to his Disciples wee sate not together with him in that banquet and yet we eate daily the selfe same Supper by faith Eating by faith is not eating by the mouth for faith is of things not seene what wee eate with the mouth is seene You have heard what Saint Austin conceived of the words of the institution and that his judgement was the same of the words of Christ Iohn the 6. It appeares by these passages ensuing Why dost thou prepare thy teeth and thy bellie beleeve and thou hast eaten To eate the flesh of Christ and drinke his blood is to abide in Christ and to have Christ abiding in himselfe and againe Christ speaketh of him who eates inwardly not outwardly he that feeds on him in the heart not hee which presseth him with his teeth Prepare not therefore saith hee thy chops but thy heart I omit the testimonie out of the third booke de doct Christ. c. 16. figura est ergo c. because it hath beene before fully discussed and I conclude out of all these joynt allegations like many starres iâ—… the same constellation Ergo the words which our Saviour spake concerning the eating of his flesâ—… in the words of the institution and in the 6. of Iohâ—… conclude nothing for the eating the very flesh oâ—… Christ corporally with the mouth Touching the fourth If none are true Communicants at the Lord Table but true beleeveâ—… certainely the Bread and Wine are not turned into the very body and blood of Christ. Were they so wicked men hypocrites and reprobates who are sometimes present at the Lords Table and receive the sacred Symboles with their mouth must needs also eate Christs very body unlesse our Adversaries will feigne a second Transubstantiation of Christs body backe againe into bread as soone as ever a wicked hand lip or tooth toucheth it which as yet no Papist hath beene so hardie as once to opine For then they know wee will come upon them with a new demand by what operatorie words of Christ is this second Transubstantiation wrought But none are true Communicants at the Lords Table or eate his very body but beleevers who are also members of his body in Saint Austins judgement They are onely Catholickes and such who are set or incorporated into Christs body who eate his body not Sacramentally only but in truth For wee must not say that hee eates Christs body who is not in his body The wicked are in no sort to be said to eate Christs body because they are not members of his body Christ himselfe when he saith he that eateth my flesh and drinketh my blood abideth in me and I in him thereby sheweth what is truly and not Sacramentally onely to eate Christs body and drinke his blood and that no man eateth his body or drinketh his blood that abideth not in Christ and Christ in him And againe he saith he that disagreeth from Christ neither eateth his flesh nor drinketh his blood though to his owne condemnation for his presumption he daily receive indâ—…tly the Sacrament of so great a thing Hee beates againe upon the same point To eate Christs body is to bee refreshed and so to bee refreshed that it never faileth whence thou art refreshed to drinke that Christs blood what is it but to live eate life drinke life and thou shalt have life but then or upon this condition the Body and Blood of Christ shall bee life to every one if that which is eaten visibly in the Sacrament be spiritually eaten and drunke in the truth it selfe And the Sacrament hereof that is of the unity of Christs Body and Blood is taken at the Lords Table by some to life by others to destruction but the thing it selfe whereof it is a Sacrament that 〈◊〉 Christs body is received by every one to life and by none to destruction whosoever is partaker thereof For after Christ had said he that eateth my flesh and drinketh my blood hath eternal life hee presently addeth and I will raise him up at the last day And a little after hee expoundeth what it is to eate his body and drinke his blood Saying he that eates my flesh and drinkes my blood abides 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and I in him this is therefore to eate that fleâ—… and drinke that drinke for a man to abide in Christ and to have Christ abiding 〈◊〉 him and consequently 〈◊〉 that abideth not in Christ nor Christ in him withot doubt doth not eate his flesh nor drinke his blood spiritually though carnally and visibly with his teeth he crusheth the Sacrament of Christs body I forbeare to presse here our allegation out of the 59. Tract upon Iohn concerning Iudas eating panem Domini and not panem Dominum the bread of the Lord not bread the Lord because I have retorted it before upon S. E. and out of all these places I conclude Ergo the Bread and Wine according to Saint Austin after consecration are not the very body and blood of Christ. The Syllogisme which hath beene proposed at large with frequent testimonies out of Saint Austin to confirme the Assumption may bee thus contracted No wicked men or reprobates eate Christs body Some wicked men and reprobates eate the bread after the consecration Ergo the bread after the consecration is not Christs body Touching the fist Whosoever holdeth the doctrine of Transubstantiation beleeveth that accidents may subsist without their subjects For Transubstantiation as your Church defineth is a mutation or turning of the whole substance of bread into the whole substance of Christs body and the whole substance of the wine into the substance of Christs blood the accidents of bread and wine still remaining viz. The whitenesse thicknesse roundnesse and tast of the bread the thinnesse moysture colour and relish of the wine with the quantity of both Their owne subject being gone where sticke or inhere these accidents in the ayre or Christs bodie you cannot say either For every accidentall forme denominateth the subject in which it is inherent according to that axiome of Logick quicquid in est in dicitur de But neither Christ his body nor the ayre is denominated by these accidents neither the ayre nor Christs body hath the colour quantity figure or tast of bread or wine Neither the ayre nor Christs body is white or round like a wafer c. It remaineth therefore that according to your tenet that these accidents remaine in no subject But Saint Austin beleeved not that accidents can subfist without their subjects For hee defineth an accident to be that which is in a subject not as a part thereof neither can it ever bee without the subject he expressely affirmeth if the quantity or bulke of a body be it bigger or lesser be taken away the qualities cannot have any subsistence And in his Soliloquies hee hooteth at the contrary assertion as most absurd and monstrous Who would deeme
single strings now in the close listen to a chord So Christ hath revealed unto us calling bread his body whose body the Prophet prefigured in bread Christ is our bread because Christ is our life and life is our bread I am saith he the bread of life as also because his body is accounted for bread taking the bread he said this is my body when therefore we pray for our daily bread we desire to continue in Christ and never to be severed from his body And against Marcion So God revealed in your Gospell calling bread his body And againe why doth hee call bread his body c. But I assume bread cannot be Christs body in the proper sense because disperate substances cannot properly bee predicated one of the other therefore when Christ spake these words This is my Body which Tertullian constantly and perpetually silleth up thus this bread is my body he used a Metonymie called signatum pro signo or figuratum pro figura which quite overthroweth your carnall presence and beateth you out of your strongest fort the words of Christs holy institution which you would have to be taken according to the letter Thus you see Tertullian is clearely against you and you are foyled in the first argument PAR. 10. Thirty three allegations out of S. Austin against Transubstantiation vindicated and all objections made by the adversarie out of him answered SO are you also in the second which you propound amisse Saint Austin in his third booke de doctrina Christiana saith that speech of our Saviour unlesse you eate the flesh of the Sonne of man Iohn the 6. c. is figurative therfore the other this is my body is so too Quem recitas meus est o Fidentine libellus Sed malè dum recitas incipit esse tuus The argument was mine but by your mis-reporting it and mis-applying the consequent to the antecedent you make it yours Thus I connected this argument to the former there are two Texts in the Gospell upon which you relie either principally or onely for your carnall presence of Christs body in the Sacrament under the formes of bread and wine The former Mat. 26. 