Oh the villanie the Iewes once laid violent hands on Christ these molest his bodie dailie ô hands worthie to be cut of This is he if you remember who said Caro vescitur corpore S. Cyrill of Alexandria Iure sanctae Congregationes dâ—e octaua in Ecclesâ—is fiunt foribus sublimiore modo clausis visibiliter simul atque inuisibiliter Christus omnibus apparet Inuisibiliter quidem vt Deus visibiliter in corpore praebet enim nobis carnem suam tangendam vt firmiter credamus quia templum verè suum suscitauit and in an other place vpon those wordes Ego in ipsis tu in me vt in vnum sint consummati Corporaliter saith he Filius per benedictionem mysticam nobis vt homo vnitur spiritualiter autem vt Dâ—us c. c. Cyrill Alexan. l. 12 in Ioan. c. 58. Holâ—e assemblies are rightlie made in Churches vpon the eight daie and the doores being shut after an higher manner Christ appeares to all visiblie and inuisiblie both inuisiblie as God visiblie in his bodie For he gâ—ues vs his flesh to be touched that wee may constantlie beleeue he truly did raise his temple or bodie d. Idem li. 11 in Ioa. c. 27 The sonne of God by the mysticall benediction consecration is vnited vnto vs as man corporallie as God spirituallie S. Chrysostom Quemadmodum in Regijs non parietes non tectum aureum sed Regium corpus in throno sedens omnium praestantissimum est ita quoque in Coetis Regium corpus quod nunc in terra viendum tibi proponitur Neque Angelos neque Archangelos non Coelos non Coelos Coelorum sed ipsum horum omnium tibi Dominum ostendo Animaduertis quonam pacto quod omnium maximum est atque praecipuum in terra non conspicaris tantum sed tangis he is approximated â—hen sufficieÌ„tlie to verifie those words which were obiected neque solum tangis sed comedis eo accepto domum redis e. Chrysost Hom. 24. in Ep. pri Corint As in royall pallaces the walls and the gilded roofes are not esteemed the most magnificent thing of all but the royall person seated in his princely throne so is the kings bodie in heauen Now this makest thou see heere on earth For heere I shew thee not Angels nor Archangels nor heauens nor the heauen of heauens but I shew vnto thee him who is the verie Lord of all these things Thou perceauest now in what manner thou doest behold heere on earth that thing which is most pretious and most honourable of all other and how thou doest not see it onlie but also doest touch it and that thou doest not touch it onlie but also doest eate it hauiÌ„g receaued it returned vnto thy house Hoc Corpus affixum verberatum morte victum non est Hoc corpus sol crucifixum videms radiosauertit Hoc corpus in praesepi reueriti sunt Magi viri impij barbari longo itinere confecto cum timore tremore plutimo adorauerunt I mitemur igitur saltem barbaros nos qui coelorum ciues sumus Illi enim cùm id praesepe tugurium tantùm neque eorum quiequam quae tu nunc intueris viderent summa accesserunt reuerentia horrore tu verò non in praesepe id sed in altari non mulierem quae in vlnis teneat sed Sacerdotem praesentem spiritum perabunde fuper proposito diffusum sacrificio vides nec simpliciter vt illi corpus intueris sed eius potentiam omnem cognoscis administrationem nihil eorum quae per ipsum facta sunt ignoras diligenter es initiatus in omnibus S. Chrysost Hom. 24. Pri Cor. Ascende ad coeli portas diligenter attende non coeli sed coeli Coelorum tunc quod dicimus intueberis Etenim quod summo honore dignum est 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 id tibi in terra situm ostendam Ibidem Non est temerè hoe excogitatum nec frustra memoriam mortuorum inter sacra mysteria celebramus aut accedimus pro istis agnum illum iacentem in altari peccata mundi tollentem deprecantes sed vt his consolatio illis aliqua siet Idem Hom. 41 pri Cor. Pro omnibus oramus qui ante nos vitâ functisunt maximum credentes animarum iuuamen pro quibus offertur obsecratio sancti illius tremendi 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 quod ante nos iacet Sacrificij S. Cyrill Hier. Catech. myst 6. Sanctum ac viuisicum iâ—â—ruentumque in Ecclesia celebramus Sacrificium â—â—n hominis alicuius nobis similis communis corâ—us similiter preciosum sanguinem esse 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 quod proponitur credentes sed magis tanquam proprium vinificantis verbi corpus accipimus Anathem 11. Conc. Ephes That which lieth on the