
both b. Apol. pag 91. cups Vndoubtedlie Master Waferer can you demonstrate the thing by Theologicall arguments vnauoidable and so teach your owne Doctour or point out in Scripture the place or places that affirme it No not that you haue nothing which S.E. hath not allreadie answered what then Apologist What incongruitie is it to determine the matter thus S. Mathew and S. Marke relate them to the consecrated cup S. Luke after to the legall Censure What incongruitie is your vndoubtedlie no better grounded vndoubtedlie your Doctour smiles to see himself so vndoubtedlie confuted The incongruitie in your explication is easilie assigned for our Sauiour said of the Sacramentall cup this is my blood of the new testament which is shed for many vnto remission of sinnes and it cannot without incongruitie and infidelitie be affirmed that this thing is the fruit of the vine properlie We were not redeemed with wine Moreouer the words of consecration were spoken thereby the sacramentall cup consecrated after supper similiter Calicem postquam coenauit c. the other words were spoken in supper time of that cup which was drunck before the consecration of the bodie of our Sauiour and answerablie to the words spoken of the lambe which at supper they did eate Desiderio desideraui hoc pascha manducare vobiscum antequam patiar dic o enim vobis quia ex hoc non manducabo illud pascba donâ—e impleatur in regno Dei With desire I haue desired to eate this Passeouer with you before I suffer for I say vnto you I will not any more eate thereof vntill it be fullfilled in the kingdome of God Lucae 22. reflect vpon the Notes of S. E. and you will easilie conceaue the matter Apologist You cannot saie Christs bodie and blood can be receaued either vnworthilie or to death for to the receipt of them Christ hath annexed the promise of life Censure The Apostle hath taught vs to distinguish two sortes of CommunicaÌ„tes some do proue examine discusse their consciences before and comming with due preparation do receaue worthilie these haue the promise of life supposing they perseuer others approaching vnto the table with their hearts bent on sinne do receaue vnworthilie and these offend greiuouslie in so doing Thus Iudas the traitour did receaue the price of our Redemption which the rest of the Disciples receaued the former waie they to life he to iudgment as hath beene declared els where more at large Pag. 357. And whilst you denie that Christs bodie can be receaued vnworthilie you contradict the Apostle 1. Cor. 11. v. 29. He that eateth and drinketh vnworthilie eateth drinketh damnation to himself not discerning the Lords bodie Eateth vnworthilie what this bread What is it he tels you before v 24. in our Sauiours words take eate this is my bodie which is broken for you is it damnatioÌ„ to eate this vnworthilie yes Why so because it is our Lords bodie and he that eates it vnworthilie discernes it not in the manner of receauing he eates it as if it were commoÌ„ bread requiring of it's nature no spirituall preparation no reuerence wheras it is in it self a most holie thing euen the bodie that suffered for vs and as such with great reuerence to be receaued Apologist Saint Paules meaning is that who so commeth to those holie mysteries without that wherewith to discerne the Lords bodie is guiltie of the bodie and blood of Christ not in that he hath receaued them but in that he hath not receaued them since they onlie can be receaued by the mouth of faith Censure Only by the mouth of faith How then did Iudas receaue that which the faithfull knowe though you do not to be the price of our redemption if that caÌ„ be receaued only by the mouth of faith which mouth the traitour had not And What a peruerse exposition is this whosoeuer shall eate this consecrated bread which our Sauiour v. 24 saith is his bodie broken for vs vnworthilie shall be guiltie of the bodie of our Lord that is he shall be guiltie of the bodie not in that he hath receaued it but in that he hath not receaued it He receaues it the Apostle supposeth and vnworthilie and heerby he saies he shall be guiltie You saie No he shall not be guiltie in that he receaues it vnworthilie is not this later contradictorie to the former Waferers negatiue to S. Paules affirmatiue Againe S. Paul puts the fault in so receauing whosoeuer shall eate c vnworthilie v. 27. and v. 30 For this cause many sleepe c. Waferer in not receauing Not in that he hath receaued but in that he hath not receaued Thirdlie S. Paul saies he eateth drinketh damnation those acts in him are sinfull acts coÌ„mission omissioÌ„ Waferer the damnation is for not eating and not drinking Apologist Let not him therefore who without due preparation and so prophanes the holie ordinance of God vnworthilie eates the sacramentall bread and drinks of the cup think that he dâ—th communicate of the bodie and blood of Christ for so he should receaue to his saluation but let him assure himself howsoeuer he mixe himself with the faithfull at that holie banket yet he receaues barelie the outward food and not the heauenlie which can onlie be discerned and receaued by a liuelie faith Censure This then Master Mirth is the substance of the Catechisme you giue such as will beleeue you The wicked receaue barelie the outward food Out of which you shall giue me leaue to inferre Ergo the bare outward food is the price of our Redemption and Ergo the bare outward food is the bodie that was broken for vs. The sequele S. Paul and S Augustine yea and our Sauiour himself will make good Take a. 1. Cor. 11. v. 24. eate this is my bodie which is broken for you b. v 29. he that eateth vnworthilie the thing giuen when he said take eate this is c eateth damnation to himself not discerning the Lords bodie c. v. 30. For this cause for so eating vnworthilie manie are weake and sicklie amongst you 1 Cor. 11. Our Lord himself tolerateth Iudas a Deuill a thiefe his seller he lets him receaue amongst the innocent Disciples quod fideles nouerunt precium nostrum that which the faithfull knew our price S. Augustine Epist 162. Apologist After S.E. hath so poorelie as not worth the confutation iumbled in false witnesses cunninglie smothered the testimonie of those two who would coÌ„demne him he is so foole hardy as to affirme that though Christ said of the consecrated cup that it was the fruite of the vine yet it destroies not his tenet of transubstantiation Censure Fie Waferer will you neuer leaue your lying if your booke perseuer in the vice vntill the end and it is now verie neere t' will be condemned vnles hypocrisie may saue things otherwise obnoxious to the fier Daré pondus idonea fumo The witnesses your Doctour
THE RELECTION OF A CONFERENCE TOVCHING THE REALL PRESENCE OR A BACHELOVRS CENSVRE Of a Masters Apologie for Doctour Featlie By L. I. B. of Art of Oxford Psal 67.31 Jncrepa feras arundinis AT DOWAY By LAVRENCE KELLAM M.DC.XXXV THE PREFACE IT was when I liued in Oxford and I think it is still the custome for him who defends in Deuinitie to make first a Supposition wherein such as come to heare that exercise may see the State of the Questiō which is to be disputed By this meanes the Defendant laies his Cause open to a faire tryall and diuers Auditors not yet perfect in the knowledge of such matters are better inabled to vnderstand and vnderstanding to iudge betwixt him and his Opponent that vndertakes to perswade the contrarie I was thinking to conceaue my Preface in that manner like a Supposition it had beene to good purpose considering that some may come to see this Booke or Conference who being catechized by Puritās neuer knew the true State of the Question betwixt vs and them in the point of the Reall Presence But those with whō I am to deale will not permitt such a discourse excepting that it is against I know not what lawe My intention is not to write a Booke of the Blessed Sacrament that Argument deserues a better pen and is excellentlie treated by diuers worthie Catholike Deuines but to maintaine the iust honour of the defenders of it traduced scornefullie jeered by a Precisian on the behalf and by the consent of Doctour Featlie Whose nicenes shall not hinder me from doing that which doth confessedlie appertaine to the Sustentants part And yet I meane withall to keepe my self punctuallie to the matter without running out into new for that were to make the busines infinite or bringing Arguments for our tenet for they with whō I deale would then report that I chang parts and pretending to be a Defendant come a Disputant Doctor Featlie in a Challeng of his In his Challēg to M. Fisher. resembles a Controuertist to a Sawier who till he hath gonne thorough keepes himself to the same line and imputes vnto his Aduersarie that he neuer pierced into the heart of any Controuersie Whereas himself Master Featlie I meane was the man that moued the sawe out of the line and ranne into an other distinct matter when he was not able to giue satisfaction in the former which had beene the Cōtrouersie betwixt thē 2. Their disputation was of a Catalogue of Protestants in all ages and he leauing that challengeth his Aduersarie to dispute of Communion in both kinds Which is a way to runne ouer Controuersies but not to make an end of Controuersies Logicians nūber it amongst the faults of a Disputant It is a tacite yeelding of the cause I haue taken a Ministers imporportunitie made me the Sawe into my hands and am if we regard the Controuersie vpon the vpper side my Aduersaries being still in errour be in the pit The lines Featlie drew they be his Arguments deliberatlie chosen by him for the best these which I am to meddle in If they do not leaue pulling wee shall in time come to the heart of this Controuersie So they keepe themselues to their owne lines The matter of the Conference was not Transubstantiation but the Reall presence onlie So my Lord of Chalcedon did expresse Supra pag. 7. himself and Master Featlie to the same purpose Doctor Smith saith D. Feat in his Relat pag. 288. he distinguishing betwixt the Questions of Reall presence and Transubstantiation determined the point in Question to be this whether the bodie and blood of Christ were trulie and substantiallie in the Sacrament vnder the formes of bread and wine My Lord Defended the affirmatiue videlicet that it is there trulie and substantiallie that is to say according to the substāce of the thing Master Featlie vndertooke the contrarie videlicet that it is not there trulie and substantiallie Feat pag. 289 not according to the substance of our Sauiours naturall bodie and blood The words of Institution which Featlie did obiect be these This is my bodie Matt. 26 this is my blood c. which wordes he saies must needes be taken in a sence that makes against the Reall presence In this proposition or enunciation Hoc est corpus meum this is my bodie It is the like of the other wordes Hic est sanguis meus this is my blood there is to be considered the subiect the predicate or attribute the determination of the predicate and the copula or note of idētitie Four things in the four words The Subiect is Hoc the Predicate is Corpus the determination of it Meum the copula the verbe Est The Subiect or first word Hoc doth not of it self import bread rather then bodie or bodie rather then bread it is indifferent Significat saith the Doctour of the Schooles substantiam in communi sinc qualitate id est forma determinata It signifieth a substance in common without the qualitie that is the determinate forme Suppose a chalice before me and that I point towards it saying This is I may to make vp the proposition say gold or wine or blood without changing the first word This. If I adde blood it contracts and determines the subiect This which before was vncontracted and vndetermined to one particular thing if I saie wine it contracts it to an other if I saie gold it is contracted to a third This is blood this is wine this is gold The word Est is a verbe substantiue that signifies identitie or connexion which connexion or identitie cannot be conceaued without the extreames identified or connected which be the thinges signified by the subiect and the predicate And the references of the subiect to the attribute and the attribute to the subiect be founded it it Whence it comes that it is not possible to know what the Subiect determinatlie relates vnto being of it self indetermined till the predicate or attribute be also knowne because vntill then neither the terminus nor the ratio fundandi the connexion is knowne The same verbe or copula doth also consignifie the time for which the connexion is exercised which time presupposing the connexion for it is the modus of it and may varie the connexion perseuering Petrus est fuit erit albus doth presuppose likewise both the extreames This is manifest to him that lookes well on it because it presupposeth the connexion which connexion doth presuppose the saide extreames as before hath beene obserued Ipsū Est saith the Ipsa igitur secundum se dicta verba nomina sunt significant aliquid constituit enim qui dicit intellectum qui audit quiescit Sed si est vel non est nondum significat neque enim signum est rei esse vel non esse Nec si hoc ipsum Est purum dixeris ipsum enim nihil est Consignificat autem compositionem quandam quam sine compositis non est intelligere Arist.