26. I have proved out of Tertullian yeelds your doctrine no support and you are driven in effect to confesse as much subscribing with your owne hand Ego agnosco quod in his verbis hoc est corpus meum est figura I acknowledge the words of Institution to be figurative Now I will prove that in like manner the words of our Saviour Iohn 6. 53. are to be taken in a figurative and improper sense and consequently that the proper eating Christs flesh with the mouth cannot be inferred from them For proofe of the antecedent I produced in the first place a passage out of Saint Austins third booke de doctrinâ Christianâ cap. 16. But if that Scripture seeme to command a sinne or an horrible wickednesse or to forbid any thing that is good and profitable the speech is figurative for example when he saith unlesse ye eate the flesh of the Sonne of man and drinke his blood ye have no life in you he seemeth to command a sinne or horrible wickednesse there is a figure therefore in the words commanding us to communicate with the Lord his Passion and sweetly profitably to lay it up in our memory That his flesh was crucified and wounded for us Here said I three things are very remarkeable to the point now in question 1. That Saint Austin maketh choice of these words of our Saviour as of a most knowne instance of a figurative speech 2. That he not onely affirmeth it to be a figurative speech but confirmeth it also by a strong argument figura est Ergo it is therefore a figure 3. That he sheweth what figure it is end expoundeth the meaning of our Saviour in this figurative speech conformably to the doctrine of the Protestants and contrarie to all Romish glosses upon it To this allegation you answered partly by glancing at Saint Austins argument partly by glossing upon his conlusion First said you it is not a horrible thing to eate mans flesh unlesse it be eaten in the proper shape for it appeares in Mumme that mans flesh may be eaten without horrour when it is not eaten in the proper shape Secondly you distinguished of a figurative speech according to the thing eaten and according to the manner of eating it and said that the speech of Christ Iohn 6. according to Saint Austin was figurative according to the manner of eating to wit in the proper forme but that it was proper according to the matter viz. the substance of Christs flesh 1. Against your first answer to Saint Austins antecedent I replie 1. That whereas you pretend Saint Austin to bee for you you should not have disabled his argument but have defended it rather Now you evidently overthrow it For if it be not a horrible thing to eate mans flesh though under an other shape Saint Austins Ergo therefore our Saviours speech concerning eating his flesh must needs be figurative is a plaine non sequitur 2. Saint Cyril maketh good this argument of Saint Austins choaking his adversarie with this interrogatorie Dost thou pronounce the Sacrament to be a man eating and dost thou irreligiously urge the mindes of the faithfull to grosse and carnall imaginations You would have instructed Saint Cyril to have interrogated more warily dost thou pronounce the Sacrament to be the eating of a man in his proper shape Otherwise to eate a man under an other shape you would have whispered him in the eare is a schoole delicacie no carnall and grosse imagination 3. I affirme that it is an horrible thing to eate mans flesh and drinke his blood though in an other shape for it is not the disregard of the countenance of man or the disfiguring his shape which makes Anthropophagie or man eating so horrible a sinne but the making the flesh of one man the food of another and the belly a sepulcher This I make appeare by foure instances 1. Suppose at Rome or Venice on the day of your carnivals when many murthers are committed by men in disguised habits that one of the masquers or mummers slaine should be boyled or rosted and served in at table in the habit of a whiffler or masquer were it not a horrible wickednesse think you to eate of this mans flesh his head for example though with a vizard upon it and so I returne you a mummer for your mumme 2. If according to Iustins storie or Ovids fiction the members of a sonne were baked in a pie in the likenesse of venison with the proportion of a Deere printed on the crust were it not a horrible wickednesse for a Father to eate wittingly of his sonnes flesh though under another shape 3. What though a mans body in some fight were so mangled and battered that it had lost all humane shape would you warrant an
second No signe Sacrament figure or memoriall of Christs body and blood is his very body and blood for signum signatum the signe and the thing signified the type and the truth are relatively opposed and therefore no more can the one be the other then the Father bee the Sonne or the Master the Servant or the Prince the Subject or the Husband the Wife in so much that Saint Chrysostome concludeth that Melchizedeck could not be a Type of Christ if all things incident to the truth that is Christ himselfe were found in him And Saint Austin apparantly distinguisheth betweene Sacramentum and rem Sacramenti and affirmeth that every signe signifieth something els then it selfe And that it is a miserable servitude of the soule to takâ—… the signes for the thing themselves For the signe of truths are one thing 〈◊〉 themselves and signifie anâ—…ther They are visibâ—… Seales but things invisible are honoured in them But that which we take at the Lords Table is a Mystery a Sacrament a Signe a Figure a Memoriall of Christs Body and Blood Ergo that which wee receive in the Lords Supper is not the very Body and Blood of Christ after your sense Touching the third If the words which our Saviour spake concerning the eating of his flesh and drinking his blood recorded by the foure Evangelists and Saint Paul are to be taken Sacramentally Spiritually and Figuratively and not in the proper sense which the letter carrieth nothing can be from them concluded for the eating the very flesh of Christ with the mouth for so to eate the flesh of Christ is to eate it corporally not Sacramentally carnally not spiritually properly not figuratively wheras to believe in Christs Incarnation to bee partaker of the benefits of his Passion to abide in him and to be preserved in body and soule to eternal life which are the interpretations Saint Austin giveth is not to eate Christ flesh properly but onely in an allegoricall sense But the words which our Saviour spake concerning the eating of his flesh in the judgement of Saiâ—… Austin are to bee taken Sacramentally Spiritually and figuratively For the words which our Saviour spake of this argument are either the words of the institution related by the three Evangelists and Saint Paul or they are set downe by Saint Iohn Chap. 6. The former Saint Austin affirmeth to bâ—… 〈◊〉 spâ—…llyâ—…d â—…d Sacramentally 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 booke against 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 12 and in his Commentary upon the 98. Psalme and in his 23. Epist. to Boniface and in his 33. Sermon upon the words of ouâ—… Lord the latter he expoundeth in like sort figurativeâ—…y in his 3. book de doct Christi c. 16. in his 2. Sermon of the words of the Apostle and in his 33. Sermon de verbis Dom. And in his 25. and 26. Tractats upon Saint Iohn All these passages are wel knowne to the Learned and although you cast a mist before some of them yet it will easily bee dispelled and the beames of truth in this holy Fathers Writings discover themselves so clearely that they will dazle all your eyes What words can be more conspicuous then those of this Father I coulâ—… interpret that precept of not eating blood figuratively understanding by blood that which