Altar before the Priest heere on earth may be touched with hands what hinders And what this thing is it is made out of Controuersie by these words proprium verbi corpus quod in praesepi reueriti sunt Magi affixum verberatum quod summo honore dignum est agnus peccati mundi tollens obsecratio illâ—us quod ante nos â—acet Sacrificij Vide S. Dionis Aâ—eopagâ— 3. Hierarch Ecclesiast which bookes are well defended by Master Brieâ—ley in his treatise of the Masse Before he said that our Sauiour after his Ascension exhibited his bodie to vs vt teneremus manducaremus quod saith he maximum dilectionis signum est quos enim amamus nonnunquam etiaÌ„ morsu petimus And before that againe shewing how the words of S. Paul which are priÌ„cipallie vnderstood of vnbloodie immolation be verified also in breaking of the host which action is though not an essentiall yet an integrall part as it were of the vnbloodie immolation Quare addit saith he quem frangimus and he answers Hoc in Eucharistia videre licet in cruce autem minimè sed omnino contra os enim eius non comminuetis ex eo Sed quod in cruce passus non est id in oblatione patitur The same Father in an other place Quos radios solares non deberet excedere manus illa quae hanc carnem perrumpit os quod igne impletur spirituali lingua quae cruentatur hoc admirabili sanguine in which words he doth most vehemeÌ„tlie vrge a reall presence to the Priests hands and mouth and tongue in regard of the species of bread and wine wherein they be And againe O miraculum ô Dei benignitatem qui cum patre sursum sedet in illo temporis articulo omnium manibus pertractatur there is no miracle in being touched in a meere signe Quum Spiritum Sanctum inuocauerit sacrificiumque illud horrore reuerentia plenissimum perfecerit communi omnium Domino manibus assidué pertractato quaero ex te quoto illum in ordine collocabimus And Quis daret nobis vt eius carnibus impleremur
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
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
and Chamier lib. 10. cap. 4. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 intelligimus vt sit positum est pro significat In which way the wordes are thus to be interpreted Hoc this thing est doth signifie corpus meum my bodie A construction so absurd that the very Authors are ashamed of it and therefore couer it vnder metaphors clowdes of obscure speaches that it appeare not to the Reader D. Mortons pretence for it is this that the subiect is proper bread which bread saith he doth signifie but is not the bodie That it is bread he perswades himself because our Sauiour tooke bread and the Fathers sometimes call it bread Which is no good Argument for the Greg. Nyss orat catec c. 37. Ser. de Coen apud Cypr. Gaudent in exod tr 2 Cyril Hier. Catech. 4. Cyrill Alex Epist ad Calos Aug. Serm 28. de verb Dom. lib. 2. con aduers leg c. 9. Hier. Epist ad Hedib q. 2 Ambros Myst init c. 9. Chrysost Hom. 83 in Mat. 24. in Pri. ad Cor. Fathers when they speak of that which is heere after consecration expounde themselues as you will see hereafter for Doctor Featlie doth obiect the same of bread which is changed by the power of Omnipotēcie not in shape but in nature of supersubstantiall heauenlie not proper bread in which sence our Sauiour calls his flesh meate and himself bread Ioh. 6. Whereupon whē they take the word properlie they saie that it is not bread not that which nature made no sensible thing but the flesh of Christ the bodie which was crucified the mediatour the Lord of all Neither doth it follow that it is bread properly because he tooke such bread into his hands for he chāged it by his omnipotence Panis omnipotentia Verbi factus est caro Oblata conuertons in Veritatem propriae carnis In illud quod est immortale transelementata corum quae apparent natura into flesh as they likewise teach vs. and our Sauiours words according to their natiue proper sence do D. Morton Instit of the Sacram. lib. 2. cap. 1. pag. 72. confessedlie import as much for they signifie that his bodie is now in that exteriour forme wherein before there was bread Which doth inuolue a change In a corporall feast suppose a Prince makes it that which was bought aliue is serued in before the guests And consequentlie it is not rigorouslie speaking the same thing though it be vulgarlie esteemed the same Homo mortuus quanquam figurae