Vide Caiet Baun Nazar c. in 1. p. q. 52. a. 2. in two bodies at once though the bodies be distinct he still remaines the same Neither is he continued by the continuitie of bodies if those he moues suppose two drops of water become one A Spirit in extended things is not extended in continued things not continued in distinct things not distinguished He is in another order far aboue God is neither multiplied in himself by the great multitude of things wherein he is nor by their quantitie extended Were there at once many worlds he would be in them all Saint Augustine had an apprehension that the soule of Martyrs were perchance at once in diuers places Quanquam ista quaestio vires intelligentiae meae vincat quemadmodum opitulentur Martyres iis quos per eos certum est adiuuari Vtrum ipsi per seipsos assint vno tempore tam diuersis locis tanta inter se longinquitate discretis siue vbi sunt eorum memoriae siue praeter suas memorias vbicunque adesse senti untur an ipsis in loco suis meritis conguo ab omni mortaliuÌ„ conuersatione remotis c. Res haec altior est quà m vt à me possit attingi abstrusior quà m vt à me valeat persetutari ideo quid horum duorum sit an verò fortassis vtrumque sit c. S Augustin lib. de cura pro mort c. 16. vndistracted That it is the fault of men ouerhastie and vndiscreetlie rash to determine the supposition of the Pronowne Hoc before the Neither doth Hoc of it self determine that precise instant wherein it is vttered The thing demonstrated may follow that instant or moment when the proposition is speculatiue much more when it is practick and is cause of the thing signified Nomen Pronomen secundum Grammaticos non consignificat tempus sed Verbo id competit quare demonstratio per se Pronominis abstrahit a tempore scilicet quo prosertur Pronomen quo terminatur totius orationis prolatio saith Soto cited in the Censure p. 501. In the Relation of S. F. pag. 80. there is a place of Scripture brought to shew that the thing demoÌ„strated may follow the Pronoune Hoc Hoc est praeceptum meum vt c. There be diuers other examples of it in holie Scripture whereof some are noted also by your Chamier l. 10. de Euchar. c. 21. Et hoc vobis signum inuenietis infantem Luc. 2. Hoc scientes quod vetus homo Rom. 6. Hoc est pactum meum vt circumcidatur Gen. 17. Haec sunt nomina Ruben Simeon Exodi 1. And the Prophets otherwhile begin with Haec dicit Dominus He adds that sometimes Hoc and Hic demonstrate things past Hoc totum factum est Matth. 1. and sometimes that which the eie cannot at all perceaue Haec eo cogitante Mat. 1. Falsum est saies he c. 18. etiam in Pronomine aduerbioue demonstrandi requiri rem praesentem Non enim est perpetuuÌ„ and Omnia tam praesentia quam praeterita sensui sunt demonstrabilia quia in sensibus aures sunt quibus per verba nihil non demonstrari potest To which purpose he citeth S. Aug. l 2. de Doct. Christ c. 3. predicate be knowne it appeares by that I haue allready said about it If it be considered secundum se as it is before the rest is vttered it is indetermined and he must make a new Dictionarie that will haue it in that acception to signifie bread Or Hic in the other forme determinatlie and ex vi sua to signifie wine into which new Dictionarie should the same compilers put Haec for meate which it doth signifie as determinatlie of it self the yong Schollers in Hic Haec Hoc would haue a feast If Hoc doth not being taken secundum se determinatlie signifie bread as it is manifest it doth not then D. MortoÌ„s whole building without more adoe D. Vshers argumeÌ„ts for bread are answered by F. Mallon falls vnto the ground Yet least it should not easilie enough be ruined this way he doth another way himself vndetermine it whilst he brings in an Armie of Witnesses to force his Reader to beleeue that the Sacrament is consecrated by prayer benedictioÌ„ distinct from these words Hoc est c. which he saith be not words of inuocation and prayer but of declaration It is in the second Chapter of his first booke in his Challeng where he saith The Archbishop of Caesarea cometh in compassed about with a clowde of witnesses and reasons to proue that the consecration vsed by our Sauiour was performed by that blessing by prayer which preceded the pronouncing of those words Hoc est corpus meum Were this so the chiefest of his D. Mortons cauils which is about the supposition of of the word Hoc were cut of by it When the water at Cana was changed and wine standing vpon the table what cauill could then be raised against these words Hoc est vinum This is wine He thinks he gets the Cause if he caÌ„ out of the words of any of ours deduce the contrarie to the common tenet of the Church Which manner of disputing in him is notoriouslie If the Church-authoritie be ouerthrowne by authoritie it must be donne by a greater The authoritie of priuate men is far yea infinitelie lesse in regard of the Diuine Assistance which the Church by promise hath He shall teach you Ioan. 14. 16. It has seemed good to the Holie Ghost and to vs. Act. 15. insufficient The Writers themselues were still readie to retract whateuer could be found in their bookes any way repugnant vnto Church-doctrine they knew they might mistake and therefore submitted their writings opinions and iudgment to the iudgment and Censure of the Church which they beleeued to be secured from errour by the prouidence of the holy Ghost her Master Should a man in the Schooles of Deuinitie step vp and say The definitioÌ„ of the Councell of Trent approued by the Church is repugnant in consequence at least to the OpinioÌ„ of suppose Bellarmine Ergo the definition is false He would be thought either to deride the Cardinall or to want something which commonlie men haue This I saie in generall touching the manner and for the matter it is well knowne the Cardinall I meane the same of others was able to defend both Vniuersall tenets and his owne priuate Answers and opinions against a better Scholler then D. Morton Doctor Featlie as it appeares by his ArgumeÌ„t out of Tertullians words puts the figure in the word Corpus ConfereÌ„ce of Cathol and Prot. doct l. 1. c. 10. a 1. for he would haue the words to runne thus Hoc est figura corporis mei which is the opinion of Oecolampadius fauored also by Caluin And according to this way the words Hoc â—st corpus meum are thus interpreted Hoc this thing est is corpus meum the figure of my bodie
duabus rebus constans terrena coelesti Irenaeus l 4 c 34. and l. 5. c 2. Quando ergo mixtus calix fractus panis percipit verbū Dei fit Eucharistia c. The words are operatoria practicall as you will see more at large in the solution of the fift Arg p. 479. seqq S. Ierom vpon those words of S Matth Surgens imperauit ventis venti mar◠obediunt ei Ex hoc loco saith he intelligimus quod omnes creaturae sentiant creatorem Quas enim increpauit quibus imperauit sentiunt imperantem non errore Hareticorum qui omnia putant animantia sed maiestate conditoris quae apud nos insensibilia illi sensibilia sunt In c. 8. Matt. another sence then they did vtter them or to build an aduantage vpon a mistake in some For example what the word Hoc doth preciselie demonstrate S. Bonauenture did auouch the reall presence and transubstantiation as all Schollers know though he did expound Hoc of bread VVherefore your deduction from the like interpretation could you find it in one more auncient to the mans beleefe of a meere signe would not hold The sequele faild in him a Deuine And you though you know not peraduenture whether S. Peter when he said Tabitha rise did addresse his speach to the dead bodie calling that Tabitha Conuersus ad corpus dixit Tabitha surge or to the liue Person which vpon his word appeared or whether it did in the beginning of the speach stand indeterminatlie will graunt notwithstanding that in the end of the speach there was not a dead corse as in the beginning but a liue woman and this by vertue of his words instrumentallie and principallie by the operation of Gods omnipotencie which doth also worke heere as the Fathers tell vs. In these propositions Coeci vident mortui resurgunt qui in monumentis sunt audient votem c. there is as the Deuines saie sensus diuisus nice point or subtilitie wherein with cōsēt in the mysterie The thing imported by our Sauiours words properlie vnderstood it self there might be diuersitie of opinions is an euident signe of Hereticall pertinacie The Church by continuall exercise doth profit in the knowledg of such matters And as now amongst the moderne Deuines some do better interprete Gods word in obscure places and deliuer the truth in more accurate proper termes then others so was it if wee beleeue the S. Aug. de Praed Sanct. c. 14. Hier. Apol. adu Ruff. Fathers in the times primitiue wherein some did speake of matters by Protestants now beleeued lesse Fieri potest vt vel certe antequam in Alexandria quasi Daemonium meridianum Arius na ceretur innocenter quaedam minus caute loquuti sunt quae non possint peruersorum hominum calumniam declinare S. Hier Apol. aduers Ruff. lib. 2. warilie then others did It is well knowne also that the best Schollers and greatest Saincts were euer readie to submit themselues and their iudgment to the Iudgment of the Church with whom the Spirit of truth remaines to teach all truth foreuer Wherefore if it should haue happened that any of them had been mistaken in this matter as S. Cyprian was in the point Baptisme he could not without open wrong be obiected against the Church Especiallie considering that in that his generall submission of his iudgment he virtuallie retracted whateuer should be found in his writings contrarie to any determination of Hers. S. Aug. l 5. de Bapt. c. 17. l. 2 c. 4. You know S. Augustines Apologie for the Sainct but now mentioned whose opinion he reiected because it was against the definition of a Generall Councell Neither do I preferre my owne opinion before his but the iudgmēt or sentēce of the Holie Catholicke Church all which he was not and againe Neither durst wee affirme any such thing if wee were not well grounded vpon the most cōsenting or agreeable Authoritie of the Vniuersall Church vnto which vndoubtedlie he S. Cyprian would haue yeilded if as then the truth of this Question being cleered and declared had beene established by a Generall Councell So far touching the state of the Controuersie Disputed in the Conference The Apologist who doth addresse himself against Quādo minora maioribus coaequantur inferioris comparatio superioris iniuria est S. Hier. ad◠Iouin l. 1. my Lord is bitter and without any cause giuen him The title ouer euerie leafe is An Apologie for Doctor Featlie against the Bishop of Chalcedon The Obiect of my Censure is this Apologie which labours to discredit the Catholike Relation doth many times misreport and corrupt it which makes me represent it againe to the Reader entirelie I shall haue much adoe whilst I blott out Waferers Errours to keepe my pen from touching him that lies amongst his lies and heresies But the field of combat is no place of complement Flatterie euer a fault when it is practized to the disaduantage of Religiō becomes a crime APPROBATIO IN hoc libro cui titulus A RELECTION c. nihil est fidei Catholicae aut bonis moribus contrarium sed multa quae veritatem Catholicam de Reali praesentia confirmant Quapropter dignum censui qui praelo cōmittatur Actum Duaci 22. Maij. 1635. Georgius Coluenerius Sac. Theologiae Doct. eiusdem regius ordinariusque Professor Collegiatae Ecclesiae S. Petri Praepositus Vniuersitatis Duacensis Cancellarius librorum Censor THE ERRATA In the Praef. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 pag. 29. is my p. 90. import it p. 93. where you p 103. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 p. 112. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 p. 116. are two so you shall haue p. 117. marg 108. p. 132. descāt p. 151. So now we p. 160. So much p. 163. the bodie is pres p. 172. perceaue p. 186. the figure the. p. 201. it is not bread 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 p. 205. Chamier l. 10. de Euch. c. 2. p. 210. he gaue to be p 132. or a proper speach a negation of p. 248. call our p. 260. S. Tho. 2. 2. qu. 173. ar 2. p. 273 as black a. the conclusion p. 284. and trāssubst p. 300. thereby p. 306. speak p. 322. pag. 301. p. 349. returnest p. 396. and adm p. 410. visibile bodie p. 419. later immolation affirming p. 421. bread Moreouer p. 443. pronoune p. 147. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 p. 459. his chaire p. 482. is conf p. 505. the words of consecration Hoc est corpus meum p. 516. refer his confessiō to sacrificing not to vnbloodie p. 519. Iesus was pag. 527. of lies 544. g p. 546. no other name p. 547. Pane vino deficiente licet in coena ijs vti quibus pro potu cibo communiter vtimur saies Scarpius cont 3. de Euch. q. 1. p. 1411. p. 569. to write them p. 587. whether M. T. G. B. p 588. merrie b. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. p. 184. peronatus M. Featlies Conference with D.
