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
emptie of his bodie or in Ieremies time as he was God Tertullians word being Deus sic enim Deus in Euangelio c. vt hinc iam eum id est Deum intelligas corporis sui figuram pani dedisse mark also the preterit if I say he as God be said in Ieremies time to haue giuen to bread to be the figure of his bodie yet should you not haue translated the wordes so as you do I do not speake of translating dedisse he gaue I suppose you meant dedit but of translating the word suppose dedit he gaue to be Which translation in other matter your self would not endure Sempronius Lepido dedit asinum were this Lepidus a frinde of yours you would not turne dedit he aue to be In the margine pag. 23. S. E. had cited other words of Tertullian for a further exposition of his meaning Caro corpore vescitur and these next you glosse Apologist the meaning of Tertullian in those wordes caro corpore sanguine Christi vescitur vt anima de Deo saginetur is that the bodie receauing in the outward element which otherwhere he cals the figure of his bodie the soule presentlie apprehends the thing signified vzt the bodie of Christ Censure See Masters a golden exposition cleere natiue proper subtile accurate The bodie eates the flesh that is the soule doth apprehend it O monstrous wit able to make quidlibet ex quolibet I can not sufficientlie admire I am astonished when I consider thy streingth and perspicacitie Before I knew thou couldst make coÌ„tradictions which omnipotencie it self cannot and now I see thou canst finde senses where they be not But Pluribus intentus minor est ad singula sensus Whilst you were looking beyond the obiect of Gods power to tell vs what he cannot do you did not consider that Tertullian being in that book whence the wordes are cited to defend the Resurrection of bodies which Hereticks did impugne chieflie out of the basenes of flesh and it 's origen at first corruption at last as appeares by the fourth châ—pter of that booke he on the contrarie speakes much in commendation of it Vituperationem laudatione depâ—llas ita nos rhetoricari quoque prouocant haeretici c. you may refute and repell the dispraise of a thing by the praise and commendation of it and Hereticks prouoake vs to plaie the Rhethoricians in this kind so he ca. 5. where he beginns to praise it continuing to the tenth chapter in the middest of of which discourse hauing spoken in the praise of humane flesh in common he betakes himself to speake of the dignitie of the flesh of Christians particularly So much quoth he be said out of the publik forme as it were of humane condition in the behalf of flesh let vs consider now how great a prerogatiue this friuolous as Hereticks in contempt stile it and base substance hath from God in as much as it is the forme of Christian men Porro si vniuersa per carnem subiacent anima carni quoque subiaceÌ„t c. Et hac quidem velut de publica forma humanae conditionis in suffraguim carni procurauerim videamus nunc de propria etiam Christiani nominis forma quanta huic subtantia heretici friuolae ac sordidae apud Deum praerogatiua sit si sufficeret illi quod nulla ommino anima salutem possit adipisci nisi dum est in carne crediderit adeo caro salutis est cardo de qua cum anima Deo allegitur ipsa est quae efficit vt anima allegi possit Sed caro abluitur vt anima emaculetur Caro vaguitur vt anima consecretur Caro signatur vt anima muniatur Caro manus impositione adumbratur vt anima spiritu alluminetur Caro corpore sanguine Christi vescitur vt anima de Deo saginetur non possunt ergo separari in mercede quas opera coniungit Tertullian de Resurrect carnis cap. 7. 8. Obiter aduertet Lector quot in hac vna sententia Tertullianus indicat sacramenta and there come in the wordes aboue cited wherein as appeares both by the wordes them selues and also by the scope of his discourse it is euident that he meanes to say the flesh euen that which Hereticks vilified doth receaue into it self by the mouth the bodie and blood of Iesus Christ to the end the soule by the worthie receauing of it be diuinelie fatned the flesh saies he caro vescitur and what doth it eate a meere signe or figure bakers bread is this the greate prerogatiue no vescitur corpore the bodie it self that his sacred and diuine bodie his creature man by his bodilie mouth the flesh doth eate and thereby the whole hath benefite the soule grace so he receaue woorthelie in time glorie and the bodie as other auncients haue more clearlie expressed themselues immortalitie He that eateth this bread shall liue for euer In another place he saith the hands also touch it wherein he doth agree with S. Augustine De Idol n. 31. 34. out of whom the next argument was taken who saith our Sauiour had his owne bodie euen that which was crucified in his owne hands and that we receaue it with our mouth Citat inserius Apologist He D. Smith or S. E saith he hath good reason to referre that which followes the propostion this is my bodie vzt the figure of my bodie to the subiect his and not to the predicate bodie because it may be shewed otherwhere in him that what followes the proposition in that manner must be referred to the subiiect and not the predicate Censure This is willfullie to mystake and misreport when D. Featlie in the conference had said it did not follow that Tertullian in the place obiected had disordered his words because he had done the like elswhere pag. 17. my Lord answered as you find in the Relation that he did not inferre that Tertullian did heere speake so because he had donne the like in other places but because he doth affoorde in this verie place cited four seuerall reasons why he must be soe vnderstood which thing was inculcated againe by S. E. so that you doe manifestlie impose against your owne knowledge when you tell vs the authour saies he hath good reason to referre c. because it may be shewed other where in him that what followes c. In the end of this your first section you bring a place out of the Sermon de vnctione which makes against your self and for vs as will appeare to him that reades it Dedit itaque D.N. in mensa in qua vltimuÌ„ cum Apostolis participauit conuiuium propriis manibus panem vinum in cruce verò manibus militum corpus tradidit vulnerandum vt in Apostolis secretius impressa syncera veritas vera synceritas exponeret gentibus quomodo vinuÌ„ panis caro esset sanguis quibus rationibus