formam habet eandem tamen homo non est saies the Philosopher lib. 1. de Part Anim. c. 1. And elswhere he tels vs Homo mortuus dicitur aequiuocé Liuing and dead things haue not the same forme and therefore if you beleeue him be not the same things Vide eundem lib. 1. de Gener. t 23. not aliue In this spirituall feast exhibited by the Prince of heauen that which was brought into the Church not aliue is he is the Creators Sonne and himself omnipotent that makes it presented to the communicants his guests aliue Influit oblatis vim vitae S. Cyril Alex. Epist ad Calos cōuertens ea in veritatem propriae carnis He doth flow in to the things offered the power of life conuerting them into the veritie of his owne flesh Neither was he long about it but said the word Statim per verbum in corpus mutatur vt dictum est à Verbo hoc est corpus meum S. Greg. Nyssen Orat. catech c. 37. suddainlie the thing was donne Whereupon this ensued that his bodie was at once in two places In the one situallie as other bodies are in the other sacramentallie according to the manner of a spirit This as our greatest Aduersaries confesse doth vnauoideablie follow vpō the natiue and proper sence of our Sauiours words And Antiquitie so vnderstood and beleeued it affirming that verie bodie which was crucified for our sinnes to be vnder the S Aug. Conc 1. in Psal 33. l. 9. Conf. c. 13. Serm. ad Neoph. apud Bed in c. 10. ad Cor. In the 4. Argu. one place will be discussed S. Chrys Hom 24. in Epist ad Cor. S. Cyrill Catec 4 S. Ansel in c. 11 ad Cor. forme or shape of bread and that blood which issued out of our Sauiours side the verie price of our Redemption to be in S. Chrys Hom. 24. in Epist ad Cor. S. Aug. Epist 162. Serm. ad Neoph. S. Leo Serm. 7. de ieiunio mens sept .. S. Greg. mag lib. 4. Dial c. 58. S. Cyrill Catec 4. the chalice and thence powred into the mouthes of the Communicants They beleeued that the most precious bodie in heauen was at the same S. Chrysost l 3. de Sacerd. Hom. 24. in Epist ad Cor. Hom. 17. in Epist ad Heb. S. Greg. Nyss Orat. Catech c 17. S. Cyrill Alex. anathem 11. in Conc Ephes lib. 11 in Ioan. c 27. Conc. Nicen. 1. in Act. Vatic S. Cyrill Hieros catech 4. time in many places heere on earth that they had Iesus the Mediatour God and man he being at the same time in heauen heere in their S. Cyrill Catech. myst 5. S. Chrys Hom. 24. ad Cor. lib. 3. de Sacerd. Hom. 46. in Ioan. hands and receaued him with their S. Aug. l. 2. con Aduers leg c. 9. Tract 59. in Ioan. Origen Hom. 5. in diuersa S. Cyrill Alex. lib. 10. in Ioan. c. 13 S. Cyrill Hieros Catech. 4. S. Leo. Serm. 7. de ieiunio mens Sept. mouth The ground of which beleefe were the foresaid words and asseueration of our blessed Sauiour to whose Authoritie they had submitted their vnderstandings Take eate this is my bodie They did not presume to dispute with Him about the nature of quantitie or substāce or Or repute it absurd he should be in a mans bellie VVhat is better what purer what more glorious thē the blessed Trinitie and is not the blessed Trinitie in euerie place and now you stop your nose in euerie thing The bodie of our blessed Sauiour is immortall impassible and existeth in the Sacrament according to the manner of a Spirit place they were sure he knew these things better then they did or by that little which man knowes or seemes to know define his Power Art but ingenuouslie honoured and willinglie heard Him as the Master of men and Angels in Coloss 2. whom are hid all the treasures of wisedome and knowledge To feare least the bodie which is substantiallie indiuiduall should be distracted into two bodies by this accidentall and superuenient manner of existencie is a fault in the braine liable to the name rather then any signe of a good and sincere iudgment It is in the Sacrament according to the manner of a Spirit as before hath beene obserued and Spirits are not subiect to distraction by quantitie VVhen a man is beheded is his soule cut in two though that happen and whilst they are in it to be diuided One Angell is able to moue so to be