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
those words id est figura Corporis mei whether they be ioyned in construction to the subiect hoc or to Corpus the praedicatum since he whose words they be doth admitt and teach a change whereby the figure is fulfild and therefore is no more an emptie figure according to that which was answered in the beginning of this argument Now to come to D. Featleyes relation first he demaundes a place for the figuratiue Protestant exposition out of any Protestant more pregnant then is this of Tertullian vpon the sight thereof he will if you take a Ministers word yeeld the better Answ Tertullian doth not exclude the presence of the bodie to the mouth or to the signes but doth teach it euen heere in this place which you thinke is against it as hath beene shewed already But your men exclude it as you may remember by that which you were tould in the beginning Confessio Czingerina Signa nō sunt substantia signatorum sed tantùm accipiunt nomina The signes Eucharisticall bread and wine are not the substance of the things signed bodie and blood but take their names onely The Heluetians Panis non est ipsummet Corpus Christi sed eius signum dumtaxat The Eucharisticall bread is not the verie bodie of Christ but a signe of it onely Zuinglius Panis figura tantummodo est the Eucharisticall bread is a figure onely And Praeter panem non est quicquam ampliùs There is not any thing besides bread These and many other of this kind and out of English authours too be cited by my Lord of Chalcedon Collat. Doct. Cath. li. 1. c. 10. ar 1. Secondly he saies the Words id est figura are to be referd to the praedicatum as all men doe in the like It was answered that Tertullian himselfe did not alwaies referre to the praedicatum what followes in that manner much lesse could it be truely said Mar. 9.17 Dicendo denique Christus mortuus est id est vnctus id quod vnctum est mortuum ostendit id est carnem Aduersus Praxean c. 29. that all without exception doe And to giue you an example in Tertullian he in his booke Aduersus Praxean speakes in the same forme saying Christus mortuus est id est vnctus Where that part of the speach id est vnctus is an explication of the subiect Christus And that the words id est figura in the other speach are so to be referd it was then proued out of Tertullian himselfe who questionles is a good interpretor of his owne minde and out of this verie place by diuers reasons Which reasons D. Featley was not able to disproue But the reader will say be it so let the wordes be ordered as you say hoc id est figura corporis mei est corpus meum what reason haue you to adde more words in the proposition as quae fuit vetus making the sence to be This which was an old figure of my bodie is my bodie Answer In the proposition no words are added but in the explication of the proposition the word figure is determined according to the minde of Tertullian by the words vetus and quae fuit that you may know of what figure he speakes veterem istam fuisse figuram It is Tertullian doth tell the sence of Tertullian Thirdly Tertullian saies D. Featly could not be so dull as to thinke our Sauiour meant the bread Which Was in the old laWe a figure of his bodie is noW his bodie Answer He saies expresly that he our Sauiour made it his bodie Wherefore now bread according to Tertullian not remaining breade but changed is his bodie This Tertullian did beleeue and teach there in that place telling vs that breade was of old a figure of our Sauiours bodie non intelligens veterem fuisse istam figuram corporis c. which he proues out of Ieremie and that this old figure bread was by our Sauiour made his bodie acceptum panem Corpus suum illum fecit The bread taken he made it his body So now it was no more bread in substance but another thing It was a Serm. de Coen changed in nature b Greg. Nyss orat Catech transelemented c Cyrill Hier. Catech. myst 4. Itaque illuminator Antiquitatum c. Cited p. 20. not bread in substance but the bodie To shewe that our Sauiour in assuming those elements breade and wine to consecrate therein his bodie and blood did intend to fulfill two old figures is the very scope and drift of Tertullian in that place and the partiall Scope of his booke as all may knowe that can reade and vnderstand latine and this according to Tertullian is the sence of our Sauiours words this thing in my hand made of breade an a Ierem. 11.19 old figure of my bodie is my bodie Out of this D. Featley in his relation striues to proue that the words of institution be figuratiue for saith he this proposition this figure is my bodie cannot be true but by a figure sith neither the substance of breade nor the accidents are properly the bodie of our Sauiour Answer The question is not whether there be any figure or no but whether heere be a figure excluding the veritie as you were tould in the beginning and your selfe vndertooke to proue Neither are those wordes you speake of this figure in my bodie the words of institution wherefore if there were a figure in them it would not follow there is a figure in the words of institution And if there were a figure in the words of institution it would not yet follow that it is a meere figure such a one as doth a Vide Tertull. l. 5. cōtr Marc. c. 20. Plane de substantia c. exclude the veritie for which kind of figure you dispute This the reader may conceaue if he call to minde those other wordes hic est calix c. Where Catholikes doe graunt a figure indeed but such a one as doth consist with the verity of the bloode To that expounding proposition made out of Tertullians comment vpon the word hoc which comment is this id est figura I answer that the word figure is there extended to signifie the thing made of a figure as in scripture the word a Gen. 3. dust is sometimes vsed to signifie the thing made of dust b Ioh. 2. water to signifie the thinge made of water and c Exod. 7. rod to signifie the thing made of a rod. Puluis es Virga deuorauit Gustauit aquam c. And in this sence the proposition is true for the thing made of bread an old figure is our Sauiours bodie and properly too for substance To the proofe videlicet neither the accidents of bread nor the substance of bread is properly called the bodie I answer that it is true withall it is true that the thing made of bread is properly the bodie d Tertul l. 4. contr Marc.