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
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
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
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
est ex pane vino vt vnione cum eo quod est immortale sit etiam homo particeps incorruptionis Haec autem dat virtute benedictionis in illud quod est immortale nempe corpus suum transelementatae eorum quae apparent natura Cyrillus Episcopus Hierosol Cathechesi 4. Aquam olim in vinum conuertit in Cana Galileae quod vinum cum quandam habeat cum sanguine propinquitatem facilè in illum transmutatur eum patum dignum existimabimus cui credamus quod vinum in sanguinem transmutet infra Hoc sciens pro certissimo habens panem hunc qui videtur à nobis non esse panem etiamsi gustus panem esse sentiat sed esse corpus Christi vinum quod à nobis conspicitur tametsi sensui gustus vinum esse videatur non tamen vinum sed sanguinem esse Christi Seculo 3. Sermo de Coena apud Cyprianum Panis iste quem Dominus Discipulis porrigebat non essigie sed natura mutatus omni potentia Verbi factus est caro sicut in Persona Verbi humanitas videbatur latebat diuinitas ita Sacramento visibili ineffabiliter diuina se infudit essentia Origenes l. 8. contra Celsum Nos qui rerum omnium conditori placere studemus cum precibus gratiarum pro beneficiis acceptis actione oblatos panes edimus corpus iam per precationem factos sanctum quoddam sanctificans Et hom 5. in diuers Quando sanctum â—â—bum illudque incorruptum accipis epulum quando pane vitae poculo frueris manducas bibis corpus sanguinem Domini tunc Dominus sub tectum tuum ingreditur tu ergo humilianâ— temetipsum imitare hunc Centurionem dicito Domine non sum dignus vt intres sub tectum meum Vbi enim indigné ingreditur ibi ad iudicium ingreditut recipientis Seculo 2. Tertullianus l. 4. contra Marc. c. 40. Acceptum panem distributum discipulis corpus suum illum fecit l. de resurrect carn Caro corpore sanguine Christi vescitur Irenaeus Episcopus l. 4. aduers Haeres c. 34 Qui est à terra panis percipiens vocationem Dei iam non communis panis est sed Eucharistia ex duabus rebus constans terrena coelesti Seculo 1. Paulus Apostolus pri Corinth 11. Ego enim accepi à Domino quod tradidi vobis quoniam Dominus Iesus in qua nocte trade batur accepit panem gratias agens fregit dixit Accipite manducate HOC EST CORPVS MEVM quod pro vobis tradetur Qui manducat bibit indignè iudicium sibi manducat bibit non dijudicans CORPVS Domini Retinuit Antiquitas 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Contentorum ordo sub aspectabili panis forma Sub illa fuit ante consecrationem vera panis natura accepit panem cui successit sub eadem forma corpus Domini verum hoc est corpus quod pro vobis A deo que sub illa specie vel aspectabili forma facta mutatio Aduersariorum Confessio Beza de Coena con VVestphal Hoc quidem saepe diximus quod nunc quoque repetam retineri reipsa non posse 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in his Christi verbis Hoc est corpus meum quin transsubstantiatio Papistica statuatur Morton Institut Sacram. l. 2 ca. 1 pag. 72. VVhat necessitie there is to enquire into the true sense of these words This is my body will best appeare in the after-examination of the diuers consequences of your owne sense to wit your doctrine of transsubstantiation corporall and materiall presence propitiatotie sacrifice and proper adoration all which are dependants vpon your Romish exposition of the former words of Christ The issue will be this that if the words be certainlie true in a proper and litterall sence then wee are to yeild to you the whole cause So he S. E. had said that Berengarius broched your (a) About the yeere of our Lord 1060. the denying of transubstantiation began to be accounted Heresie and in that number was first one Berengarius who liued about â—â— 1060. Fox pag. 1121 Brier heresie and this you Master Waferer take heynouslie telling vs that you haue it from the Apostles If you had said that one of them Iudas was of your opinion you might peraduenture haue found Scripture for it in the 6. of S. Iohn where after our Sauiour had said the bread which he meant to giue was his flesh that flesh which he would giue also for the life or redemption of the world the Iewes began to dispute of the modus how that could be quomodo potest hic nobis carnem suam dare ad manducandum how can this man giue vs his flesh to eate whervpon our Sauiour told them that his flesh was meat indeed and that his blood was drink indeed and that they were to eate this flesh and to drink this blood heereat some of the Disciples were scaÌ„dalized and said as you do durus est hic sermo this is a hard speach they had not the patieÌ„ce to heare of it they beleeued not and amongst those was the man I spake of Sunt quidam ex vobis qui non credunt sciebat enim