it figureth for our Lord doubted not to say This is my Body when hee gave the signe of his body Here the antecedents possem dicere hoc praeceptum in figurâ positum esse and the words non dubitavit clearely demonstrate Saint Austins meaning to bee that though it might seeme harsh to call the bread which is a signe of Christs body his body as the blood of a beast slaine the soule yet by a figure Christ made no scruple so to tearme it Doubtlesse the blood of any beast slaine is neither properly the soule of that beast nor a signe of a soule present in it no more by Saint Austins comparing these Texts together is bread Christs body nor a signe of his body present in it but onely a Sacrament and memoriall thereof The next passage is as cleare You are not to eate that body which you see nor to drinke that blood which they will shed who crucifie me I have commended unto you a certaine Sacrament or mystery which being spiritually understood will quicken you And although it ought to be celebrated visibly yet it ougâ—…t to be understood invisibâ—… Put the parts of the sentence together and the meaning of the whole will be evidently this that which you are to eate and drinke is not my very body which you now see and the Jewes shall pierce and crucifie but a visible Sacrament thereof Which yet received with faith in my bloody death through the power of the Spirit shall quicken you If there could bee any obscurity in this passage it is cleared in the next When Easter is neare saith he we say tomorrow or the day following Christ suffered whereas hee suffered but once and that many yeares agoe so wee say on the Lords day this day the Lorâ—… rose whereas many yeareâ—… are past since hee rose why is no man so foolish as 〈◊〉 charge us with a lie in sâ—… speaking but because weâ—… call these daies according 〈◊〉 the similitude of those daies in which these things were done and say thâ—…s is such a day which is not that day but in the revolution of time is like unto it and that is said to be done that day by reason of the celebration or mysterie of the Sacrament which was not done that day but long before Was not Christ once offered in himselfe and yet in the Sacrament he is not onely offered at Easter but every day neither doth he lie who being asked shall answer that he is offered For if Sacraments had not a resemblance of those things whereof they are Sacraments they should not bee Sacraments at all Now in regard of this resemblance for the most part they take the name of the things themselves As therefore the Sacrament of Christs body after a sort is Christs body the Sacrament of his blood is his blood so the Sacrament of faith hee meanes there Baptsime is faith But I assume Good-Friday last past was not the very day of Christs Passion nor the last Lords day the day of his Resurrection nor the celebration of the Sacrament the very offering of Christ on the Crosse nor Baptisme the very habit or doctrine of faith but so tearmed onely by a figure to wit a Metonymie therefore neither is that of which Christ said This is my Body his body in propriety of speech but onely so tearmed by a figure because it is the Sacrament and resemblance of his body For all these speeches Saint Austin in this Epistle makes to bee like I know not what can be more plaine except the words of the same Father Christ gave the Supper consecrated with his own hands
Homilie upon Leviticus repeating those words of our Saviour unlesse ye eate the flesh of the Sonne of man and drinke his blood ye have no life in you saith of them if ye follow the letter that letter killeth To this allegation you answer That Origen speakes according to the capernaiticall letter that is according to the literall sense wherein the Capernaits did understand those words who as Saint Austin and Cyprian say thought our Saviour would have cut off some pieces from his body and given them to eate or that they were to eate it boyled or rosted But 1. You should have observed that Origen saith not if you follow the conceits of the Capernaits but if you follow the letter of Christ that is the sense which the letter of his words carrie Now there is never a word letter or sillable in Christs speech which signifieth or importeth boyling or rosting cutting or mangling These are but accidents to the eating of flesh flesh may bee eaten and that in the most proper acception of the phrase though it be neither boyled or rosted nor mangled Whosoever takes flesh raw or rosted whole or cut into his mouth cheweth it with his teeth and after conveigheth it into his stomacke truely and properly eateth that flesh Thus you doe in the Sacrament if Pope Nicolas prescribe not a wrong forme of recantation to Berengarius yet extant in your Canon Law I Berengarius doe beleeve the body of our Lord Iesus Christ to bee sensually or sensibly and in truth handled by the hands of the Priest broken and champt or torne in peeces by the teeth of the faithfull 2. You should have cast backe your eye to the precedent words of Origen which make it evidently appeare that he listened not to your Iewes harpe nor tooke the tune from the Capâ—…naits straine but that his meaning was that we ought to take the words of our Saviour in a spirituall and figurative sense and not in the carnall and proper For having related the words of those Jewes in Saint Iohn how shall this man give us his flesh to eate hee turneth to his Christian auditors saying But you if you are Children of the Church if you are instructed in the mysteries of the Gospell if the Word which was made flesh dwell among you acknowledge these things to be true which we say because they are the words of the Lord. Acknowledge that there are figures in the Scriptures and examine and understand those things that are spoken as spirituall men not as carnall for if you take these things as carnall they will hurt you and not nourish you for there is a letter that killeth in the Gospell as well as in the Law there is a letter in the Gospell which killeth him that understandeth it not spiritually and then follow the words above alleaged For if thou follow the letter in these words unlesse ye eate my flesh and drinke my blood the letter killeth Thus having freed this passage I might proceed to the examination of your next Section yet 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as before I have done in Tertullian and Saint Austin so I will now cleare other places in this Fathers Workes and proove him to be a thorough man for us every where I will follow the order of his bookes in the edition at Basil that you may speedily with a wet finger turne to every cotation First cast I pray you a looke to his ninth Homilie Thou who art come to Christ the true Priest who by his blood hath reconciled thee to his Father sticke not in the blood of the flesh but learne rather the blood of the Word and heare him saying to thee This is my blood which is shed for you for the remission of sinnes He who is instructed in the mystery of the Sacraments knoweth both the flesh and blood of the Word of God You who presse the letter and urge the carnall eating of the flesh of Christ with the mouth sticke in the blood of the flesh but we who feede on Christ by faith receive the blood of the Word and eate the flesh and blood of the Word of God in our heart according to Origens wholesome advise Secondly in his 16 Homily upon Numbers there is a passage paralell to this Who can eate flesh and drinke blood he answereth the Christian people the faithfull heare these words and embrace them unlesse ye eate my flesh and drinke my blood ye have no life in you because my flesh is meate indeed He that spake this was wounded for our sinnes and we are said to drinke his blood not onely in the rite of the Sacrament when we drinke of the consecrated cup but also when we receive his sayings in which life consisteth as himselfe saith the words which I have spoken unto you are spirit and life and a little after hee concludeth thou therefore art the true people of Israel which knowest how to eate the flesh and drinke the blood of the Word of God In this passage with one blow he cuts off both your carnall manducation and your halfe communion the people as you heare drinke of the blood