speeie it was S. Augustine saith (b) Li. 9. Conf. c 13. victima sancta qua dâ—letum est chirographum this which is also dispenced from the (c) Ibid. altar the Disciples did eate they did eate (d) Tract 59. in Ioan. Mat. 26. panem Dominum bread our Lord a delicacie no doubt The thing in the chalice in the forme of wine was his blood so he told his disciples This is my blood It was sanguis humanus in aliena specie that which (e) Serm. ad Neoph cit Paschas ep ad Fâ—ud Idem que asserit SaÌ„ Chrys HoÌ„ 24 1 Cor. issued out of his side though not in the same forme the very (f) Ep. 162 price of our redemption and the Disciples did receaue it and (g) Ibid. Iudas though he did not beleeue dranke it too This is the Feast which our Sauiour made these be the delicacies which the best Antiquitie did feede vpon according to S. Augustine who did well reflect on your difficultie yet found no difficultie in the thing it selfe (h) 2 coÌ„t Adu leg c. 9. Wee receaue I repeate what you were tould before with faithfull heart and mouth the Mediatour of God and man man Christ IESVS giuing vs his bodie to be eaten and his bloode to be drunke though it seeme more horrible to eate mans flesh then to kill and to drinke mans bloode then to shed it For such as wil peruse S. Augustines words I wil put theÌ„ downe at leingth Ferebatur Christus in manibus suis quando commendans IPSVM CORPVS SVVM ait Hoc est corpus meum (i) He that carieth a man carieth his soule quodammodo See the Bachelours Answer to the fift obiection and the words of the Canon Hoc est in the fourth ob ferebat enim ILLVD Corpus in manibus suis S. Aug. in Psal 33. conc 1. Tantummodo memoriam sui ad altare tuum fieri desiderauit VNDE sciret dispensari VICTIMAM SANCTAM qua deletum est chirographum quod erat contrarium nobis lib. 9. Confess c. 13. Illi manducabant PANEM DOMINVM ille panem Domine contra Dominum illi vitam ille poenam Qui enim manducat indignè iudicium sibi manducat Tract 59. in Ioan. Hoc accipite in pane quod pependit in cruce hoc accipite in calice quod manauit de Christi latere Serm. ad Neophit Tolerat ipse Dominus Iudam diabolum furem venditorem suum sinit accipere inter innocentes discipulos quod fideles nouerunt PRECIVM NOSTRVM Epist 162. D. Featly S Augustine by figurata locutio meant such a one as could in no sence be proper for he distinguisheth proper from figuratiue Answer Proper and figuratiue in the speach are distinct and as farre as the speach may be taken properlie there it is not figuratiue but it is figuratiue where in proprietie it imports a crime And because part of the speach whereof we dispute may be taken in proprietie part cannot therefore it is mixt as being not purelie figuratiue nor purely and entirely proper D. Featlie A proper figuratiue speach is as a man should say a white blacke colour How can that be Answer And a mixt speach is as if one should saie a mingled colour may not that be In a mixt-coloured habit blacke is not white or white blacke yet the garment hath both so a figuratiue sence is not proper nor a proper sense figuratiue but in the same speach both may be And as S. Augustine here calles this speach figuratiue in regard of the manner of eating though the same speach in regard of the substance receaued be not figuratiue Com. in câ— ad Ephes so doth S. Ierome who liued at the same time call the flesh of our Sauiour in the Eucharist Spirituall in regard of the manner though the Substance of flesh be not a Spirit and the Apostle 1. Cor. 15.44 termes the bodie Spirituall in regard of the condition it shall haue in the resurrection though for substance it consists of mater still and by corporeum differ from a Spirit intrinsecallie as much then as it doth now And as you cannot argue out of that place of S. Paul it is spirituall therefore it is a meere Spirit or it is a spirituall bodie therefore it is not a bodie properlie no more can you make such arguments our of S. Augustines wordes and say it is figuratiue therefore it is a meere figure or it is figuratiue eating therefore it is not eating properlie The reason is because eating may be figuratiue some times in regard of the manner of doing as a bodie may be spirituall in regard of the manner of being though neither the substance of the one be spirituall nor the essâ—nce of the other figuratiue The discourse about the proprietie of those words Hoc est corpus meum this is my bodie against which you did obiect that none of ours acknowledge any figure or improprietie in them at all whereby you seeme hetherto not reflecting on that which in the beginning was tould you to haue conceaued our tenet so as if we held and beleeued a pure proprietie for substance and manner giues me occasion to enlarge my self heere a little by way of digression My Lord tould you that the words are proper in regard of the thing signified but that in regard of the manner there is not exact proprietie wherefore the speach may be said to be secundum quid improper or figuratiue but not absolutè and simpliciter for the reason by him specified So the Logicians do say that an Ethiopian is white secundum quid but absolute blacke This seemed to you strange as if it had neuer beene said before by any Catholike deuine and therefore you poore he thought the Protestant cause was gained as soone as you did obserue which was not so soone as you might haue donne that there was an improprietie and figure in the manner whereas all learned men doe knowe and your owne Masters doe confesse that such an improprietie or figure is admitted by our Deuines And that the Controuersie betwixt vs Protestants is not about that but about an other matter to wit Whether the thing in our Sauiours hand after consecration were his bodie truelie according to the substance This I say and not that other is the Controuersie for it is certaine and agreed on all sides that it was not there existent according to the manner of a mans bodie it was not locallie extended and visible in its owne forme and shape this was and is still out of Question So that when you disputed you did not indeed knowe the state of the Question Neither when you were tould yea many yeares after Sunt ergoea qua sunt in voce earum quae sunt in anima passionuÌ„ notae A rist li. r. periher c. 1. Dictiones significant primò intentiones quae sunt in anima CoÌ„mentat Ibid. haue you beene able if willing to conceaue it
though the thing be plaine enough To let you see that our Deuines doe not abhorre a figure or improprietie in the manner as if that admitted all were lost I will put downe some of their words but first will tell the Reader how such an improprietie and consequentlie a figure for improper speach is called figuratiue is found in it Words according to the Philosopher do signifie the conceptions of the vnderstanding the coÌ„ception is an image representing the thing we thinke on This image our vnderstanding makes together with the species of the thing which species the Obiect sends into the minde or vnderstanding by the way of Sence as by the eie for example Now that which presents it selfe to the eie to be seene it is the like in other sences is not the pure estence or quidditie of a thing as they speak in schooles and you by your experience knowe but it is a thing sensible aÌ„d to be perceaued with this organ and facultie it is an extended aÌ„d coloured thing which thing we doe see and conceaue and name agreeing that such or such a word shall be in speach a signe of it Looking on a man we conceaue in our minde his figure colour c. representing all in one image to which image we subordinate as a signe of it and of it's obiect also this word a man So likewise in other things Whence it comes that an obiect which is of it selfe sensible had it a naturall manner of existency if it be at any time by supernaturall power aÌ„d meanes without that accidentall forme wherein that kinde or species of substance doth appeare to seÌ„ce a maÌ„ for exaÌ„ple without colour or quantitie it doth not answere perfectlie to the name because it doth not answer perfectlie to the intellectuall image whereof the name is a signe And because it doth not answer perfectly to the name this name cannot be attributed to it without some kinde of impropriety For in attributing the name to it wee do seeme to say that it hath in it selfe all which the name doth signifie that is all which the conception whereunto this name was subordinated as a signe doth represent which is not exactly true if the foresaid exteriour forme be wanting In so much that the Scripture doth seeme to denie sometimes predication in that kinde as where it saith 1. Cor. 15. that flesh and blood cannot possesse the Kingdome of heauen because indeede that which enters there shall not haue wholly that manner of being which it hath heere but a better Our blessed Sauiour in regard he was disfigured much in his passion seemes in the Prophet to deny himselfe to be a man Ps 21. Ego vermis non homo I a worme and not a man And in the Gospell after his resurrection he seemes to denie his corporall presence Cum essem vobiscum Luc. vlt. when I was with you S. Augustine because our Sauiours bodie in the Sacrament is not visible and extended as commonly mens bodies are In ps 98 Negare certe noluit quin idem corpus quod in sacrificiuÌ„ crucis obtulit in coena porrigatur Caluin l. 4. Inst c 17. Dupliciter caro sanguis intelligitur vel spiritualis â—ila atque diuina de qua ipse dixit caro mea veâ—e est eibus sanguis meus vere est potus vel caro sanguis quae crucifixa est qui militis effusus est lancea c. S. Hier. in Ep. ad Ephes cap. 1. and as our Sauiours was when he spake of eating his flesh saith in his name non hoc corpus quod videtis manducaturi estis You are not to eate * this bodie which you see And if I should present vnto you in a cup a peece of yce bid you drinke this water you would be readie to denie that it is water or that you can drinke it or wash your mouth or hands with it Why because it is in a strange accidentall forme not in the common forme of water which forme if it had in exteriour apparance as it hath indeede the substantiall forme and inner essence you would not then stick to confesse that it is truelie water Thus farre touching the ground or reason you are expecting now to heare what our Deuines haue said of the matter whether they will admitte any figure any improprietie or abhorre it rather as ouerthrowing vtterlie so you would haue the reader thinke the reall presence wee beleeue That they feare not any such hurt by a figure as you pretend it is manifest by their explicatioÌ„ of S. Lukes Words c. 22. this is the Chalice c. whereby generallie they doe proue and indeed conuince openlie the reall presence of the blood and yet admitt a figure one at least in the same words This did suffice to my purpose but for your better information I will tell you more and about the bodie too Bellarmine lib. 1. de Eucharistia c. 11. answering Caluin who said the Catholikes must needs admit in the words of Christ Resp ad 7. This is my bodie that figure which is called intellection saith If wee were forced to admit it wee would doe it not vnwillinglie And if your Danaeus doth not lie Contro de Euch. c. 8. he did graunt one in those wordes Claudius de Sanctes Rep. 3. c. 3. goes further and saith Neither though wee should graunt that there is a Metonymie would the Caluinists get that which they desire to wit that the thinge signified is not present with the figure And he said well in the opinion of your owne Masters who did penetrate into the Controuersie further then you doe For saith Peter Martyr Cont. Gardin Col. 1197. A figure as farre forth as it is a figure doth not repugne to the presence of the thing The bodies assumed by Angells were figures of them present And Caluin Admon vlt pag. 813. Cont. Hessus p. 849. A figure doth not exclude the thing figured And Nego saies he in eo verti quaestionem sumanturne haec verba Hoc est c. in proprio sensu an Metonymicé I denie that the question doth consist in this wheter the words this c. be taken in the proper sence or metonymicallie Bucer in Hospinian It is manifest that out of this speech part 2. fol. 108. in which bread is called a figure of Christs bodie it followeth not that therefore Christs bodie is not heere The like haue Beza and other of your men As also Luther and his Lutherans Vide Hosp p. 2 f. 130. who doe graunt a figure in the words yet hold a reall presence But I come to Catholike Deuines againe Ruardus Tapper Deane of Louaine a. 13. It is not inconuenient to admit figures in this speach of Christ this is my bodie so they exclude not the veritie of Christ his presence And wee must not therefore here exclude euerie figure for the consecration of the chalice doth necessarilie require some but