Whence it will presentlie follow if you consider the â—ext well this is my which is broken deliuered for you that the figure of our Sauiours bodie suffred for vs. His Arguments are in the RelatioÌ„ where you will see their Answers Hee agrees with D. Morton in excluding the veritie of the bodie and in expounding Hoc this bread which is more then the word signifies And the determination of it to bread properlie taken is begd as hath beene shewed before and shall appeare more fullie hereafter in the Solution of his Obiections Neither doth it determinatlie import or signifie a thing distinct from Corpus If it did it were false to say pointing at you Hoc est corpus because the proposition doth affirme Identitie betwixt the significata of the two extreames which Identitie were not if Hoc determinatlie signified a thing distinct froÌ„ that which is signified by Corpus And by the same reason it appeares manifestlie that the extreames are not ex vi terminoruÌ„ disparata If they were Hoc must import a nature or thing distinct from that which Corpus doth import which is not onlie against Theologie but also against Logick and the generall notion of men that know Latine agreeing that hoc of it self determines no nature I note heere further that both these D. Morton D. Featlie do make the blessed SacrameÌ„t to be in it self nothiÌ„g els but bread properlie with a relation to grace and to the bodie now in heauen which relation being fouÌ„ded in the institution is rationis in the mind onlie and consequentlie how euer in words they repugne they make it a meere signe or figure This appeares by their interpretation of the wordes Hoc this bread est D. Morton doth signifie Corpus meum my bodie it doth signifie there is all or Hoc this bread est is Corpus meum the D. Featlie figure of my bodie the figure not the substance not the veritie They tell you there is more but if you aske what it is they cannot find it Grace is not the Sacrament but the This writing is the effect of my pen as the instrumentall cause but it is not my pen that still remaines a meere pen. effect of it Gods omnipotencie is not the Sacrament nor any part of the Sacrament properlie Neither is his decree to giue vs grace wheÌ„ wee receaue worthilie the thing heere meant by this word Sacrament Nor the faith and deuotion of the receauer faith is not the Sacrament Nor the bodie of our Sauiour in Heauen or on the Crosse What then is it Nothing but the signe that is bread properlie with a dubble reference one to the bodie or death of Christ another to grace nothing els This reallie is their tenet though they be ashamed many of theÌ„ to professe it Pretending a great feast they serue in dishes and in them the picture or figure of meate but the meate it self the bodie is they saie in heauen only neuer neerer The Catholiques interprete the words plainlie properlie Hoc this est is Corpus meum my bodie In which sence it is confessed by our aduersaries themselues that they importe such a reall presence as wee beleeue and defend So that My Lord sitting downe to defend had this aduantage on his side that the Scripture doth in plaine termes auouch his tenet And M. Featlie on the contrarie this disaduantage that he was to dispute against the proper sence of holie Scripture Which proper sence was when Luther began Hic error so the Sacramentarians do stile it apud totius orbis Christianos inualuit Bucer lib. de Concord pag. 660. Missae abominatio omnes reges populos à summo vsque ad nouissimum sic inebriauit vt c. Calu. l 4. Instit c. 18 generallie beleeued abbetted that confessedlie for Libenter concedo Idolomaniam Pontificiam cuius est verum sacrificium Missaticum totum paene terrarum orbem inuasisse praesertim superiore proxime millenario Hutter de sacrif Misl pag. 377. many hundred yeeres together Si veruÌ„ est quod de Corpore Christi he speakes to BereÌ„garius tu credis astruis falsum est quod ab Ecclesia vbique gentium de eadem 〈◊〉 creditur astruitur Omnes enim qui Christianos se esse dici laetantur veram Christi carnem verumque eius sanguinem vtraque sumpta de Virgine in hoc Sacramento se percipere gloriantur Interroga vniuer os qui Latinae linguae nostrarum ne litterarum notitiam perceperuÌ„t interroga Graecos Armenios seu cuiuslibet nationis quoscuncunque Christianos homines vno ore hanc fidem se testantur habere Lanfran Archiep. Cantuar. l. de Euchar con Bereng See the Censure pag. 331. All NatioÌ„s as many as beleeued that our Sauiour hath true Those who following the errour of Eutiches said the flesh of our Sauiour was turned into his Diuinitie said consequentlie to their errour that heere was reallie present the bodie of the