ab initio Iesus qui essent non credentes quis traditurus esset eum there are some of you that beleeue not For Iesus knew from the beginning who they were that beleeued not and who should betray him you know the man he was of your opinion yet Berengarius being the first that taught it openlie as a doctrine he may well be said to haue broached it first and if insteed of the word opinion or heresie you put in Sacrament that it runne thus Berengarius broached your Sacrament it may be no metaphor for it is wine that is in your communion cup nothing els but wine Heere is an end of your second Section I will leaue you now alone in your recreation roome and go speake with others at the dore you shall heare of me againe by that time you haue stepped into your third Section where if you can compose your self thereunto we will be more seriouse It is not my labour it was your Mothers to breed Mirth Nobis non licet esse tam disertis Qui Musas colimus seueriores Master Mirth is a merrie man he can laugh out anothers eies and his owne it seemes is not laughing the cause be not fullie open he hath studied so long in the Vniuersitie and talkt there so much of homo that he hath forgotten part of his owne mother tounge I haue beene disputing with him about a peece of it and would haue left him sooner being wearie in the verie beginning dat sine mente sonum to heere so manie words with so litle sence but that he would haue taken occasion thereby to make the presse labour againe in the edition of an other as impertinent a discourse not omitting
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
receaue with faithfull heart and mouth the mediatour of God and man man Christ Iesus this is not bakers bread giuing vs his bodie to be eaten and his blood to be drunck though it seeme to such as Waferer is more horrible euen thus with the mouth to eate mâ—s flesh then to kill and to drinck mans blood then to shed it In Baptisme wee were incorporated into Christ made one flesh and this vnion he doth consummate as S. Augustine doth insinuate by the reall exhibition of his bodie in the Sacrament But this matter is to high for M. Waferer who at least should haue regarded the words of Origen before his eies who saies of our Lord in the Sacrament Suprà Conf. pag. 65. Where he enters vnworthilie there he goes in to iudgment to the receauer Mark well there He He to whom Origen will haue the communicant saie Vt ad perficiendum mysterium vnitatis accipâ—amus ipsi d. sâ—o quod accepit ipse de nostro Cap. firmiter ex Conc. Lateran as the Church doth at Masse Domine non sum dignus vt intres sub tectum meum Lord I am not worthie that thou enter vnder my roofe this is not bread he would not haue you call bread Lord as S. E. told you in his Notes Where He enters vnworthâ—lie there He goes in to Iudgment to the receauer The like of inuocating our Lord there in the forme of bread on the Alter wee haue in a. RogaÌ„tes Agnum propositum S Chry. Hom. 41. in 1. Cor. S. Chrysostome b, Obsecratio sancti illius tremendi quod in altari positum est Sacrificij Saint Cyrill Hier. Cathec Myst 5. S. Cyrill and others the thing which heere I vrge is that the Church did in S. Augustines time receaue that which he calles the Mediatour not with heart onlie but also hoeuer to infidels the thing might appeare horrible with the mouth that the Apostles did eate panem Dominum bread the Lord which bread vnderstood well what they did and that Iudas notwithstanding his malicious infidelitie receaued he doth nor saie the outward signes onlie as you do but the price of our Redemption adding that the faithfull know it so to be Those know it that haue learned the difference betwixt blood and wine betwixt panis Dominus the Mediatour and bakers bread He knowes it c. S. August tract 62. in Ioan. qui diiudicat hoc est discernit à caeteris cibis Dominicum corpus with the eie of faith who perceaues that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 d. S Cyrill Hier. Catech. t. 4. that which appeare bread is not bread in substance what then 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 but the bodie the bodie how did not our Sauiour take bread yes he did but that e, Serin de Caena Cypr. bread being changed not in shape but in nature is by the omnipotencie of the word made flesh as you were told from Antiquitie You will replie that the rest of the Apostles hauing faith did receaue two thinges one with the bodie by the mouth to wit the outward elementes or signes the other With the soule by faith to wit the bodie and blood which later Iudas wanting faith could not do and therefore onlie with his bodie by the mouth receaued the signes this S. Augustine you think insinuates when he saith of him that he receaued panem Domini hauing said of the rest that they receaued panem Dominum Answer of panis Dominus bread the Lord the Mediatour you heard before from S. Augustine that the Church in his time it is the same of the Apostles receaued it not onlie with their heart or soule but also with their mouth that mouth which in his words is distinguished from the soule or heart Of the bread of our Lord panis Domini which S. Augustine expounding the 40. Psalme qui edebat panes meos c. saith Iudas did eate contra Dominum against our Lord according as it was before prophecied I will speake afterwards Per buccellam illum designauit vt appareret de illo dictum qui edebat panes meos S. Aug. Enar. Psal 40. he designed him by the morsell to make it appeare that it was said of him He that eateth my bread Let that bread alone a while and let vs consider whether Iudas who did not receaue spirituallie tooke anie