especiallie wee must exclude that figure which excludeth the reall presence of Christs bodie vnder the Sacrament Againe And according to this figure did Tertullian and S. Augustine speake when they did expound our Lords words This is my bodie thus this is a figure of my bodie Cardinall Allen li. 1. de Euchar. c. 32. declaring the sence of S. Augustine in these words the Sacramēt of Christs bodie is in some sort Christs bodie c. He said so quoth the Cardinall because a thing being put out of its naturall manner of being and out of all naturall conditions and sensible proprieties agreeing to such a name and endued with strange accidents although it keepe it's substance yet because it wanteth the conditions of subsisting which together with the substance come to the sence and coceipt of man and are comprehended vnder the proper name it almost leeseth its proper name or if it keepe it yet not so provertie as if it kept its proper māner of being c. in so much as the bodie of Christ vnder the forme of breade is called and is the bodie of Christ by a certaine figure In which words he admitreth yea and in all that booke defendeth the reall presence yet withall in regard of the manner of being he doth admitt an impropriate or figure Suar. 3. p. disp 46. Sect 4. I adde saith he out of S. Anselme and out of that which I said before that albeit Christs bodie be truelie and substantiallie in this Sacrament yet in the māner of being it differeth from the naturall being of bodies which manner Christ hath in his proper forme and therefore according to this manner Christ may be said to be in this Sacrament either incorporallie or inuisiblie or lesse properlie or figuratiuelie And so the words which fignifie Christ to be here are in a manner sometimes said to containe a figure beeause according to this manner they haue an other sense then without this mysterie they should haue Gordon Controu 3. cap. 9. There are two kinds of figures some that wholie take a way the veritie of the thing which Christ promised and these wee admitt not others there are that take not a way the true presence of Christs bodie but rather confirme it and these wee most willinglie embrace for there is scarce any speech so proper in which there may not be found some figure either of word or speach where vpon the Councell of Trent sess 13. c. 1. disallo weth not all figures but only such as denie the truth of Christ flesh and blood Pitigianis in 4. dist 10. q. 1. ar 1. ad 2. Wee doe not exclude from the forme of this Sacrament all figuratiue and vnproper speaches for without doubt some are to be admitted especiallie in the forme of the blood but wee reiect only those which suffer not with them the reall presence of the bodie and blood in the Eucharist To spend time in citing more of these it is needles These had read the rest and he that is conuersant in our writers can presentlie turne to more Of ould when Berengarius had broached your heresie our Deuines then liuing taught the same When Frudegardus obiected to Paschasius that according to S. Augustine it is a figuratiue speach whē the Eucharist is called the body blood of Christ Paschas epist ad Frudeg he answereth thus These are Mysticall thinges in which is the verity of flesh and blood and none others thē Christs yet in a mysterie and figure Neither is it meruaile if this mysterie be a figure and the words of this mysterie be called a figuratiue speach seeing Christ himselfe is called of the Apostle Paul a Character or figure though he be the Veritie And Lanfranke Archbishop of Canterburie answering to Berengarius that obiected S. Augustines words the Sacrament of Christs bodie is in some sort the bodie of Christ The flesh Li. cont Bereng saies he and blood with which wee are daily nourished for to obtaine Gods mercie for our sinnes are called Christs body and blood not onely because they are thē in substance though differing much in qualities but also after that manner of speach where with a figure is termed by the name of the thing which it signifieth To the same purpose Suarez 3. p. tom 3. disp 46. Sect. 4. and Sanctes Repet 3. c. 4. doe cite these words of S. Anselme Christi benedictione panis fit corpus eius non significatiue tantùm sed etiam substantiuè neque enim ab hoc Sacramento figurā omnino excludimus neque eam folā admittimus By the benediction of Christ bread is made his bodie not significantly onely but also substantially for wee do neither wholly exclude a figure from this Sacrament nor admit a bare figure Before these againe the Fathers also did whith the reall presence to the mouth admit a figure in the manner calling the Eucharist an image an antitype a figure which speaches your selues not vnderstanding them obiect many times The reason of all is because our Sauiours bodie and blood haue not heere their naturall but a Sacramentall manner of existencie which manner of existence or being is not the proper being of such things And the formes vnder which they be doe signifie and therefore are significatiue the same as existent in their proper manner This came to passe by our Sauiours institution It is all one to signifie and to be significatiue to represēt to be representatiue who could order all as he thought good Hoc est corpus meū quod pro vobis tradetur Hic est sanguis meus qui pro vobis fundetur If you should further aske me why our Sauiour were so delighted with signes or figures as to mixt then with propriety in this his great worke and Sacrament of the Church and this kinde of figure or image principally wherein the same for substance is in the representing and the represented I remit you to some greater cleark for an answer vnles this will serue that himselfe is the figure image of his Father and in substance all one with him VERBVM est DEVS substantialiter DEVS representatiué the eternall word is God substantially and God representatiuely Yea it selfe doth represent it selfe since it represents all that the Father doth vnderstand THE THIRD ARGVMENT D. Featly Origen Hom. 7. in Leuit saith if you follow the letter in these words vnlesse you eate the flesh c. that letter killeth therefore the words of Christ concerning this Sacrament are not to he expounded according to the letter D. Smith Origen speakes according to the Capharnaiticall letter that is to say according to that literall sence wherein the Capharnaits did vnderstand those words who as S. Augustine saies in Psal 4. in c. 6. Ioa. and S. Cyprian serm de Coena wee do not say the Capharnaiticall sence is indeede the sēce of those words but they mistaking thought it was vnderstood those words of our Sauiour so
it doth signifie 2. Replie When is this operatiue proposition verified Answer In that instant wherein the effect or thing signified is in being for then there is the terminus or extreame whereunro the conformitic doth relate and whereby it is defined not before Neither was the proposition before whollie vttered and therefore could not haue effect before Motus temp Generatio Forma instant When was the forme of your baptisme think you verified Ego te baptizo when it was or when it was not When the Parson said Ego or when he said te bap or ti or Zo. Had he stopt when he came to bap you know what I would inferre yet then te was past and gonne Esse consignificat compositionem quādam quā sine compositis non est intelligere Arist 1. Periher c. 3. To put a figure in the copula which thing you speake of by the waie there is no neede for it is naturall to vnion or composition in it's exercise to suppose the extreames consequentlie the copula may by institution directed according to nature signifie for that instant wherein both extreames are vttered and the speach compleate and especiallie in a practicall propositiō which is to verisie it self D. Featlie If Hoc stands for corpus bodie it would be tautologie Answer No more then this This is paper Featlie is a man God is wise Replie There is identitie Answer There is indeed identitie of the thing signified by the subiect and the attribute but there is not identitie in the manner of signifying And if identitie of the thing did suffice to tautologie and battologie as you pretend sub illis Montibus inquit erāt erant sub montibusillis this were tautologie and battologie God is wise iust omnipotent and eternall and were to be resolued after your new mannner thus God is God God God and God And whereas hetherto it hath bene taught in Schooles and and with great reason too that the Superiour predicamentall degrees are more vniuersall then the inferiou◠and therefore not to be confounded though they signifie the same thing now heereafter Vniuersities must all neglect art in speach read your predicament which before tymes hath beene Featlaeus homo animal viuens corpus substantia thus in English according to your Logick Featly Featlie Featlie Featlie Featlie FEATLY Where you the supreme genus of your new predicament are in predication to be common to other animals and bodies substances for so the supreame genus ought to be This must be graunted if as you would teach vs the difference of formalities be not to be regarded in speach and if the distinction of a double identicall predication or acception be now to be reiected D. Featlie Belike the Apostles were ignorant that Christs bodie was his bodie and by vertue of those words he made his bodie his bodie Answer They did not knowe till they were tould that that thing in our Sauiours hand vnder the shape of breade was his bodie neither did he by those words make his bodie to be his bodie but he by them made his bodie to be vnder the shape of breade his omnipotencie to verifie them turning the substance of breade into it D. Featlie A proposition meerelie identicall quoad significatum proues nothing Answer That which is meerelie identicall is so for matter and manner too quoad significatum and quoad modum significandi this is not as you were tould and could not contradict it For matter a proposition may be identicall and proue too and such are those which define the Subiect as this a man is a reasonable creature And he that denies it can proue any thing shewes himselfe ignorant in the principles of science and knowes not what a demonstration is But why doe you talke heere of proofe our Sauiours proposition did not suppose what it signified videlicet his bodie vnder the forme of breade but did cause it and so did verifie it selfe If yours cannot what wonder you neither are omnipotent nor are vsed in such actions by him that is D. Featlie If I point at our Sauiours bodie in heauen and say this bodie is Christs bodie will it follow that breade is turned Answer No but something els it seemes is how els could your mouth vtter such an impertinent discourse THE SIXT ARGVMENT D. Featlie There is as much figure in the words of Christ consecrating the bread as in his words of the cuppe but in the later there is a manifest figure therefor in the former also D. Smith I denie the maior For in the later the chalice is said the blood of Christ which must be a figure because a chalice and blood are two distinct things and one thing cannot properlie be another thing In the former there are not signified two things and one of them said to be the other but the same thing is predicated vpon it selfe as if I should saie pointing at the table This is wood D. Featlie I speake not of the word calix but of that whith followes testamentum testament Bellar. li. 1. de Euchat c. 11. §. quantum ad alterum l. 1. de Missa c. 8. D. Smith I answer that the word testamentum is there taken properlie enough for not onely the last VVill of the testatour but euery authenticall signe of that VVill is also called a testament So wee call the Bible a testament Now the blood of Christ is an authenticall signe of his VVill. D. Featley No part of the Testatour can be called his testament but the blood of Christ is a part of Christ ergo D. Smith I answer that a part as the blood of the Testatour may be his testament if it be shed to signifie his last will As among barbarous people who did confirme their couenants or leagues with shedding their owne blood Alex. ab Alex. Gen. Dier li. 5 cap. 3. Salust Bell. Catil this their blood shed in signe of the couenant or league was an authentike testimonie of their said league And our Sauiour powring his bloode into the mouthes of the Apostles did confirme a couenant and authenticallie testifie his last VVill Heb. 9. as Moyses sprinkling the blood of a calfe vpon the Israelites did confirme the old testament D. Featlie If by testamentum in the words of the cup the bloode of Christ be vnderstood it will make this ridiculous sence This cup is my new blood in my blood And in like manner if the bodie be vnderstood by the word Hoc the sence will be The bodie of Christ is the bodie of Christ D. Smith It will not follow that the sence is as you saie for though identitie in the thing signified be necessarie in euerie true proposition wherein it is said said This is This yet there must be diuersitie in the mannrr of signifying els it would be nugatorie And hence although homo a man and animal rationale a reasonable creature be reallie all one and the same thing signified by