of Christ both in the Sacrament and out of it but how with the mouth nay but by faith therefore he saith not that all Christian people drinke it but populus fidelis the people that hath faith in his words and by receiving his sayings drinke his blood both at the communion and at other times in hearing and reading the Word Thirdly he is constant in this his figurative and spirituall interpretation of the words of our Saviour in the 6. of Iohn for in his 23 Homilie upon the booke of Numbers he harpeth upon the same string Christ our Passeoveris offered for us let the Iewes in a carnall sense eate the flesh of a Lambe but let us eate the flesh of the Word of God for he saith unlesse ye eate my flesh ye have no life in you this that 〈◊〉 now speake is the flesh of the Word of God If you can eate words with your mouth and chew them with your teeth you may in Origens judgemen eate the flesh of Christ with your mouth but if you cannot do that then according to our English proverbiall speech eate your owne words and retract your grosse and carnall assertion Fourthly I presse you with a most materiall and considerable passage in Origen concerning the matter of bread which he calleth the typicall and symbolicall body of Christ and saith it goeth into the bellie and is cast out in the draught but for Christ himselfe and his flesh he saith that it is the true meate which whosoever eates shall live for ever which no wicked man can eate I am sure wicked men can and doe eate of the bread after consecration it is not then in Origens judgement Christs flesh I pray also resolve me what is that S. Origen calls the matter of bread which he
corpus hee alleadgeth out of Eusebius Emissenus these words When thou goest up to the dreadfull or venerable Altar to bee satisfied with spirituall meates by faith regard honour and admire the holy body and blood of thy God touch it in thy mind take it with the hand of thy heart drink it by the draught of the inward man What need hee to have said looke upon him with the eye of faith touch him with thy minde and with the hand of thy heart and draught of the inward man but to exclude your carnall eating and drinking him with the hand and mouth of the outward man 3. In the Chapter Vt Quid out of Saint Austins booke de remedio penitentiae hee quoteth these words Why dost thou prepare thy tooth and thy belly beleeve and thou hast eaten he that beleeveth in him eateth him if the tooth and bellie have nothing to doe in eating Christs flesh how doe you affirme that he is eaten with the mouth 4. In the Chapter prima quidem out of Saint Austin his Comment upon the fourth Psalme he repeateth those two testimonies which before I produced in Paragraph the eleaventh The first is a strong evidence against the carnall interpretation of Christs words the latter against the supposed existence of Christs body in more places at once The former is this spiritually understand what I have spoken you shall not eate this body which you see nor drinke that blood which they who crucifie mee shall shed I have commended a kinde of Sacrament or mystery unto you which being spiritually understood will quicken you The latter is the body of Christ in which he rose must bee in one place his truth or divinity is every where 5. In the Chapter Non he mentioneth out of Saint Ambrose a sentence which directly excludes your eating Christ with the mouth it is not this bread which goeth into the body but the bread of eternall life which supporteth the substance of the soule 6. In the Chapter Qui manducat hee expoundeth out of S. Austin the phrase of eating and drinking Christ after this manner he that eateth and drinketh Christ eateth drinketh life to eate him is to be fed or refreshed to drinke him is to live that which is visibly taken in the Sacrament is in the truth spiritually eaten and drunke if in the truth hee is eaten spiritually hen not corporally or orally for a Spirit hath no flesh and bones and consequently no mouth and teeth In the same Chapter hee addeth that which is seene and our eyes tell us is bread and the cup but that which faith being to be instructed requireth is the bread is Christs body the cup is his blood but bread can no way bee Christs body properly as I have demonstrated before Austin therefore and Gratian stand for a trope or figure in the words of the institution 7. In the Chapter Qui discordat out of the same Austin hee debarres all wicked men from tasting the heavenly food of Christs flesh He who disagreeth saith he from Christ eateth not his flesh nor drinketh his blood though he daily receive the Sacrament of so great a thing to his condemnation and perdition But he who is at distance with Christ may and doth sometime eate of that which is in the Pix after consecration it is not therefore the flesh of Christ which no wicked tooth or mouth can touch but the Sacrament thereof onely which is set on your Altar 8. In the Chapter Panis est cap. Revera hee diggeth much ore out of Saint Ambrose his bookes de Sacramentis whereof I will trie a little at this present If there bee such force in the word of the Lord Iesu that thereby that began to be which was not before how much more operatorie or effectuall is it that things may be what they were and yet turned into an other thing that they may bee what they were in substance and changed into another thing in significancie and supernaturall efficacie Christ saith This is my body before the blessing of heavenly words an other kinde is named after consecration the body is signed or signified he tearmeth the cup his blood before consecration 't is called another thing after consecration it is called Christs blood Why because the Wine is turned into Christs blood no but because it is a Sacrament of Christs blood and beareth the similitude thereof so saith Ambrose in expresse words as thou takest the similitude of Christs death so thou drinkest the similitude of his blood 9. In the Chapter Iteratur he brings in Pope Pascasius transubstantiating if I may so speake your externall visible and proper sacrifice of the Masse into a significative and mysticall Because saith he we offend daily Christ daily is offered for us mystically and his Passion is delivered to us in a mysterie 10. In the Chapter De hac out of Hierom upon Leviticus hee determineth that it is lawfull for us to eate of that Host which is offered in memoriall of Christ but that it is lawfull for no man to eate of that Host in it selfe which Christ offered upon the Altar of the Crosse. Whereof no other good construction can be made then this that we may eate of the bread broken on the Lords Table whereby Christs sacrifice upon the Crosse is represented but not of the very body of Christ it selfe which was offered upon the Crosse. We may eate with the mouth Christs flesh in Symbolo but not in se or secundumse wee may eate it in the signe or Sacrament thereof but not properly and orally in it selfe What you alleadge for your selfe out of Gratian maketh very much against you the words are The sacrifice of the Church doth consist of two things the visible forme of elements and the invisible flesh of Christ both of a Sacrament and re Sacramenti as the person of Christ doth consist of God and man To this distinction wee fully subscribe that the Lords Supper or Sacrament consists of a visible part to wit the outward elements offered to our bodily senses and of an invisible or heavenly part the flesh and blood of Christ exhibited by the Spirit to the eye of our faith but you cannot allow of this distinction of parts For you have no elements at all For accidents without substance are no elements and besides accidents you have nothing in your Sacrament but Christs flesh which is the res Sacramenti Moreover if the Sacrament consist of the elements and Christs body as Christs person consisteth of his humane and divine nature as Gratian out of Saint Austin affirmeth then is not the substance of the element turned into the substance of Christs body but both remaine entire as the humane nature of Christ is not turned into the divine but remaineth entire What your Chaplaine urgeth out of Gratian for himselfe I have answered els where PAR. 13. That the words