more according to S. Augustine then onlie the outward signe Sure our Sauiours blood the price of our Redemption is more then your outward signe which you speake of and Iudas according to S. Augustine receaued he doth not saie the signe of the price but that which the faithfull know to be the price of our Redemption such indeed as had not faith Iudas himself thought it bread and wine but the faithfull the rest of the Disciples they knew that in substance the thing was not bakers bread as before consecration but panis Dominus bread the Lord not wine from the grape but the price of our Redemption Act. 20.28 the verie blood of God Number now the thinges receaued by the rest all that is antecedeÌ„t to the effect which the Sacrament doth giue and the thinges receaued by Iudas and see whether you can find what such thing they receaued more the signes both receaued the bodie and blood the price of our Redemption both receaued what is there els in the Sacrament that is antecedent to the effect which it produceth in the worthie receauer If wee consider the effect of the Sacrament the Apostles by it by the Sacrament receaued increase of grace they receaued it to life but Iudas coÌ„ming vnworthilie with treason in his heart increased by a sacrilegious act the grieuousnes of his sinne A man ought to come with great reuerence and preparation to receaue the benefites of God but peculiarlie to this Sacrament wherein with the benefites he is to receaue God himself he ought to examine himself well and look into euerie corner of his conscience that there be nothing amisse in it when he comes that searcheth Hierusalem with a candle and hates iniquitie with his heart If malice if abomination be not remooued if due preparation be not made the Diuine Iustice will reuenge the contempt or neglect and that also for example of others euen oft in this life which made the Apostle giue a generall warning vnto all that offer to come to this table to trie themselues first 1. Cor. 11 Let a man examine himself and so let him eate of that bread and drink of that cup and the reason For he that eateth and drinketh vnworthilie eateth and drinketh damnation to himself not discerning the Lords bodie not omitting to mention the execution of Gods vindicatiue iustice vpon the transgressors For this cause many are weake and sicklie amongst you and many sleepe There are in S. Cyprian and other auncient Writers S. Cypr. Serm. de lapsis diuers examples of Gods iudgmentes in this behalf vppon such as ante expiata
the Sacrament which it calls panem Coelestem the other is the act of immolation performed by the Priest which it calls immolationem carnis Of the first of these it saith againe two things the one appertaining to the quid of it in ratione rei telling vs that it is according to the interiour substance caro Christi the other appertaining to it as it hath put on rationem signi telling vs that it is Sacramentum corporis Christi visibilis crucifixi Of the second also two the one that it is a mysticall mactatioÌ„ crucifying death of Christ the other that it is not his death or crucifyiÌ„g in rei veritate Vocatur immolatio carnis quae Sacerdotis manibus fit Christâ— passio non rei veritate sed significante mysterio The two former thinges vizt the heauenlie bread the act of Immolation Featlie either of ignorance or of purpose doth confound so to drawe vpon the one against the authours intention expressed in cleare tearmes more then once or twice all that is auouched of the other which prooceeding in a matter of this nature vrged and insisted vpoÌ„ in two seuerall disputations to decrie the reall presence of the bodie of our Sauiour in the signes which when Luther beganne was beleeued by all the knowne Christian Churches in the world and is so plainlie deliuered in Scripture that the greatest Protestantes in the world were in conscience thereby confessedlie conuinced Luther Melanâ—â—ton c. and not vrged onlie but also seuerall times printed to the ruine of poore soules which esteeme him a great clerck giues vs iust occasion to complaine of it as vnworthâ—e of a Scholler and in it self vnconscionable And to think as Waferer doth that he thereby proues Gratian to oppugne transsubstantiation or that his discours doth satisfie what S. E. had said about the text is a signe that the iudgment or vnderstaÌ„ding power is in the man defectiue But stay wee are to answere his interrogatorie that will kill the cause Featlie Hath Christ tWo bodies one visible and palbable an other inuisible the heauenlie bread is trulie the one and sâ— Sacrament onlie of the other Answer Not two according to the substance the Dualitie is in the manner it is the same bodie which on the Crosse was visible in the Sacrament it is inuisible and as hauing one of these manners of existencie it was a signe the text saith of it self as in the other carne sanguine vtroque inuisibili there is the bodie in one manner of existeÌ„cie significatur visibile Domini corpus there is the same bodie in an other manner of existencie againe that caro quam forma panis opertam in Sacramento accipimus the caro crucifixa are in substaÌ„ce but one Corpus visibile palpabile in cruce suspensum and coelestis panis qui veré Christi caro est or as he doth otherwise also call it caro inuisibilis intelligibilis spiritualis are according to the substance but one thing Had you cast your eie on that which in Gratian followes out of S. Ierome you had seene a further confirmation of this double manner together with the solution of your difficultie Dupliciter intelligitur caro Christi sanguis vel spiritalis illa atque Diuina de qua ipse