bread is my bodie Whether in the holie Eucharist there be reallie our Sauiours bodie according to the veritie and substaÌ„ce The Catholik Church takes his words as being dogmaticall properlie submitting her vnderstanding to the omnipotent veritie that spake them and affirmeth what he her God and Sauiour did affirme Master Featlie on the other side laboured to proue that the wordes were not to be construed and vnderstood properlie that the speach was meerelie figuratiue and that Christ is not there in the Eucharist according to the substance of his bodie or shrowded vnder the accidents of bread In which tenet you Master Waferer ioyne with him telling vs pag. 9. VVee these are your wordes denie such corporall presence of the body and blood as if the thing signified and represented were according to the naturall substance thereof contained vnder the shapes of the outward signes A figure you know was graunted the question was whether this figure had the veritie the bodie and blood of Christ in it or whether it were emptie of it Whether that which the Apostles receaued into their mouthes were a meere emptie figure of the bodie and blood of Christ or whether the thing within that Sacramentall signe or figure were as our Sauiours wordes in their proprietie import his bodie and his blood The Protestants that speak their minds plainelie preteÌ„d no more then a meere figure Their words are set downe in the Collation whither S. E. directed you See the Conference of the Catholiâ—k and Protestant Doctrine with the expresse wordâ— of Scripture extant in English pag. 266. seqq where they your Masters and the best learned on your side speake of the Eucharist your owne thus It is not the bodie of Christ not his very bodie not his bodie it self not his true bodie not his substantiall bodie not flesh not Christs true flesh but another thing and much different from Christs flesh not the thing it selfe of this mysterie not our spirituall foode It is nothing els but bread nothing but common bread nothing but a bare creature nothing but a bare signe or figure nothing but meere bread and wine Only a signe only a seale only a token only a testification only a symbol only a type of Christs bodie It only hath the name of Christs bodie it is only a simple ceremonie It is so the bodie of Christ as the Paschal lambe was Christ as the doue was the Holie Ghost as the water of baptisme was the blood of Christ It is the bodie of Christ only figuratiuelie by resemblance and no otherwise symbolicallie metonymicallie tropicallie significantlie no otherwise then a keie deliuered is a house the body It is present onlie by speculation meere imagination as our bodies are now present in heaueÌ„ Christ is no more coÌ„municated there in the supper then in the Gospell no more receaued in the Sacrament then in the word nothing more giueÌ„ in the supper then at preaching no more offersd by the Sacrament then by the word yea the Sacrament is inferiour to the word and the memorie of Christ bodie is more fullie refreshed by the word then by the Sacrament All this and more hath beene told you out of the mouthes of your greatest Deuines and pillars of Protestancie The words and places are citeâ— in the ConfereÌ„ce l. 1. c. 10. a. 1. Where there is a clowd of domesticall Protestant witnesses against your Oracle and you whose very names would shadow this leafe of paper Among them you shall find your Caluin Beza Peter Martyr and Swinglius who learned it of a Spirit the Deuil it was Luther saies with your English Iuel Perkins Whittaker Cartwright c. each as learned as your Featlie Hereunto you replye nothing but insteed of a Replye haue calumniated my Lord and contradicted your self withall Saying Doctor Smith would faine father a false opinion vpon vs and goes away currant with it that wee hold as he hath proued signatis tabulis pag. 159. and your owne confession aboue cited may be added thereunto that there is in the wordes This is my bodie a meere figure But now forsooth you most plainelie affirme they be the rest of your wordes that the Sacramentall elements are not meere emptie signes wil you strike your owne fellowes in your choller of the bodie and blood of Christ but a true and liuelie figure of them As if a picture can not be a true picture and a liuelie picture and yet a meere picture or a figure be a true figure and a liuelie figure and yet a meere figure The legall figures which were according to the Apostle but egena elementa were meere figures yet some of them as liuelie yea more liuelie then your bread and wine The blood of the Testament and the Manna in the desert did signifie our Sauiours flesh and blood in as perfect a manner if you consider all the analogie to the full and the Agnus Paschalis dicitur esse Christus eadeÌ„ prorsus ratione qua panis ille dicitur esse corpus Christi pro nobis tradituÌ„ Beza your admired patterne of Christianitie so you call him pag. 98. in 1. Corin. 5. Pascall lambe eaten at supper was a more liuelie figure flesh of flesh blood of blood killing of killing that laÌ„be without spot of our innocent Sauiour then bread and wyne there distributed if they were meere elementes with a reference to the thing represented the PassioÌ„ which was theÌ„ future respectiuelie to theÌ„ both vizt to the legall to the Sacramentall supper wherefore since you are forced by the authoritie of holie Scripture to graunt that the legall figure was not withstanding the the liuelines a meere figure it remaines that an other signe or figure though liuelie may be but a meere figure The liuelines of a picture is to represent ad viuum to the life and a picture the picture of the King may do so though it be nothing els but a meere picture which your owne fellowes acknowledg whilst they graunte as before hath beene told you that in the supper there is meere bread and wine a signe and seale onlie nothing els but bread and wyne which tenet you likewise hold in your mind as appeares in your whole pamphlet throughout but it is in is self so poore a thing so short of precedent figures (b) Caluin cited aboue pag. 156. yet the same Caluin saiâ—h cuÌ„ signa hic in mundo sint oculis cernaÌ„tur palpentur manibut Christus quatenus homo est non alibi quam in câ—â—lo quaerendus est Calu. in Confess de re Sacram art 21. so vnworthie of the chiefest place amongst Sacraments in the new Testament so contrarie to the proper sense of our Sauiours words and so vncapable of those high encomium's which the Fathers giue or attributes which they do predicatâ—on the blessed Sacrament that you are ashamed openlie to professe it still iugling with vs and in steed of answers which you pretend giuing vs words
qui viuificat Caro non prodest quicquam verba quae ego locutus sum vobis Spiritus vita sunt Let Saint Augustine speake againe Non crediderunt aliquid magnum dicentem verbis illis aliquam gratiam cooperientem sed proâ— voluerunt ita intellexerunt more hominum quia poterat Iesus aut hoc disponebat Iesus carnem qua indutum erat verbum veluti concisam distribuere credentibus in se Durus est inquiunt hic sermo which imagination of cutting in peeces and consuming it our Sauiour as he saies refutes in the next words Si ergo videritis filium hominis c. Illi putabant saies he erogaturum corpus suum concisum vt suprà ille autem dixit se ascensurum in coelum VTIQVEINTEGRVM Where he doth oppose integritie to chopping or cutting into peeces He goes on Certe vel tunc videbitis quia non EO MODO quo putatis erogabit corpus suum certe vel tunc intelligetis quia gratia eius non CONSVMETVR morsibus And againe afterwards in the same place Magister bone quomodo caro non prodest quicquam cum tu dixeris nisi quis manducauerit carnem meam biberit sanguinem meum non habebit in se vitam c. Non prodest quic quam sed quomodo illi intellexerunt carnem quippe sic intellexerunt quomodo in cadauere dilaniatur aut in macello venditur S. Augu. tract 27. in Ioan. non quomodo spiritu vegetatur They beleeued him not affirming a great matter and couering a grace vnder those words but as they listed so they vnderstood and as men vse to do because Iesus could or disposed it so that he would distribute vnto those who beleeued in him the flesh which the word had put on cut in peices as it were This say they is a hard saying Ibidem They thought he would giue them his bodie cut in peices he said he would ascend into heauen intire verilie 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 bona gratia de vocabuli suppositione vide Theologos Vide Turrian de Euch. tr 2. c. 13 19. not cut in peices Surelie then at least you shall see that he will not giue his bodie eo modo quo putatis in that manner you imagine then at least you will vnderstand that his grace will not by bitts be consumed Good Master how doth the flesh profit nothing when as thy self hast said Vnles a man eate my flesh and drink my blood he shall not haue life in him c. It profiteth nothing but as they vnderstood for they imagined it as it is torne in peices in the carkasse or sould in the butchers shop S. Aug. Ibidem not as it is quickned with the spirit Featlie For ought appeares by Scriâ—ture or any auncient record the Capernites errour was in this that they construed Christs words groslie and carnallie as you do which you and thay should haue taken spirituallie my wordes are Spirit and life Answer Seeing our Sauiour I repeate my Lords words saith his flesh is trulie meate and that his words are trulie life they are to be vnderstood so that they be expounded both properlie and also spirituallie or mysticallie which thing we rightlie doe when wee say they are to be expounded properlie according to the substance of the thing eaten because that substance which in the Eucharist we eate is the verie substance of the bodie of Christ and also spirituallie according to the manner because wee do not eate cutting and mangling it as the Capharnaites did conceaue but without hurting it at all no otherwise then if it were a meete Spirit Thus farre my Lord who did also declare out of S. Augustine whose antiquitie I suppose Featlie will not call into question out of another more auncient then he what kind of eating the Capharnaites did vnderstand Quidam quia non credebant nec poterant intelligere abierunt retrò Serm. de Coe Cypr. quia horrendum eis ncfarium videbatur vesci carne humana existimantes hoc eo modo dici vt carnem eius vel elixam vel assam sectamque membratim edere docerentur cum illius personae caro SI IN FRVSTA PARTIRETVR non omni humano generi posset sufficere qua semel consumpta VIDERETVR INTERIISSE mark this by the way RELIGIO cui nequaquam vlterius VICTIMA superesset Sed in cogitationibus huiusmodi caro sanguis non prodest quicquam quia sicut Magister exposuit verba haec spiritus vita sunt nec carnalis sensus ad intellectum tantae profunditatis penetrat nisi fides accedat you heard S. Augustine before Putauerunt quod precisurus esset Dominus particulas de corpore suo Carnem veluti concisam distribuere quomodo in cadauere dilaniatur aut in macello venditur non quomodo spiritu vegetatur Some because they did not beleeue nor could vnderstand went back for that it seemed to theÌ„ wicked and horrible to eate mans flesh thinking it was meant they should eate it roasted or boiled and chopt in peices whereas the flesh of that person Christ were it diuided into portions or bitts would not serue all mankind and being once consumed Religion would seeme to haue perished withall no victime or sacrifice then remaining But in such thoughts as these flesh and blood profiteth nothing for as our Master himself hath expounded these words are spirit and life and vnles faith comes in the carnall sence penetrateth not vnto the vnderstanding of so great a depth Breiflie they meant the common carnall way of eating flesh in it's owne forme and shape peece after peece whereby the thing eateÌ„ by degrees is consumed Of which kind of eating our Sauiours words were not indeed to be vnderstood for his bodie was not to be cut in peeces and to be consumed nor in it's proper shape to be deuoured but to be receaued in another shape and still to remaine whole entire Featlie There is no such thing as that which in this answer is attributed to the Capharnaites implied in the litterall meaning of these words vnles you eate my flesh nor can be gathered from any circumstance of the text Answer The Question is not whether that be the true sence of the letter wee know it is not but whether the Capharnaites did vnderstand or conceaue it so And that they did it hath beene prooued first by the testimonie of S. Augustine and he not alone neither Secondlie by the confession of your owne Chamier out of whose quiuer you take the chiefest of your bolts who thinks them blinde that by reading the place perceaue it not Thirdlie our Sauiour himselfe correcting them doth insinuate what they meant by telling theÌ„ caro the carnall meaning of his words noÌ„ prodest quicquam doth nothing auaile there is a higher meaning which the Spirit the inteâ—â—our man and by faith onlie can perceaue in them Spiritus est qui viuificat flesh apart and separate from