Salmoron Barradius and Jansenius THe two kindes in the Lords Supper are like the eyes in our body which are mooved by the same nerve opticke or double strings in an instrument which are tuned alike 〈◊〉 comparative reason therefore drawne from the one to the other cannot but be of great force The sixt argumenâ—… therefore in the Conference as you reckon was from thence drawne after this manner The words used in the Consecration of the bread are so to bee expounded as the like in the consecration of the cup. But the words used in the Consecration of the cup are to bee expounded by a figure Ergo the words used in the Consecration of the bread are to â—…ee expounded by a figure In this Sylogisme because you lay youâ—… batteries at both propositions the Major and the Minor I will fortifie them both and first the Major It is a topiâ—…k axiome similium est idâ—…m judicium like are to be judged by the like and these are so like that Bellarmine himselfe draweth an argument from the one to the other I will add saith hee a most forcible argument If the pronoune hoc used in the Consecration of the bread demonstrateth bread then also the same pronoune this used in the Consecration of the cup must needs demonstaâ—… wine the validity of which consequence dependeth upon the correspondencie betweene the words used in the institution of each kinde neither indeed can any reason bee assigned why the words used in the one may not as well admit of a figure as the words used in the other both are dogmaticall both have a precept annexed unto them both are words of a Testament both Sacramentall and according to your doctrine alike operatory never therefore exclaime against us for expounding the words used in the institution of the bread by one figure when you expound the words used in the institution of the cup by two figures at least Blame not us for interpreting This is my Body thaâ—… is a signe or Sacrament of my body when you your selves interpret This cup is the New Testament that is this drinke is 〈◊〉 signe or Sacrament of the New Testament If you alleadge that Calix is expounded in the same place by funditur and argue from thence that because the blood of Christ and not wine is shed for us therefore this cup must needs signifie his blood I answer that the figure in panis in like manner is expounded in the same place by frangitur and argue that because bread is broken in the Sacrament and not Christs body therefore this must needs signifie thiâ—… bread If you replie that frangitur is â—…t for frangetur I will say in like manâ—…er that funditur is put for fundetur â—…he Major being therefore put out of all doubt let us examine the Minor which was this The words used in the Consecration of the cup are to he expounded by one figure or more For the words as they are recorded by Saint Luke are these This Cup is the New Testament in my blood Where we have a double figure First a Metonomie â—…ntinentis pro contento the cup is taken for the thing contained in the cup. Secondly signatuÌ„ pro signo the Testament for the Signe Seale or Sacrament of the New Testament So saith Theophylact alleadged by you In the Old Testament Gods Covenant was confirmed by the blood of bruit beasts but now since the Word was made flesh He sealed the New Testament with his owne blood So your Gorran the blood of Iesus Christ is the confirmation of the New Testament for a Testament is confirmed by the death of the Testator Nay so your most accomplished Jesuits Solmeron and Barradius Solmeron pointeth to a double figure saying in these words we have a double figure first the cup being put for that which is contained in the 〈◊〉 Secondly the Testament for a Symbâ—… thereof Barradius though he expoâ—… the word Testament as you doe for Legacie bequeathed by Christs wâ—… yet he addeth expressely that it is taken by a figure called Metonyâ—… What say you here to this 〈◊〉 word Testamentum is here taken pâ—… perly enough For not onely a mans 〈◊〉 ward will but also his outward wriâ—… will in parchment is commonly called Tâ—… stamentum because it is an authentâ—… signe of his will I pray expresse yâ—… selfe a little farther what meane yâ—… by properly enough doe you meaâ—… by an usuall figure or without aâ—… figure if you meane by an usuall figure assent unto you and it sufficeth for thâ—… strengthening of my argument if 〈◊〉 meane without a figure name me 〈◊〉 Author of note Divine or Civilâ—… who before you affirmed that either Legacie bequeathed by will or the pâ—… per and parchment in which the willâ—… writteÌ„ is in propriety of speech withâ—… any figure either 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in Greeke Testamentum in Latine or Will in 〈◊〉 glish Not to take the advantage might against you that the blood of Christ as you beleeve it to bee in the â—…acrament cannot bee an authenticall â—…gne of Christs will because if wee should grant it to be there really in your sense yet it is not there visibly â—…nd therefore cannot be an authenticall signe of it like the paper or parchment â—…ou speake of or as we teach the wine in the cup to be I shall bee much inâ—…ebted unto you if you can resolve mee â—…ow the blood of Christ can be without any figure his last Will and Testament sith 1. He made his Will at this his last Supper but made not then his blood 2. His Will was his just determination or appointment of what he would have done after his death his blood is no such thing 3. The Scripture speakes of blood of the Testament hic est sanguis novi Testamenti never of a Testament of blood 4. Blood is a suâ—…stantiall part of the Testator and therefore not his Will or Testamâ—…nt 5. Every Will is either written or nuncupative the blood of the Testator is neither After you have blunted the edge of these weapons see how you can rebate the point of Iansenius his dartâ—… which he lets flie levell at you These words saith he cannot bee taken properly whether the cup be taken for the vessell used for drinking or for the blood of Christ by a Synechdoche for no man will say that the vessell in propriety of speech is Christs Testament sith the Scripture testifieth that Christs Will is eternall so iâ—… not that cup which no man knoweth whether it be extant at this day or no neither can the blood of Christ bee properly said to be his Testament for his Testament iâ—… one not many and Paul in the Epistle 〈◊〉 the Hebrewes teacheth out of Jeremie that the Gospell is the New Testament Christs blood is not therefore properly the New Testament Moreover in Matthew and Marke the blood is said to be the bloâ—… of the New
to be the Symbole or Sacrament of his body as also why hee rather chose wine then any other licour to bee the embleme and memoriall of his blood we can assigne certainely no other reason then his meere will Tertullian his guesse is but probable that Christ in the institution of the Sacrament in the formes of bread and wine had an eye to the Prophecy of Ieremy or Iacob But be it probable or necessary it matters not seeing it is confessed on all hands that bread is a figure of Christs body though not now a Legall Type yet an Evangelicall Being both it makes the stronger for this glosse of Tertullian this bread is my body that is a figure of my body But here S. E. helpes you at a dead lift alleadging a testimony out of Tertullians booke de resurrectione carnis for the carnall presence of Christ in the Sacrament The words of Tertullian are these The flesh is washed that the soule may be cleansed the flesh feeds upon the body and blood of Christ that the soule may be fatted by God Of this place of Tertullian he is as proud as Pâ—…lius in the proverbe was of his sword not observing that the point of it lyeth against himselfe for if hee expound these words according to the rule of the Fathers the signes have usually the names of the thing signified by them then hee confirmes our figurative interpretation understanding by the body of Christ the Symbole or signe thereof upon which our flesh seeds when we receive the Sacrament but if he understand the words of Tertullian properly as if our very flesh or stomach turned Christs Body into corporal nourishment and so really fed upon it to fatten or cheare our soules he makes Tertullian blaspheme and hee gives the lie to