ait caro mea verè est cibus sanguis meus verè est potus nisi mand caueritis carnem meam biberitis meum sanguinem non habebitis vitam aeternam vel caro quae crucifixa est sanguis qui militis effusus est lancea The flesh and blood of Christ is vnderstood two waies either that spirituall and Diuine whereof he himself saith my flesh is meate indeed and my blood is drink indeed vnles you eate my flesh and drink my blood you shall not haue euerlasting life or the flesh which was crucified and the blood which by the soldiers launce was powred out according to this distinction of the same flesh secuÌ„dum dâ—uersos modos he doth resolue an other difficultie of videbit non videbit both verified in the same being taken according to diuers manners of existing Iuxta hanc diuisionem in sanctis eius Christi diuersitas carnis sanguinis accipitur Com. in c. 1. ad Ephes vt alia sit caro quae visura est salutare Dei alia caro sanguis quae regnum non queant possidere According to this distinction the diuersitie of flesh and blood is taken also in the Saints that it be one flesh which is to see the saluation of God another flesh and blood which cannot possesse the kingdome How another how alia alia secundum substantiam no that were not to reconcile Scripture but to decrie Scripture and the common Article of the Resurrection but alia alia secundum modum And of the flesh of Christ in like manner that spirituall and Diuine flesh which he saith we are to eate and the flesh which was crucified be not alia alia secundum substantiam no be they Master Featlie diuina quae veré cibus and crucifixa be these alia alia secundum substantiam you will not say they be but alia alia secundum modum When the Scripture saith God gaue Saul another heart the meaning is not that he tooke out that which was before and put in place another substantiallie distinct but it was another in the manner or accidentall being and S. Augustine cont Adamant Cum induerit corpus in corruptionem immortalitatem iam non caro sanguis sed in corpus Coeleste mutabitur de fide symbolâ— In Coelestibus nulla caro sed corpora simplicia lucida quae appellat Apostolus spiritualia a. S. Aug. con Adimant c. 12. when the bodie shall haue put on incorruption and immortalitie it shall be now not flesh and blood but it shall be changed into an heauenlie bodie b. Idem De fide Symb. cap 10. Credimus carnis resurrectionem Non tantum quia reparatur anima quae nunc propter carnales affectiones caro nominatur sed haec etiam visibilis caro quae naturaliter est caro cuius nomen anima non propter naturam sed propter affectiones carnales accepit Haec ergo visibilis quae caro propriè dicitur sine dubitatione credeÌ„da est resurgere S. Aug. Ibidem Si mutatis moribus dicimus hominem non esse qui fuit si denique mutatis aetatibus ipsum corpus non dicimus esle quod fuit quanto magis ipsum non erit tanta conuersione mutatum vt non solum immortaliter viuat verum etiam inuisibilem videat S. Aug. Epist 111. Non hoc corpus quod videtis c. Supra pag. 53. Vide ibi marg Ait modâ—cum et iam non videbitis me quia eum corporaliter tunc videbant quando iturus erat ad patrem eum deinceps mortalem visuri non erant qualem
secundum Grammaticos non consignificat tempus sed Verbo id competit quare demonstratio per se pronominis abstrahit à tempore scilicet quo profertur pronomen quo terminatur totius orationis prolatio quare vtramque substantiam significat pro qua item posset supponere At quia verbum vt dictum est consignificat tempus terminatiuum orationis virtute eiusdem verbi trahitur suppositio pronominis ad corpus Ibidem ex Richardo taceo signifies as my Lord said it did Sainct Thomas denies not neither doth he denie that the proposition is to be vnderstood secundum vltimum instans as then to haue it's effect which effect is the thing signified yea he doth affirme it directlie oportet intelligere praedictam locutionem secundum vltimum instans prolationis verborum and in the precedent Article he saith in vltimo instanti prolationis verba consequuntur virtutem coÌ„uersiuam wherby the same is also manifest The proposition Corpus meum est corpus meum was true before and was not made true by vertue of consecration but it was not true before that our Sauiours bodie was in the shape of bread or had Sacramentall existence Per hanc formam fit vt corpus Christi sit in hoc Sacramento secundum â—eritatem S. Thom. Ibidem and though this proposition Corpus meum est corpus meum be identicall according to the manner yet the propositioÌ„ which wee speake of is not as you were told oft enough in the Relation where you may reade still your Doctors Predicament which will stand vntill he graunts the distinction of a two fold identicall proposition one for matter onlie another for manner too wherefore no more of that Apologist Put case I should graunt you such power in those wordes this is my bodie to transubstantiate the bread may I not challeng the same force in them to change the accidents as well as the substance since they were likewise in his hand when he pronounced them Censure No. you cannot as will appear if you consider them well this in the exteriours shape of bread is my boâ—â—â— will you haue is to be in that shape and yet the shape not to be and our Sauiours intention being to institute a Sacrament the exteriour species which immediatlie doth occurre vnto the sense was to remaine The Fathers also note that to take away the b. S. Cyrill Alex Ep. ad Calos Theophilac in Mat. 26.5 Ambros l. 4 de Sacram. c. 4 Haimo in Pass Christi sec Mar. Lanfranc lib. de Corpo S. Bernard Serm. de Coena Dom. horrour of eating mans flesh and drinking blood