bread to vse the words of an auncient Father but as the words import the bodie of our Sauiour Wherefore doubtles there is a change and our Sauiours words the words of Consecration were in their kind the cause of it though not the chief or principall The principall cause was not the forme of consecratioÌ„ Serm. de Coena but his omnipotencie as Antiquitie before told you Panis iste non effigie sed natura mutatus omnipotentia Verbi factus est caro Now because you complaine that the matter of this Argument which your Doctour vrged is tedious you are wearied as it seemes with answering of distinctions I will in few words teÌ„der you the summe of it and of the Relations in it The proposition or enunciation is this Hoc est Corpus meum in which enunciation there is the a. See the Preface subiect the attribute and the note of identitie or copula The subiect is Hoc the Attribute Corpus meum the copula est About this Enunciation and these three partes of it your Doctour in his Relation moues what expreslie what tacitelie six doubts which S. E. doth resolue in his Notes The first what kind of signification the subiect hath the Answer is that if that word onlie be considered the signification of it confused and vndetermined so that vntill the rest of the proposition comes your vnderstanding is vncertaine what substance in particular it doth point at The second whether it be necessarie that the thing which it points at and designes according to the intention of the speaker which intention is more vnfolded in the words following be then existent when that word is vttered He answers Noâ— Falsum est in pronomine aduerbiove demonstrandi requiri rem praesentem Non enim est perpetuum saith your great b. Li. 10. de Euch c. 18. Chamier prouing it with examples out of Scripture The third whether in the copula there be a figure The answer is the same that was giuen before when the question was of the place in S. Augustine that according to the substance you know what a kind of verbe it is of the thing signified which is identitie there is no figure and this the identitie is the principall If further your regard that which it doth consignifie so Lâ—giciâ—ns vse to speake there were no inconuenience to admit ampliation or improprietie howbeit it seemes not be necessarie as S. E. told you in his Notes The fourth whether this proposition be meerlie speculatiue It was answered that it is c. Supra pag. 419 seq not The fift in what this proposition is verified The answer is that both the proposition and all the parts of it be verified in the effect The sixt when it is verified The answer is that Veritie is the adequation of two the proposition and the obiect whereof one is the subiect Distingue de tempore seu instanti quo oratio significat vel de tempore seu instanti pro quo oratio significat aliud est enim quando quod oratio consignificat aliud est quando per orationem consignificatum vt patet dicendo Petrus crucifixus est quando enim oratio ista significat tunc est cúm profertur sed quando consignificatum est tempus praetetitum Significatio autem orationis non est nisi oratio sit integra integritate essentiali quoniam oratio non essentialiter integra non est oratio Caiet 3. p q. 78. a. 5. Et quia consignificare praesupponit significare vt pote adiacens illi ideo oratio sicut non significat ita nec consignificat nisi in termino suae prolationis Nec est hoc solum verum de tota oratione sed de partibus vt integrant totam Et de copula quidem declaratur dupliciter tum ex eo quod ly est significat compositionem quam sine extremis non est intelligere non enim potest intelligi compositio prior his quae componuntur tum quia experimur quod huius orationis lignum est album postquam prolatae sunt primae dictiones scil lignum est antequam proferaturly album ly est non significat compositionem ligni cum albo quod conuincitur si ponamus orationem sistere c. Ibidem De subiecto autem dupliciter etiam idem manifestatur in proposito tum quia talia sunt subiecta qualia permittuntur a praedicatis propterea ante praedicata non habent suppositionem suam tum quia clarè perspicimus quod dictis istis duabus dictionibus homo est vt formetur propositio de tertio adiacente nullus intellectus habetur tam subiecti quam copulae sed variabitur Vtriusque sensus iuxta varietatem praedicati vt patet formando duas propositiones quarum vna sit homo est albus altera homo est species clarè enim in his liquet subiectum copulam praedicatum expectare ita quòd varietas praedicati varietatem inducit in tota oratione in subiecto copulâ Ibidem the other the terminus of the Relation of conformitie which relation seemes to be among those that be called rationis the terminus or obiect of this conformitie is then onlie when the effect is existent the relatioÌ„ it self is when it is conceaued The subiect of the relation is the propositioÌ„ to which the vnderstanding doth applie the forsaid relation which proposition was then when it was vttered and after that manner as successiue thinges vse to be or haue existence Apologist There is no such created vertue inherent as you suppose in the pronunciation of this proposition it is rather declaratiue of what was past then effectiue of ought which was not your verie A. B. C. of Logick will teach you no other definition or vse of a propositioÌ„ then to be an indicatiue congruous perfect c. Censure You will pardon me for not writing out at leingth your long loÌ„g definitioÌ„ out of which whilst you conclude that no proposition is practicall you giue waie for me to inferre you not to be reasonable because that is not in the definition of animal Some propositions be practicall Master Waferer but all be not some scieÌ„ces be practicall but all be not the genus doth abstract To saie that the words be not illatiue of anie effect in their kind but declaratiue of what was past and meerelie speculatiue is a begging of the Question and a contradiction to those words which your Doctor d. Panem corpus suum fecit dicendo before stood vpon And if words may not be practicall how comes it that your bread is a Sacrament do you make the Sacrament without consecrating the matter or do you consecrating without words The forme of Baptisme is it meerelie speculatiue doth it onlie declare what was donne without it That SacrameÌ„ts do cause grace is your owne tenet and things actiue are so by their formes Quicunque Sacramenta dixerunt nihil
take this Deus est suum esse Dispose it It is easie to demonstrate in this māner that God hath vnderstanding that he is wise that he is free that he is mercifull Iust Omnipotent c. taking still to make the proofe good such propositions as are identicall for matter And this likewise S. E. did insinuate vnto you pag. 92. wherefore there was no cause to tax him with either want of Schollership in the point yet a point which neither you nor your Master did vnderstand or ingenuitie But this is not all Immediatlie after you cite an other passage out of him Which so wrought vpon your choller that you terme him cup-valiant and the beere is in his head and he stumbles and if his owne weaknes condemnes him not you 'l spare him Your mercie sure is great if this be to spare what will become of those you do not spare And this too after you haue taxed him with want of Schollership and ingenuitie adding that he concludes the Section saucilie and one blow more before you spare him sillilie I forbeare to transcribe the rest Spissis indigna theatris Scripta pudet recitare nugis addere pondus But that none els vpon the like occasion incurre your high displeasure I will heere register the fault in black characters for it deserues them better then the redde you giue it It is in his Notes vpon the seuenth argument where he defends out of S. Lukes Gospell that at the last supper there were two cups the legall and the Sacramentall interpreting S. Mathewes words I will drink no more of this fruite of the vine of the legall cup. which interpretation the Doctor impugnes Doctor Featlie Pag. 111. should I take a cup and after I had drunck of it saie I will drinck no more of this you would vnderstand me of that which I drank last The Answer of S. E. Did I see the whole action I should iudge according to that I sawe no doubt and S. Mathew seeing our Sauiours action did conceaue it will enough But should one or two tell me that Doctor Featlie at the table hauing drunk beare wine said he would drink no more of this beere I had no reason to think he meant wine though wine were last mentioned before Now by the relatiō of S. Mathew S. Luke it appeare that our Sauiour drank of two seuerall cups and that he called the one of them the fruite of the vine the other his blood his testamēt Thus S. E. Where it will be as hard to find a fault against manners any waie were it that he did owe dutie to your Doctor as to find in scirpo nodum Et tua cum vdeas oculis mala lippusinunctis cur if I be not much deceaued But suppose a fault What incensed your vpright zeale which he had not meddled with to flie on him so furiouslie what distemper of your stomack made you belch our such bitternes vpon his Notes what humor is it that makes your inke to staine mens names and honour men that offended not your Innocencie whereof they neither spake nor thought nor heard Tantaene animis coelestibus irae You can teare with your mouthes the credit of whole multitudes of graue learned men Deuines Bishops Councels Sepulchrum patens est guttur eorum If the Reader euer heard Puritan Sermon he knowes what stuffe those things be made of Popes Church and all vnicuique sepulchro sufficit vnum funus clauditur gutturi vestro honorum funera minime sufficiunt adhuc patet you be still readie to deuour vs. but your selues must not be told not of your faults Wee must not against your biting defend our good name Why because you still are Innocent After all your inuectiues and calumnies when with your bitternes against vs you haue scandalized your whole parish you can wipe your mouth and saie I haue donne no wickednes What you do must be though well donne all Men must adore your errours with the title of truth the bitter speaches that drop from your mouth must be esteemed a sacred kind of vrbanitie and when you dispute absurdlie wee must not as much ar smile O no. that were against the religion due to your more then sacred worth You are holie no prophane thing may come within your circuite much lesse touch you Your fame is holie your actions holie your writings holie and your lies and leeres all holie O the holines of these holie ones so the puritie of these Puritans o the candor of these sepulchers you must not presse to neere nor speake much of them neither for your breath may staine their white Hark! one cries out Recede à me noli me tangere stand a farre of keepe aloof touch me not why so faire picture will your colours come of easilie a, Ita ex Isaiae 65. legit S. Aug. Hom. 23. ex Hom 50. Eodem modo legunt Sep. tuag apud S. Hier. quoniam mundus sum for I am cleane quia sanctior sum te b. English bible Pagnin for I am holier thē thou art Are you so c'rie you mercie I am not as other men are Pharisaeus Luk. 18.11 Your Holines I hope will pardon those who before did no so much reflect on the delicacie of a Puritans reputation which is so tender I perceaue now that it scarce endures a man to reflect on it and since it is so nice the best counsell I can giue you pure Images of Sanctitie is this that you forbeare challenging and comming to answer distinctions for you may chance to meete with some who will not put their hats of to Masters of Art as soone as they come in sight especiallie in the distance wee are now S. E sure will not if he be as you stile him let me change your harsh language deux fois tres-simple The sixt Argument was grounded vpon the word Testament in S. Luke where it is taken as my Lord Answered for an authentick signe of the interiour will or sentence and in this sence our Sauiours blood as vnder the forme of wine is testamentum a Testament The Apologist hath made this Section and the next verie short either because he had very litle to replie for his Doctour or els to keepe Decorum in his Comedie More Acts then fiue be not in fashion wherefore the rest two short Scenes or Sections is all Epilogue In the former of the Sections he saith first that it is onlie Christs blood heere as it is shed heere where taking the word shed in the ordinarie common acception as he doth expound himself afterwards he doth but beg the Question as will appeare if we make the proposition and he doth himself somewhere make the like of the bodie in the Sacrament and saie it is onlie Christs bodie heere as it is crucified heere Who so poreblinde as not to see this is petitio principij He would be loath I beleeue to put this Argument to those