Diuinitie Sacrificium panis carnis Christi negant esse corpus Christi sed diuinitatis corpus esse dicunt Euthym. in Panoplia par 2. tiâ— 20. VVhence it appeares how vnskilfullie they be by some brought for the Sacramentarian heresie flesh blood haue beleeued it amoÌ„gst them our cuntry See the Prudentiall Ballance England And Luther himself wrot a Defensio 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 verborum coenae booke in defence of it telling the Sacramentarians the text of Scripture is to In defens verb. coenae He is large in examining the places obiected out of S. Augustine Tertullian Cyprian Hilarius and Irenaeus Heereafter I shall haue occasion to bring some of his words touching the place of Tertullian which Featlie stands vpon and as for Irenaeus whom Birckbeck doth alleage he demonstrates plainelie that he held a reall presence of our Sauiours bodie to our bodies Pugnabat Irenaeus contra Valentinum Haereticum eiusque socios qui asserebant Christum non esse filium Dei non fore resurrectionem carnis nec corpus saluati sed animam Contra hoc scribit affirmat Irenaeus quod corpus etiam saluetur quod resurrectio carnis futura sit secundum Symbolum Apostolicum Inter caetera autem hoc contra ipsos producit argumentum Si corpus non saluatur quid ergo cibatur corpore in coena si ibi aeterno cibo vescitur vt in aeternum viuat necesse est Referamus autem propria ipsius verba Quemadmodum enim qui à terra panis percipiens vocationem Dei c. Luther in Def. verb. coenae p. 408. See the place for he is verie large Paulus dilucidè nos docet quid sit Dei vocare seu nominare vbi ait Deus vocat seu nominat ea quae non sunt vt sint Eodem modo Irenaeus loquitur de Dei vocare seu nominare Item Moyses Gen. 1. testatur Deum per suum vocare seu nominare quod est per verbum suum omnia creare Si tibi Oecolampadium
wee haue declared to be auouchers of chang of bread and transubstantiation seeme to fauour you D. Featlie Meere accidents of bread which are Sacramentum tantùm cannot be termed heauenlie bread this which the Glosse and Gratian speake of is called heauenlie bread wherefore they do not speake of meere accideÌ„ts or that which is Sacramentum tantùm I Answer to the maior they cannot be called heauenlie bread properlie but they may be so called as the Glosse tould you improperlie and as S. Augustine speakes with a restriction secundum quemdam modum after a certaine manner For after Consecration they are signa Corporis Christi a As the same Authors teach in the same place praesentis signes of the bodie of Christ present so are heauenlie breade and Christs flesh in their kinde that is significatiué But you will aske me how they can be called coeleste Sacramentum a heauenly Sacrament I answer that they may be so called in regard of their reference to our Sauiours bodie which they couer which reference is founded in a supernaturall and heauenlie action to wit consecration A relation you knowe takes it's nature or species from the terminus the thing which it relates vnto and from that which is ratio fundandi the reason of founding it if those be sacred or heauenlie the relation is esteemed so too THE FIFT ARGVMENT D. Featlie In those words hoc est corpus meum the subiect Hoc stands for bread therefore the speach cannot be proper D. Smith I denie the Antecedent D. Featlie I proue it first out of the Fathers that saie bread is the bodie of Christ. D. Smith I answer that they vnderstand it as they interprete themselues of super-substantiall breade S. Aug. serm 28 de verbis Domin Serm. de Caen. Cypr. of bread which being changed not in shape but in nature is by the omnipotencie of the word made flesh of breade whereinto the diuine essence doth ineffablie poure it selfe Ibid. euen as in Christ vnder humane nature the diuinitie laie hid finallie of bread which saith our Sauiour Ioan. 6. is my flesh for the life of the world Now this breade is breade onelie in name and exteriour shape but in substance it is our Sauiours bodie D. Featley Secondlie I proue it by reason for when hoc signifieth the bodie of Christ is not there therefore as then it cannot stand for it D. Smith I answer that hoc doth signifie and suppose when it is vttered yet not a As in this proposition This is my precept that you loue one another c. Ioan. 15.12 the pronoune this doth relate vnto the precept not as then extant