in their owne shapes they be couered in the formes of bread and wine which vsuallie men receaue you haue S. Thomas in your hands it seemes in him you may find more of this q. 75. a. 5. Moreouer transubstantiation being a succession of substances vnder the same accidentall formes you destroy the notion of it if you take the same formes away they must remaine the same And that it is indeed so that still there is the exteriour shape of bread you knowe by sence but whether vnder them there be bread or flesh the sence is not able to certifie you know that it enters not so farre Some higher power must iudge of it and an vnderstanding well disposed as being readier to beleeue God then to relie on you or on this foolish dotage that God can do no more then man is able of himself to know beleeues it is our Sauiours bodie since God affirmes it But see the Puritan is in his ruffe Apologist Me thinks Master S. E. you close this Section verie saucilie and sillilie For Doctor Featlie vrging you that identicall propositions such as your discourse makes this proue nothing to trie wether they can proue anie thing askes this Question If I point to Christs bodie in Heauen at the right hand of his Father and saie This See aboue pag. 35. or that bodie of Christ is his bodie will it hence follow than bread or any thing els is substantiallie turned into Christs bodie you forsooth answer him thus No but something els it seemes is turned how els could your mouth vtter such an impertinent discourse It would haue argued you of more Schollership iudgment either to haue beene silent or els to haue answered him how meere identicall propositions can proue any thing Censure Quantulacunque adeo est occasio sufficit irae Was it not euident that the proposition was meerelie speculatiue as much as if I pointing at you should saie this is Waferer and this face is Mirths owne face and that it did suppose allreadie in being all that it imported and therefore was impertineÌ„tie paralleled with this other which is not meerelie speculatiue nor supposeth â—n being that which it importes but both inferre it Our Sauiours bodie Master Waferer was not in the forme of bread before consecration by consecration it was there Sainct a. Non erat corpus Christi ante coÌ„secrationem sed post coÌ„secrationem dico tibi quod iam est corpus Christi ipse dixit factum est S. Amb. l. 4. de Sacr. c. 4. ex paâ—e fit corpus Ibidem vides quam operatorius sit sermo Christi c. Ibidem Ambrose he tels you so directlie so â—o b. Suprà pag 480. Should a lay man say ouer a peice of bread Hoc est corpus 〈◊〉 the proposition would be false wherefore it is not like Featlies should a Priest with intention to consecrate pronounce them they would be true others That propositions which for matter are identicall may serue to prooue or inferre you might haue knowne being Master of Art and he Featlie being Doctor in Diuinitie without further teaching which had any beene thought necessarie was not alltogether wanting on the part of S. E. whom you reprehend for not teaching it Did you runne ouer withouâ— reading or reading not vnderstand those words in him pag. 94. For matter a proposition may be identicall and prooue too and such are All those heere are infinite which define the subiect will you haue instaÌ„ce for your easieâ— learning of his mind as this A man is a reasonable creature And he that denies it can proue anie thing shewes himâ—self ignorant in the principles of Science and knowes not what a demonstration is So hee and so I do tell you now againe Your Doctor it is like lookes higher and would haue an instance in a matter more eleuated Be it so God is eternall will you haue a proposition to proue it take this God is immutable you can make the Syllogisme your self I suppose Whatever thing is immutable is eternall c. Will you haue a proposition to proue that God is immutable take this Deus est actus purus dispose it in forme of a Syllogisme Omnis actus purus est immutabilis Deus est actus purus c. will you haue another to proue that God is actus purus
brought were Clemens Cyprian Chrysostome The Author de dogmatibus vnder the name of S. Augustine the Councell of wormes and Innocent the third These were all and S.E. tooke notice of and answered to them all and without adding any more as he may know who will turne vnto the place which is pag. 114. That Christ said of the coÌ„secrated cup it was the fruite of the vine you find not in his Notes though he tels you the Argument might haue beene answered if our Sauiour had said so See p. 108. 117. Your replie videlicet He is called a vine who was none substantiallie so wine is also called blood which was not so substantiallie is a begging of the Question if you meane that your so doth import the same manner and ridiculous if you intend to haue the later part an illatioÌ„ from the former The thinge in the Chalice was the price of our RedemptioÌ„ it was shed for the remission of sinnes could this be wine substantiallie Vide S. Chrys Hom. 24. in Pri. Cor or in proprietie And if in your forme I said thus S. Iohn is called an eagle who was none none substaÌ„tiallie so also Waferers Fathers was called a maÌ„ who was not so substaÌ„tiallie would you approue of the discourse t' is iust as yours But now you come to your Postlegomena where you recon vp your Doctors great exploites Whole men belike he hath diuided at a blow Secuit Lucilius Vrbem Te Te Apol. What this booke speakes of Doctour Featlie who will regaâ—d since it contrarily appeares to the world and can yet be iustified to the doubtfull by witnesses now liuing that he often discouered yôur Fishers