his Lord your selfe who page 65. in expresse tearmes affirme that in the Fucharist there is no violence offered to Christ his flesh in it selfe nor is it eaten to the end our bodies may thereby be nourished To affirme that the substance of our mortall body is nourished or increased by the flesh of Christ taken in the Sacrament is to make the Eucharist cibum ventris non mentis the foode of the belly not of the soule then which grosse conceit nothing can bee more absurd in the judgement of your owne Cardinall Bellarmine Tertullian disclaimes this carnall fancy in the very words alledged by your Chaplaine ut anima saginetur the flesh saith the Father feeds on the Body and Blood of Christ that the soule may bee fatted the soule not the body If hee demand how can the soule bee satisfied or fatted by the bread in the Sacrament if it bee not turned into Christs Body I answer out of the former words of Tertullian even as the soule is cleansed in Baptisme by washing the body with water though that water be not turned into Christs blood You have heard that Tertullian doth not so much as lispe in your language heare now how lowd hee speakes in ours The sense of the word saith he is to be taken from the matter for because they thought his speech hard and intolerable unlesse ye cate the flesh of the Sonne of man c. as if hee had appointed his flesh truly and in very deed to bee eaten of them he premised it is the Spirit which quickneth and a little after appointing his Word to be the quickner because his Word is spirit and life he called the same his flesh for the Word was made flesh therefore to be desired with an appetite to give and maintaine life in us to be eaten by hearing to be chewed by understanding to be digested by beleeving These words are so plaine that you cannot mistake the meaning of them and if you should goe about to draw them to any carnall sense or eating Christ with the mouth he will checke you in the words following where he saith that Christ used an allegorie in this place now an allegorie is a figure in which an other thing is to be understood divers from that which the words import taken in the usuall and proper sense Doubtlesse he who held the bread at the Lords Table to be a representation of Christs body and the wine a memoriall of his blood beleeved not that the bread was turned into his body or the wine into his blood for no picture is the life it selfe no memoriall is of a thing present but absent But Tertullian called bread that whereby Christ represented his owne body taking the word represent in the same sense which Saint Bernar doth As Christ after a sort is sacrificed every day when we shew forth his death so he seemeth to be borne whilest we faithfully represent his birth As the figure signe or that whereby any thing is represented or set before the eye is not the thing it selfe so neither a monument or a memoriall of our friend is our friend the wine therefore which Tertullian saith Christ consecrated for a memoriall of his blood cannot bee his very blood The same Father in his booke of the flesh of Christ smiled at the heretickes who imagined Christ to have flesh hard without bones solid without muscles bloody without blood c. They saith he that fancy such a Christ as this that deceiveth and deludeth all mens eyes and senses and touchings should not bring him from heaven but fetch him rather from some jugglers box I trow hee meant not your Popish Pix yet sure such a flesh it encloseth hard if it bee so without bones solid without muscles and bloody without blood for you say Christs blood is there and shâ—…d too and yet tear me your Masse an unbloody sacrifice I take you to be so ingenuous that you would not belie your senses I am sure you will confesse that you see nothing in the pyx but the whitenesse of bread in the Chalice but the rednesse of wine no flesh or blood colour in either You tast nothing but bread in the one and the sapour of wine in the other you touch no soft flesh with your hand nor quarrie blood with your lips or tongue But I inferre out of Tertullian You must not question the truth of your senses lest thereby you weaken the sinewes of our faith lest peradventure the heretickes take advantage thereupon to say that it was not true that Christ saw Satan fall like lightning from heaven that it is not true that he heard a voice from heaven but the sense was deceived Were not the senses competent judges of their proper objects even in the case we are now putting viz. the discerning Christs true body Christ would never have appealed to them as hee doth Behold my hands and my feet that is I my selfe handle me and see for a Spirit hath not flesh and bones as you see me have I have given a touch hitherto but upon singâ—…e testimonies as it were
tearmes Christs typicall and symbolicall body and saith it goeth into the belly c. you dare not say Christs body For it is blasphemy in the highest degree to say that his glorified body passeth through the guts and is cast out into the draught Substance of bread you say there is none and to call accidents a body and the matter or materiall part of bread is as absurd in speech as it is in sense that a man can void tasts and colours and figures without substance Fiftly I alleadge against you in the same Commentarie upon Saint Matthew his interpretation of the words of the institution which can no way stand with your doctrine of Transubstantiation Take eate saith he This is my body the bread which God the Word saith to be his body is the Word which nourisheth the soule the Word which proceeds from Gods mouth by which man liveth bread the heavenly bread which is set upon that Table of which it is written Thou hast prepared a table before me And the drinke which God the Word calls his blood is the Word making glad the hearts of the drinkers Marke I beseech you hee saith that Christ calleth bread his body which he could not but by a trope or figure sith bread and his body are substantiae disparatae substances of divers kinds which cannot in truth and propriety of speech one be called the other Secondly hee saith that this bread is the foode of soules and this drinke refresheth and maketh glad the hearts of them that drinke it is the foode of soules not bodies and the drinke of the heart not of the mouth if wee beleeve this Father Sixtly I retort your owne allegation against you out of the fift Homily The Lord saith hee even now comes under the roofe of Beleevers two manner of waies The one when thou entertainest into thy house the Governours or Pastours of the Church for by them the Lord enters into thy house and by them thou becommest his Host. The other manner is when thou takest that holy and uncorrupted banquet when thou dost enjoy the bread and cup of life eatest and drinkest the body and blood of our Lord then our Lord doth enter under thy roofe wherefore humbling thy selfe imitate the Centurion and say Lord I am not worthy that thou come under my roofe Observe I pray you as before that the faithfull enjoy the cup of life as well as the bread whereof you utterly deprive them and that by roofe hee meanes the heart which entertaines Christ not the mouth That which S. E. addeth suppose the soule bee wicked this Author saith Christ goeth In he adds of his owne Origen saith no such thing that Christ eâ—…ters into the soule or heart of a wicked man but all that he saith is this where hee enters in unworthily he enters in to the condemnation of him that receives that is where the party unworthily eates of that bread and drinkes of that cup for in that bread Christ entereth in his typicall and symbolicall body as hee calls it before not in his true and naturall which hee proved unto us there no wicked man can eate Seventhly I conclude this Section with a testimony out of the last booke of Origen If as these men cavill or upbraid us Christ was destitute of flesh and without blood of what flesh of what body and of what blood did be administer the bread and the cup as signes and images commanding his Disciples by them to renew the memory of himselfe Heare you how briefe he speakes how fully in the language of the reformed Churches bread and the cup are not the very body and blood of Christ by Transubstantiation