because not vtteded and demonstrate it And was to be verified by it not before for that instant but for the end of the proposition when the praedicatum is in being for subiects are such as their attributes permit then to be And in the end of the proposition there is our Sauiours bodie That bread is bread before the SacrameÌ„tall words wheÌ„ Consecration comes of bread there is made the flesh of Christ S. Ambr. l. 4. de SacraÌ„ c. 4. wherefore that I may answer thee it was not the body of Christ before CoÌ„secration but after CoÌ„secration I tell thee that it is now the bodie of Christ Ibidem As when I saie This a Crosse make it withall the word this doth suppose for the Crosse not which is when the word this is vttered but which is within the whole tyme that I speake So when I say taceo I doe not signifie that I speake not while I am vttering this word but that I am silent when I haue donne vttering it And if our Sauiour had changed water into wine by saying this is wine the pronoune this had signified and supposed for wine not which was whilst the said pronoune was vttering but which was within the whole time of the proposition D. Featley Christ could not change water into wine by saying this is wine D. Smith That â—s strange he hauing made the world of nothing with a word Howbeit this is another busines I brought it onelie for examples sake THE NOTES OF S. E. Iren. l. 4. cont Haer. c. 34. Tert. l. 4. coÌ„t Marc c. 40. Hier. ep ad Hedib q 2. August serm 28 verb Dom. Epiph. in Anc. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Cyril Hier. at cc. 4 THe Authours which D. Featlie cites to proue the Eucharist is ordinarie and common bread are Ireneus Tertullian Athanasius so he names the work Ierom Austen Epiphanius Cyrill Theodoret and Gerson but these will not admit of his interpretation as you may see by their owne words S. Irenaeus It is not common bread Tertullian he made it his owne bodie S. Ierome it is panis qui de caelo descendis bread which came from heauen Saint Augustine it is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 supersubstantiall bread S. Epiphauius though for the exteriour forme there be no similitude yet he that beleeueth it not to be as our Sauiour said his bodie 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 falls from saluation Theod. dial 1. 2. Gers l Serm. de coen Dom. It is not Eucharist till the coÌ„nsecration be coÌ„pleate and theÌ„ it is no more bakers bread omnipotencie hath turned it to verifie our sauiours words Hocest c. Conc. Nic. can 14. Theop. in c 6. Ioan. 26. Mat. S Cyril◠〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. that which seemes bread is not bread notwithstanding that the tast esteemes it so but the bodie of Christ Theodoret there is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a change made by grace or supernaturallie The mysticall signes are adored as being reallie according to the inner substance the things which they are beleeued to be videlicet the flesh and blood of Christ Gerson bread is transubstantiated into the true bodie of Christ I omitted to bring the testimonie of S. Athanasius whose mind is knowne well enough out of the Councell of Nice wherein he was because the Commentaries which you cited are not his but Theophilact's who would be comming in too with his 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 if he were called vppon The reason why the Fathers call the bodie of our Sauiour as being in Sacrament bread but supersubstantiall and heauenlie you had giuen you before videlicet because it is in that exteriour forme and by consecration made of bread Ioan. 6. 1. Co. 10 Mar. 16. Gen 3. Ioan. 2. Exod. 7. So you find in Scripture Angels called men man called dust wine called water and a serpent then when it was indeed a serpent called a rodde D. Featlie Corpus Christi cannot properlie be affirmed of bread for they be substantiae disparatae Answer Of common bread it cannot of consecrated and super-substantiall bread it may These are not disparata sundrie things 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 super-substantiall bread and Caro Christi the flesh of Christ are in substance all one D. Featlie