hookes and tooke him with his owne angle he hath euer beene Musket proofe he allwaise put Sweetes mouth of relish Egle-stones simples could not work with him How vnlikelie then is this report that Smith could ouerbeare him Censure Ad populum phaleras Wee knowe the man you speake of In the Vniuersitie there was an other opinion of him and that which hath publiklie appeared since euen in those pieces you commend him for doth confirme it Did he but see the Character of himself which a Scholler drew out of the first of those you name he would be sorrie that he euer put it out By one that was present I haue heard too what he said at home in his owne howse touching the Catalogue then demaunded A frinde of his Birckbeck in his Catalogue hath endeuoured since to draw a skinne ouer the soare but in vaine So many seuerall Religions as he names all those men which he puts downe could neuer be contained in one Communion The Wickleffists Hussites Waldenses Lollards the Deuines that wrot against them the Councels that condemned them for Hereticks were not of one minde all were they Lateran CoÌ„staÌ„ce Yet do you acknowledge those Hereticks your Predecessors and put the Deuines and CouÌ„cels into your Catalogue Your taske had been to haue attoned them making it first appeare they were of one Religion all and then after to haue proued by good Euidence that this one was the Protestant and no other To vnite those Heresies but now specified amongst themselues and with Protestants will be another ten yeeres work for this Collectour atque idem iungat vulpes after which he may spend twentie more to reconcile the whole multitude of all sorts which he puts in and then when Est non est be all one the wound may be drawne vp He names Fathers and Councelâ— too who knowes not that Hereticks laie claime vnto the first Disciples and Apostles that they challenâ— the Scripture to themselues anâ— would draw God such is their arrogancie to their side obtruding theiâ— errours for his word whereas they contradict him flatlie as hath appeared in the tryall and by men of hiâ— owne side more learned then himself hath beene confessed It hath beene confessed I say that in many great matters the Fathers the Auncients all the Fathers all from the Apostles time the Fathers with mutuall consent all Antiquitie the auncient Church the Church of the first fiue or six-hundred yeeres the Church in the very beginning generall Councells all Generall Councells are opposite to them This he may see proued out of their owne bookes in the Conference of Catholike and a. li. 2 c. 22. Protestant Doctrine and in the Protestants b. Tract 1. Sect. 3. Apologie there is instance made in diuers particular points Neither were it hard for any vnderstanding man that knowes well the true State of the Controuersies betwixt vs and Protestants to make this Euidentist confesse that no generall Councell no Father at all would euer haue subscribed to the booke of his ConfessioÌ„ the 39. Articles If you looke into him to see how he proues that any one of the Auncients held their tenets all as they are expressed in the 39. Articles you loose your labour he doth not though this were the thing demauÌ„ded as much as vndertake it Vnles this be perchaÌ„ce a demonstratioÌ„ of the thing suppose I take your †In the first he puts the Apostles Dixit facta suÌ„t second Age Iustine saies that as vpon c. Alimentum hoc eucharistizatus panis vinum appellatur apud nos Eucharistia quod nulli alij participare licitum est quà m veram esse nostram doctrinam credenti lauachro propter remissionem peccatorum regenerationem abluto ita vt Christus tradidit viu enti Non enim vt coÌ„munem panem neque communem potum ista sumimus sed quemadmodum per verbum Dei caro factus est Christus Seruator noster carnem sanguinem salutis nostrae causa habuit sic etiam per preces Verbi Dei ab ipso Eucharistiam factam cibum ex quo sanguis caro nostra per mutationem aluntur incarnati illius Iesu carnem sanguinem esse edocti sumus Nam Apostoli in commentariis à se scriptis quae Euangelia vocantur ita tradiderunt praecepisse sibi Iesum Eum enim pane accepto cùm gratias egisset dixisse Hoc facite in meam commemorationem Hoc est corpus meum Et poculo similiter accepto gratiis actis dixisse Hic est sanguis meus Iustin. Apol 2 ad Antonin Vide Bellar. li 2. de Euchar. c. 4. vbi dicit illa verba Ex quo sanguis caro nostra per mutationem aluntur esse periphrasim panis ex quo conficitur Eucharistia vt sit sensus Panis vel cibus ex quo carnes nostrae ali solent cum praece mystica consecratur fit corpus Christi Gods dixit the Word became man so vpoÌ„ our Sauiours dixit bread became flesh or water wine That the Sacrament whose materia transiens is bread such as men eate is the flesh and blood of Christ and That Christ commauÌ„ded this Birckbeck knowes not what Ergo he was a Protestant and would haue subscribed to the 39. Articles Pope
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