but signes images and memorialls thereof by representation And if now you are cast as your conscience will tell you you are by severall verdicts of Origen thanke your selfe who would needs referre the matter to him among others and bee tried by the bench of antiquity whereby you are clearely overthrowne as you will be in your owne Court by your owne feed judge Gratian your great Canonist of whom in the next Paragraph PAR. 12. Eighteene places out of Gratian the Father of the Canonists against Transubstantiation vindicated and objections out of him answered GRatian de consecratione distinctione 2. capite hoc est quod dicimus saith as the heavenly bread which is Christs flesh is after a sort called the body of Christ whâ—…n as in truth it is the Sacrament of the body of Christ I meane of that which being visible palpable mortall was put upon the Crosse and that immolation of the flesh which is done by the hands of the Priest is called the Passion death and crucifixion not in the verity of the thing but in a signifying mystery so the Sacrament of faith Baptisme is faith The glosse addeth the heavenly Sacrament which truly doth represent the flesh of Christ is called the body of Christ but improperly wherefore it is said in a sort but not in the truth of the thing but in a signifying mysterie This testimony of Gratian is like a great torch throughly lightened which a strong blast of winde bloweth not out but maketh it blaze the brighter Three puffes you and your Chaplaine have at it First you say Gratian is no authenticall Author with you much lesse the glosse Secondly you say his words are meant of the accidents which are a Sacrament onely of Christs body Thirdly your Chaplaine addeth that the flesh of Christ on the Altar is a Sacrament of Christs visible and palpable body upon the Crosse you say the lesse to the purpose by saying so much and your answers interfere on the other For if Gratian bee no authenticall Author with you why doc you straine your wits to make his words reach home to the truth why doe you contradict one the other to make Gratian agree to himselfe the truth is you have a Woulfe by the eares you can neither safely hold him nor let him goe For if you reject Gratians authoritie all the Canonists like so many Hornets will bee about your eares if you admit him you loose your cause for then you must confesse that after consecration that which remaineth on the Altar is not indeed Christs body but a Sacrament thereof whcih is no otherwise called Christs body then your oblation in the Masse is called the crucifying of Christ and that I am sure you will say and sweare too is not in the truth of the thing but in a signifying mystery To examine your answers severally First you impeach Gratians credit telling us that with you he is no authenticall Author What you meane by authenticall I know not a classicall Author sure he is with you who preferre him before Dionisius Exiguus Isidorus Cresconius Burchardus Ivo and all other compilers of antient decrees and reade him publikely in your Schooles What esteeme Aristotle is in with Phylosophers Hypocrates with Physitians Euclides with Geometricians
of the institution This is my Body are to bee taken in a tropicall and figurative sense is prooved 1. By testimonie of Scripture 2. By authority of Fathers namely Justin Martyr Irenaeus Clemens Alexandrinus Tertullian Cyprian Origen Athanasius Cyrillus Hierosolomitanus Ambrosius Epiphanius Hieronymus Cyrillus Alexandrinus Augustinus Chrysostomus Theodoretus Gaudentius Issidorus Oecumenius and Arnoldus Carmotensis 3. By the confession of our adversaries Gerson Gardiner Bellarmine 4. By force of reason NOw I will ascend from the troubled brooke to the spring from the Canon Law to the divine from Gratian to the Author of all grace Christ Jesus himselfe whose words This is my Body you lay as the ground whereon you build both your carnall presence and Transubstantiation and the sacrifice of the Masse and the adoration of the Host. But it will beare none of them nay rather as ground shaken by an earthquake it will utterly overthrow them all as may appeare by this Syllogisme If in this sentence This is my Body the meaning bee this Bread is my Body the speech cannot be proper but must of necessity bee figurative or tropicall But in this sentence This is my Body the meaning is This Bread is my Body Ergo this speech cannot be proper but must of necessity be figurative and tropicall and if so downe falls Transubstantiation built upon it and carnall presence built upon Transubstantiation and the oblation and adoration of the Host built upon the carnall presence In this Syllogisme the consequence of the Major is so evident that Cardinall Bellarmine affirmeth that it is impossible that bread should be called Christs Body otherwaies then by a figure for bread and Christs Body are things most divers and if disparate substances such as bread and Christs body are might be affirmed one of the other by the same reason wee might affirme something to bee nothing light to bee darkenesse and darkenesse to be light c. Bread is a substance inanimate Christs Body is animate bread of the figure of a loafe or wafer Christs Body of the figure of a man bread inorganicall or without orgaines or members Christs Body Organicall bread made of wheat flower Christs Body of Virgins blood bread therefore in propriety of speech can no more bee Christs Body then Christ himselfe a Vine or a Doore or a Way or a Rocke all which speeches our Adversaries themselves confesse to bee tropicall and figurative The Minor or Assumption is prooved foure manner of waies 1. By testimonie of Scripture 2. By the authority of Fathers 3. Confession of our Adversaries 4. Force of reason 1. The Text is plaine Christ tooke bread and blesseâ—… and brake and said This is my Body what hee tooke hee blessed â—…e brake hee gave of that he said This is my Body But hee tooke he blessed he brake he gave bread of bread therefore he said This is my Body When hee said Hoe or This hee pointed to something not to meere accidents as you confesse for then hee would have said hac not hoc these not this nor pointed he to his owne body sitting at Table for neither did the Apostles nor could they doubt whether the body sitting at Table were his body neither were there any coherence in the words take this bread breake and eate in remembrance of me for this is my body which you see sitting at table with you He pointed therefore to the substance of bread when he said hoc This and consequently the meaning of his words are This bread is my Body 2. You take an oath to expound Scriptures juxta unanimeÌ„ consensum Patrum according to the unanimous consent of Fathers and therefore unlesse you will incurre the censure of perjury you must allow of this interpretation of Christs words This is my Body that is This bread is my Body for so they are expounded by 1. Iustin Martyr The sanctified food which nourisheth our flesh and our blood by the change thereof into our nature we are taught to bee the flesh and blood of him that was incarnate for us Iesus Christ. 2. Irenaeus How did the Lord rightly if an other were his Father taking bread of this condition that is usuall amongst us confesse it to bee his body 3. Clemens Alexandrinus He blessed wine when hee said take drinke this is my blood 4. Tertullian So Christ taught us calling bread his Body 5. Origen Christ confesseth the bread to bee his body 6. Cyprian It was wine which Christ said to be his blood Epist. 