it doth signifie 2. Replie When is this operatiue proposition verified Answer In that instant wherein the effect or thing signified is in being for then there is the terminus or extreame whereunro the conformitic doth relate and whereby it is defined not before Neither was the proposition before whollie vttered and therefore could not haue effect before Motus temp Generatio Forma instant When was the forme of your baptisme think you verified Ego te baptizo when it was or when it was not When the Parson said Ego or when he said te bap or ti or Zo. Had he stopt when he came to bap you know what I would inferre yet then te was past and gonne Esse consignificat compositionem quādam quā sine compositis non est intelligere Arist 1. Periher c. 3. To put a figure in the copula which thing you speake of by the waie there is no neede for it is naturall to vnion or composition in it's exercise to suppose the extreames consequentlie the copula may by institution directed according to nature signifie for that instant wherein both extreames are vttered and the speach compleate and especiallie in a practicall propositiō which is to verisie it self D. Featlie If Hoc stands for corpus bodie it would be tautologie Answer No more then this This is paper Featlie is a man God is wise Replie There is identitie Answer There is indeed identitie of the thing signified by the subiect and the attribute but there is not identitie in the manner of signifying And if identitie of the thing did suffice to tautologie and battologie as you pretend sub illis Montibus inquit erāt erant sub montibusillis this were tautologie and battologie God is wise iust omnipotent and eternall and were to be resolued after your new mannner thus God is God God God and God And whereas hetherto it hath bene taught in Schooles and and with great reason too that the Superiour predicamentall degrees are more vniuersall then the inferiou◠and therefore not to be confounded though they signifie the same thing now heereafter Vniuersities must all neglect art in speach read your predicament which before tymes hath beene Featlaeus homo animal viuens corpus substantia thus in English according to your Logick Featly Featlie Featlie Featlie Featlie FEATLY Where you the supreme genus of your new predicament are in predication to be common to other animals and bodies substances for so the supreame genus ought to be This must be graunted if as you would teach vs the difference of formalities be not to be regarded in speach and if the distinction of a double identicall predication or acception be now to be reiected D. Featlie Belike the Apostles were ignorant that Christs bodie was his bodie and by vertue of those words he made his bodie his bodie Answer They did not knowe till they were tould that that thing in our Sauiours hand vnder the shape of breade was his bodie neither did he by those words make his bodie to be his bodie but he by them made his bodie to be vnder the shape of breade his omnipotencie to verifie them turning the substance of breade into it D. Featlie A proposition meerelie identicall quoad significatum proues nothing Answer That which is meerelie identicall is so for matter and manner too quoad significatum and quoad modum significandi this is not as you were tould and could not contradict it For matter a proposition may be identicall and proue too and such are those which define the Subiect as this a man is a reasonable creature And he that denies it can proue any thing shewes himselfe ignorant in the principles of science and knowes not what a demonstration is But why doe you talke heere of proofe our Sauiours proposition did not suppose what it signified videlicet his bodie vnder the forme of breade but did cause it and so did verifie it selfe If yours cannot what wonder you neither are omnipotent nor are vsed in such actions by him that is D. Featlie If I point at our Sauiours bodie in heauen and say this bodie is Christs bodie will it follow that breade is turned Answer No but something els it seemes is how els could your mouth vtter such an impertinent discourse THE SIXT ARGVMENT D. Featlie There is as much figure in the words of Christ consecrating the bread as in his words of the cuppe but in the later there is a manifest figure therefor in the former also D. Smith I denie the maior For in the later the chalice is said the blood of Christ which must be a figure because a chalice and blood are two distinct things and one thing cannot properlie be another thing In the former there are not