Catholikes that neuer sawe Master of Art in his habit It is onli◠Christs bodie in the Eucharist as it is crucified in the Eucharist But it is onlie sacramentallie meaning in a signe crucified in the Eucharist Ergo it is onlie sacramentallie meaning a signe in the Eucharist For the Solution whereof if you demaund of anie Catholicke i◠our Sauiours bodie crucified in the Eucharist he tels you No. demaund againe is it there indeed reallie he Answers yes so I haue beene taught and I beleeue it And heereby Master Waferer though he knowes not the termes of Art He denies that which is your Maior A Scholler will tell you further of another sence of the word shed whē it is attributed to the Sacramentall cup and of the word broken when it is attributed to the bodie which you did not reflect vpon when you made your Argument The bodie blood of our Sauiour the lambe sacrificed for the world are heere in the species of things inanimate which existence by reason of the exteriour formes giues occasion when wee speake of the sacred actions that are exercised towards or about them to vse that kind of speach which was proper to sacrifices of that kind whereof some were solid and drie others liquid among the solid was bread which was broken to signifie the soueraigne dominion of Almightie God Leuit. 2. among the liquid was wine which to the same end was powred out vpon the Altar hence those words powred out or shed and broken are vsed to signifie the action of sacrifycing when the things offered or sacrificed be in formes inanimate of bread or wine and euen by our Sauiour himself This is my bodie which is broken for you 1 Cor. 11. this is my blood of the new testament which is powred out or shed for many Matt. 26. This breaking for and shedding for is vnbloodie sacrifycing Which Caluin espied also and confessed when he expounded the breaking in S. Paul Calu in Epi pri Cor. panis quem frangimus frangi saies he interpretor immolari But the Apologist obiectes againe out of the word shed Howeuer it be shed saith he it moueth being powred out if it moue it is in a place if in a place then either circumscriptiuelie or definitiuelie Heere it appeares that as before I noted he speakes of shedding according to the ordinarie common acception of the word without reflecting on the other acception according to which neither this nor the former Obiectiō hath any kind of apparēce For a thing may by consecration be put vpō the Altar in the forme of wine without any locall motion of it And this presenting of it on the altar by turning not it into an other thing but wine into it donne to signifie the soueraigne dominion of allmightie God is one part of the sacrification which wee call vnbloody the other part is the putting of the bodie on the altar by consecratiō in the shape of bread and both these make one representation of the bloodie sacrifice and oblation on the Crosse But you are not yet accustomed to consider how words are extended by reason of analogie in the matters to an equiuocall kind of signification whereof in the mysteries of Christianitie yea and in other matters too there are frequent examples wherefore I come neerer to your conceptiō and in answer to your doubt tell you first that as a thing may be in place either per se or per accidens so may it be said locallie to be moued either per se or per accidens your soule in your hand and the blood of our Sauiour heere Supra pag. 471 seqq are in loco per accidens I told you before more of this Secōdlie those two modi which you speake of do not sufficientlie distinguish or expound that which wee call being in a place God is in the world yet neither of these two waies and our Sauiours bodie in the Sacrament though not either of these wayes which you speake of The veritie of Gods word doth inforce a presence distinct from both those and to suppose there is none distinct is in you that are Christned an hereticall begging of the Question Insteed of a third replie you demaund whether wee beleeue that thing in the Sacrament which you describe by transubstantiated bread wine to be the price of our Redemption I answer that I beleeue Iesus Christ who told vs that that thing in his hands in the forme of bread was his bodie deliuered for our sinnes and that thing in the chalice his blood shed for vs. This Master Waferer though you shrink and crie Alas fond faith is part of my Creede That our Sauiour was borne of the Virgine Marie is most certaine I beleeue it And I beleeue him haue I not cause that was so borne I willinglie ioyne with Antiquitie with the Catholike and vniuersall Church of this Prince of peace this Emmanuel this Virgins-Sonne this Heire apparent of all that God hath Ioan. 16. who trulie said Omnia quaecunque habet Pater mea sunt euen his Diuinitie his knowledge his omnipotēcie wherby He Iesus he was able to make good his promise the bread which I will giue is my flesh to verifie what he did affirme this in forme of bread is my bodie Whilst you censured this faith as fond did not your conscience trouble you Master Waferer and whē you named the price of our redemption in the cup did not your memorie suggest vnto you those words of S. Augustine before discussed where he said that Iudas the traitour and a Deuill drank it Iudas that tooke it not by the waie or meanes of faith but onlie with his mouth yet he tooke it he tooke that himself an infidell quod fideles cognouerunt precium nostrum That precium was not in the cup before consecration S. Ambr. lib. 5. de Sacr. c 5. but after it was there Heare another as ancient and his Catechist when he came into the Church Ante verba Christi calix est vini aquae plenus vbi verba Christi operata fuerint ibi sanguis efficitur qui plebem redemit Before the words of Christ the Chalice is full of wine and water but when the words of Christ haue wrought there in the Chalice is made the blood which redeemed the people Apol. pag. 89 So he But Master Waferer wiser then he Alas fond faith if so you beleeue Lord help your vnbeleefe This is all the little he had in this matter to replie he had wearied himself it seemes in the former Section his string was broken too he could not shoote rouing bolts as before he did and therefore is now contented to lie downe Will you see how he lies hauing nothing els to do till he goes into the next Section I will loose a little time in counting how manie lies I finde heere in one page the first of this Section taking in that the sence be cōpleate
two lines out of the former almost two lines of the later least I be forced abruptlie to break him of I beginne as he doth with the Synopsis of the matter Apologist This Section refutes their construction of those words The cup is the new testament in my blood Censure One Apologist Shewes that there is no substantiall change wrought by them Censure Two Apologist That there is not identitie materiall he meanes in them vzt of the blood and the thing whereinto the wine is changed Censure Three So farre the Synopsis Now the Discourse Apologist By vertue of the words This is my blood of the new Testament This cup is the new TestameÌ„t in my blood He who will first conclude a substantiall change and then consequentlie He will presume identitie in them but both vntrulie Censure Four And yet there is fauour too For first in the text out oâ— which S. E. if you meane him defends and auouches the Reall presence of the blood there is more then you cite he insisteth on words by you omitted Your Doctour had obiected that no substaÌ„tiall part of any testatour could be properlie his testameÌ„t in that seÌ„ce wherein my Lord heer tooke the words S. E. answers that this assertion of you Doctour is contrarie to the Gospell which importes as much as this This drink in forme of wine is my testament which drinke is shed for you hence he doth auouch If shed for vs it was blood blood a testament and blood is â— part The text he cites is in Saint Luke whither he refers you to reade the wordes of our Sauiour which be theâ— This the Chalice the new testament in my blood which it shed for manie vnto remission of sinnes Secondlie in that you he the chang of wine into blood the identitie of blood with the thing â—nto which wine is changed be not â—â—ulie auouched out of the text you â—peak at one time two vntruthes Apologist I will distinctlie giue answere to this confused Section Censure Let this passe without a Note though the Discourse in the â—ection as he cals it be distinct and â—leere not confused and this Apologist so farre froÌ„ giuing a distinct answer that he doth not answer Apologist Doctor Smith and his Second admit what vpon further try all they denie a figure in those wordes of the â—up Censure Fiue Apologist Aske them how they vnderstand these words this cup is the new testament and they replie properlie enough What then is the new Testament it cannot be denied but that it is the last and eternall will of Christ the testatour c. now how a cup which is no other theâ— the work of an artificer can be saiâ— properlie to be this let who will iudge Censure Six They do not saie that the artificiall cup is either the interiour will or the authentick signe of it as he who will iudge may see pag. 100. seqq Apologist But they proceede to affirme it the cup which is no other then the worke of an artificer properlie to be called a Testament because saie they it is an authenticall signe of his will Censure Seauen Iudge now Courteous Reader whether this be a man to write books anâ— teach Diuinitie I will not saie he is either witles or willfullie malicious tâ— vent such things in print the bookâ— being yet extant which he doth thuâ— impugne but the learnedst freind hâ— hath will as easilie maintaine thaâ— black is white as defend his innocencie vnles for I will not think him to be as he termes S. E. cup-hardie as he was an infant by his Relation at the time of the Conference so yet he bee indeed an Innocent I haue gonne ouer but six and thirtie lines all lying together or lying alltogether and allreadie repent me of the losse not of my labour for without labour I found what I lookt for but of time Should a man runne ouer all your booke in this manner Master Waferer he would finde this nastie Centon made to couer your needie cause as full of lyes as a slouenlie beggars breech is full of though you pretend to be a sworne enimie to that vice and so farre that because equiuocation doth seeme to resemble it soÌ„what you bitterlie declaime against equiuocation too and challenge more credit to your bare affirmation theÌ„â— Catholike is able to deserue sending vs this insinuation publikelie by the print Let me tell you a Protestant hath more reason to be beleeued on his bare word VVafer pag. 97. then a Papist because the Protestants religion ties him to speake the truth from his heart without any mentall reseruation but the Papists doctrine teacheth him a pretie kind of deceipt called equiuocation and will not stick to license the loudest lie so it be aduantagiouâ— to the cause of Rome And he too Saint Ierome saies to me seemes an Hypocrite who saith vnto his brother staie let me take a motâ— out of thine eie Our Sauiour himselâ— stiles him so Hypocrite first cast thâ— beame out of thine owne You tell thâ— Church of Rome there is in heâ— doctrine a prettie kind of deceit called equiuocation which you arâ— offering nicelie to take out anâ— cannot see the monstrous lies thaâ— lie in your owne booke to whicâ— for they come out of your moutâ— vpon the paper as thick as waspâ— out of a nest whilst you are speâ—king of a prettie deceit which yoâ— your self impose you adde an other in your book that the Papists doctrine will not stick to licence the loudest lie But who licencied your Book Master Waferer whose approbat had you to it I should haâ—e thought none but the Father â—ies would haue liked it it is â—o enormouslie peccant against faith and good manners so full of â—ies in matters of both kinds had I not heard six monthes â—nd more before the printer maâ—e it a coate where the babe was â—t nurse with other circumstances which are knowne to Mistrisse Featâ—ie The seuenth Argument was taken out of that place of S. Mathew where the cup our Sauiour drank of is called the fruit of the vine It was answered that there were two cups the Legall and the Sacramentall and that those wordes as appeares by by the relation of Saint Luke were meant of the Legall cup though it had beene easie to answer the Argument had theâ— beene vnderstood of the Sacrâ—mentall M. Featlie would haue the word spoken of the sacramentall cup a. These words in S. Matt. This fruite of the vine must haue relation 〈◊〉 the Cup of which S. Matt. spake before But S. Matt spake of no Cup before but the cup of the new Testament therefore c. Featlie Relat. pag 302. oâ—lie of no other cup then that of the new Testament And he had his Answer Now Waferer seeing it proued in the Relation that they were spokeÌ„ of the Legall cup and Featlies Arguments being impertinent vnles they be spoken of the Sacramentall saies that Christ spake them vndoubtedlie of