76. Panem corpus suum vocat 7. Athanasius What is the bread Christs body 8. Cyrill Christ said of the bread This is my Body 9. Ambrose He delivered broken bread to his Disciples saying This is my Body 10. Saint Hierom. Let us heare that the bread which Christ brake and gave to his Disciples is his body as himselfe saith to salve his credit nay his faith First in this answer you contradict the Tenet of your Church and your selfe For if by hoc or this as the Fathers teach wee are to understand hic panis this bread and the sense of the whole is this bread is my body and bread here stands not for bread in substance but in appearance onely or in the exterior forme or that which is made of bread as your Chaplaine hath it then the words of institution are not taken in the proper sense but are absolutely and simply figurative which your selfe denies and Fisher the Jesuit of Transubstantiation Sess. 2. and Bellarmine of the Sacrament of the Eucharist the words this is my body ought to be taken and expounded properly not figuratively and Alfonsus a Castro and Sanctesius and Salmoron and Costorus and Gardinerus and Tonstallus and Panegyrolla and Roffensis and Suares and Uasques and other Papists named and confuted by Chamierus Secondly this your interpretation no better agreeth with the Fathers words then a wet mould doth with running mettall which makes it flie backe with a great force for instance Iustin Martyr in the words above cited by bread or food understandeth that whereby as hee saith our bodies are nourished quae mutata nutrit carnes nostras but that is not bread turned into Christs body for Christs body is no meate for the belly nor is it turned into our flesh Irenaeus speaketh of bread ejus conditionis quae secundum nos of bread that is usuall among us l. 4. c. 57. c. 34. of bread qui est c terra which is taken from the earth such is not super-substantiall bread or transubstantiated into Christs body Clemens by wine understandeth wine allegorically tearmed Christs blood 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 but that is not wine really turned into Christs blood for that is Christs blood in propriety of speech not by a Metaphor or Allegorie Tertullian as you expound him speaketh of bread which was vetus figura an antient figure of Christs body but that could not bee bread transubstantiated into his body
powred out Ergo your sacrifice of the Masse is truly a bloody sacrifice D. B. Your Major is not currant unlesse you add thereunto externally M. F. As if a man could not truly bleed inwardly my conclusion is not the sacrifice of the Masse is a bloody sacrifice externally or visibly but truly which is sufficiently inferred out of the premises without your addition For certainely blood truly shed and sacrificed makes a truly bloody sacrifice D. B. I told you before blood could not be truly shed unlesse it were externally shed M. F. And did not I also tell you of a veine bleeding inwardly D. B. Though the veine bleed inwardly that is within the body yet the blood commeth out of the veine M. F. And so must Christs blood also if it be truly powred out for fusio is motio and effusio is extra fusio therefore if Christs blood be truly powred out it must needs run out of his veines D. B. Every naturall effusion is a motion but this is a supernaturall effusion M. F. Every effusion is essentially a motion if it be a naturall effusion it is a naturall motion if a supernaturall effusion a supernaturall motion D. B. I admit of a supernaturall motion M. F. Therfore you admit of a passing of Christs blood from one place to another which cannot be as long as it remaines in his veines D. B. Why so cannot Christs blood be powred out of the cup unlesse it stirre out of his veines M. F. Not possibly unlesse you will say the flesh and bones are powred out together with it and by a consequence that you drink properly flesh and bones in the chalice which I thus demonstrate All that is in the Chalice you truly and properly drinke But the veines flesh and bones of Christ you grant are in the Chalice by saying that the blood is there in the veines Ergo you drinke properly flesh and bones D. B. These are grosse and Capernaiticall arguments unworthy to be urged by Christians M. F. Sir speake in your conscience whither you thinke we come nearer to the Capernaits who teach a spirituall eating of Christ by faith according to those words of our Saviour My words are spirit and life or you who teach a carnall eating of him with the mouth and teeth was not this the very errour of the Capernaites D. B. Nothing lesse for the Capernaites supposed Christs flesh should have been cut and quartered and sold in the market M. F. This is your grosse fancie of the Capernaits error the Scripture chargeth them with no other error but such as arose from the misconstruction of Christs words unlesse you eate my flesh which they understood according to the letter that killeth not according to the spirit which quickneth Now the letter of these words implieth no such thing as cutting or selling Christs flesh in the shambles only it importeth a reall and proper eating which consisteth in taking flesh into the mouth chamming of it and swallowing it downe the throat into the stomack All this you doe are you not then true Capernaites D. B. For shame leave these idle and foolish collections of yours M. F. I should easily returne the like speeches upon you but I feare to abuse the patience of this Honourable Assembly through our impatience I thought to have spared you but since you have provoked me so farre I charge you with a speech of yours This blood is blood in my blood which you gave me at our last Conference for the true exposition of these words This cup is the New Testament in my blood are you not ashamed of such an absurd Commentarie D. B. The congruity of this exposition I have maintained in writing and I have long expected your replie M. F. You know who imposed silence upon us both to whose authority I acknowledge my selfe obnoxious whilest I stay in Paris But I leave these matters come to my ar◅uments drawne from the testimonies of ancient Fathers D. B. I know what you will alleadge a place of S. Austin de doctrina Christiana and a sentence of Gelasius Theodoret. M. F. It should seeme you remember these allegations the better because you have beene gravelled with them as Plinie reporteth that the Lion taketh especiall notice of one that hath stroken him and strangely findeth him out among a great throng of people M. F. Well what say you first to Saint Austin me thinkes he speakes home to the purpose in that very place If the speech command any good thing or forbid any wickednesse the speech is not figurative but if the Scripture seeme to commād a sin or an horrible wickednesse or forbid any thing that is good and profitable the speech is figurative for example unlesse you eate the flesh of the Son of man c. the speech seemes to command a sin or horrible wickednesse it is a figure therefore D. B. What if I should say with some of your owne side that these words on which S. Austin commenteth John the 6. appertaine not to the Sacrament M. F. You should oppose Cardinall Bellarmine and others of your own side you should demolish one of the strongest pillars of Transubstantiation if not the doctrine it selfe of your carnall eating for if those words of our Saviour Iohn 6. unlesse you eate my flesh c. cannot be taken properly as S. Austin proveth by an invincible argument it ensueth necessarily thereupon that the flesh of Christ cannot be properly eaten D. B. You cannot be ignorant of Bellarmine his answer to this place of S. Austin and the other you bring out of Theodoret and Gelasius looke in him for an answer M. F. We come not hither to heare Bellarmines but D. Bagshaws answers if you approove of Bellarmines answers why are you ashamed to bring them to triall If you approove them not make us so much beholding unto you to acquaint us with your new and better anseers D. B. Bellarmines workes are every where to be had what trouble you us with these stale objections M. F. Your manifold Tergiversations M. D. shew that either you are ignorant of Bellarmines answers or you dare not avouch them Answer me but directly to a place of Chrysostome and I will presse you with no more authorities at this time the place of Chrysostome which seemeth to me of all others most pregnant is found Homil. 11. in cap 5. Matthei there he maketh this inference If it be so dangerous to convert sanctified vessells to private uses in which there is not the body of Christ but a mysterie thereof is contained how much more ought we not to give up our bodies which God hath fitted for an habitation for himselfe to the divell to doe in them what he list D. B. Chrysostome was not the author of these Homilies but an Arian heretick for he inveigheth against the Catholicks under the name of Homoousiani M. F. Belike then your Church in her Breviaries and your Popes in