quia idipsum in â—ymbolo creditur Interroges vltra circuli strepitus â—ommouentur fautores clamitant Audisti resurreâ—tionem carnis quid quaeris amplius Et in peruersum â—udiis commutatis nos sycophantae illi simplices apâ—ellantur Quod si obduraueris frontem vrgere â—oeperis carnem digitis tenens an ipsam credant reâ—urrecturam quae cernitur quae tangitur quae incedit 〈◊〉 loquitur primò rident deinde annuuÌ„t Dicentibusâ—ue nobis vtrum capillos dentes pectus venâ—em manus pedes caeterosque artus ex integro â—essurrectio exhibeat tunc verò risu se tenere non â—ossunt cachinnoque ora soluentes tonsores nobis â—ecessarios placentas medicos ac sutores ingerunt â—dem S. Hieron de Error Orig. in Epist ad Pammach â—cean Congregatis Episcopis volentibusque voces imâ—etatis ab Arianis inuentas è medio tollere litteâ—rum sacrarum voces certas confessas scripto comâ—ecti nimirum ex Deo esse silium natura vnigeâ—tum esse verbum cumque solum virtutem sapieÌ„â—am esse patris verum Deum esse vt Ioannes dixit â— splendorem gloriae formam substantiae patris vt â—aulus scripsit hic Eusebiani prauas suas opiniones quentes inter sese mussitate Imus quoque nos inquientes in vestram sententiam Nam nos quoque ex Deo sumus c S. Athanas Epist ad Episc Aphric Episcopis verò denuò interrogantibus paucos istos Anne agnoscerent Filium non creaturam esse sed virtutem vnicam sapientiam Patris per omnia imaginem indemutabilis patris Deum verum Deprehensum est Eusebianos inter se conlusuriate annuere nimirum quasi ista etiam ad ipsos pertinerent Nam nos inquientes imago gloria Dei appellamur Quod si etiam Deum verum Filium nuncupent id nos quoque non malè habet quoniam verus Deus factus est Haec Arianorum corrupta peâ—uersa mens Caeterum Episcopi intellecta eorum fraude collegerunt in vnum has voces c. Ibid. Non omnibus dormio Post panis vinique benedictionem se suum ipsiuâ— corpus praebere ac suum sanguinem disertis ac perspicuis veâ—bis Christus testatus est Quae verba à sanctis Euangelistis commemorata à D Paulo postea repetita cùm propriam illam ac apertissimam significationem praese ferant secundum quam à Patribus intellecta sunt indignissimum â—â—nè flagitium est ea à quibâ—sdam contentiosis prauis hominibus ad fictitios imaginarios tropos quibus veritas carnis sanguinis Christi negatur contra vniuersum Ecclesiae sensum detorqueri Conc. Trident. Sess 13. c. 1. Animam sub vtraque vi naturalis illius connexionis concomitantiae qua partes Christi Domini c. c. 3. Quid credant ne filio ita dicenti Ego Pater vnum sumus Certè inquient quia ita scriptum est credimus Sed quomodo vnum sint c. S. Athan. vbi supra and more particularlie in his 9. Sermon Of the Resurrection pag. 476. At the name of IESVS euerie knâ—e should bow c Philippens 2. If to his name then your argumeÌ„ts against relatiue image worship are confessedlie inualid His name He Iesus hath left behind to vs that wee may shew by our reuerence and respect to it how much wee esteeme Him how true the Psalme shall be Holy and reuerend is his Name But if wee haue much adoe to get it bow at all much more shall wee haue to get it donne to his name There be some that do it not What speake I of not doing it there be that not only forbeare to do it themselues but put themselues he speakes of Puritans to an euill occupation to finde faults where none is and cast scruples into mens mindes by no meanes to do it Not to do it at his name Nay at the Holy mysteries themselues not to do it where his name is I am sure and more then his name euen the bodie and blood of our Lord Iesus Christ and those not without his soule nor that without his Deitie nor all these without inestimable high benefits of grace attending on them So he your Doctor Andrews Are these things all within your communion-bread surelie no Iesus a Sauiour secunduÌ„ rationeÌ„ spiritualis Vniuersalis salutis nomen est proprium Christo S. Th. 3. p q. 37. a. 2. Ego sum Dominus non est absque me Saluator Isa 43. Not more nor so much as in his Name the soule for example is not there at all any way no not as in a signe vnles at leingth the words of Institution souÌ„d with you thus Hoc est corpus meum this bread doth signifie my soule Which interpretation had your a. Doctor Carolstadius ex his sacrosanctis vocabulis Hoc est corpus meum miserè distorquet pronomeâ— Hoc Suinglius autem verbum substantivum Est macerat Oecolampadius nomen Corpus torturae subiicit Alij totum textum excarnificant inuertunt Alij dimidiam partem textus crucifigunt Alij dicunt non esse articulos fidei ideoque non esse de hiâ— contendendum liberum enim cuique esse vt hic sentiat quicquid velit Hi omnia pedibus conculcant destruunt Veruntamen Spiritus Sanctus est in his singulis nullus vult erroris argui in his tam diuersis contrariis probationibus textus ordinationibus cùm tamen vnam tantùm textus collocationem veraâ— esse oporteat Adeo crassè manifesté Diabolus noâ— naso suspendit Luther Desens verb. coenae pag. 387 Grand-Father heard of he would with open laughter haue redoubled his crassé manifeste Diabolus vos naso suspendit The fourth Argument was taken out of Gratian and the Glosse that the Heauenlie bread is the flesh of Christ secundum queÌ„dam modum It was Answered that the Glosse which doth vse the word Sacramentum speakes of that which is Sacramentum tantum and Gratian of the Canon saith the Heauenlie bread which includes the flesh of Christ is the visible flesh or bodie secundùm quemdam modum Apologist For satisfaction concerning Gratian if you but please to reade D. Featlie on another occasion you shall finde him instead of yeelding that Gratian contradictes himself proue that he oppugnes your transubstantiation See the CoÌ„ference betwixt D. Featlie and M. Musket pag. 60. c. Censure He must looke for satisfaction somewhere els it seemes who doth expect it as no man euer did froÌ„ you to my knowledge Well! at your request I haue turned vnto the Conference and the page 60. What is there Featlie I make a breach vpon you with two Canons the Canon-lawe and the Canon of your masse Answer Nonne hoc spumosum But stay let vs make a demurre vpon the Doctors preface and consider whether it be likelie that he doth vrge Authoritie sincerelie
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
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.