signified two things and one of them said to be the other but the same thing is predicated vpon it selfe as if I should saie pointing at the table This is wood D. Featlie I speake not of the word calix but of that whith followes testamentum testament Bellar. li. 1. de Euchat c. 11. §. quantum ad alterum l. 1. de Missa c. 8. D. Smith I answer that the word testamentum is there taken properlie enough for not onely the last VVill of the testatour but euery authenticall signe of that VVill is also called a testament So wee call the Bible a testament Now the blood of Christ is an authenticall signe of his VVill. D. Featley No part of the Testatour can be called his testament but the blood of Christ is a part of Christ ergo D. Smith I answer that a part as the blood of the Testatour may be his testament if it be shed to signifie his last will As among barbarous people who did confirme their couenants or leagues with shedding their owne blood Alex. ab Alex. Gen. Dier li. 5 cap. 3. Salust Bell. Catil this their blood shed in signe of the couenant or league was an authentike testimonie of their said league And our Sauiour powring his bloode into the mouthes of the Apostles did confirme a couenant and authenticallie testifie his last VVill Heb. 9. as Moyses sprinkling the blood of a calfe vpon the Israelites did confirme the old testament D. Featlie If by testamentum in the words of the cup the bloode of Christ be vnderstood it will make this ridiculous sence This cup is my new blood in my blood And in like manner if the bodie be vnderstood by the word Hoc the sence will be The bodie of Christ is the bodie of Christ D. Smith It will not follow that the sence is as you saie for though identitie in the thing signified be necessarie in euerie true proposition wherein it is said said This is This yet there must be diuersitie in the mannrr of signifying els it would be nugatorie And hence although homo a man and animal rationale a reasonable creature be reallie all one and the same thing signified by
bread is my bodie Whether in the holie Eucharist there be reallie our Sauiours bodie according to the veritie and substaÌ„ce The Catholik Church takes his words as being dogmaticall properlie submitting her vnderstanding to the omnipotent veritie that spake them and affirmeth what he her God and Sauiour did affirme Master Featlie on the other side laboured to proue that the wordes were not to be construed and vnderstood properlie that the speach was meerelie figuratiue and that Christ is not there in the Eucharist according to the substance of his bodie or shrowded vnder the accidents of bread In which tenet you Master Waferer ioyne with him telling vs pag. 9. VVee these are your wordes denie such corporall presence of the body and blood as if the thing signified and represented were according to the naturall substance thereof contained vnder the shapes of the outward signes A figure you know was graunted the question was whether this figure had the veritie the bodie and blood of Christ in it or whether it were emptie of it Whether that which the Apostles receaued into their mouthes were a meere emptie figure of the bodie and blood of Christ or whether the thing within that Sacramentall signe or figure were as our Sauiours wordes in their proprietie import his bodie and his blood The Protestants that speak their minds plainelie preteÌ„d no more then a meere figure Their words are set downe in the Collation whither S. E. directed you See the Conference of the Catholiâ—k and Protestant Doctrine with the expresse wordâ— of Scripture extant in English pag. 266. seqq where they your Masters and the best learned on your side speake of the Eucharist your owne thus It is not the bodie of Christ not his very bodie not his bodie it self not his true bodie not his substantiall bodie not flesh not Christs true flesh but another thing and much different from Christs flesh not the thing it selfe of this mysterie not our spirituall foode It is nothing els but bread nothing but common bread nothing but a bare creature nothing but a bare signe or figure nothing but meere bread and wine Only a signe only a seale only a token only a testification only a symbol only a type of Christs bodie It only hath the name of Christs bodie it is only a simple ceremonie It is so the bodie of Christ as the Paschal lambe was Christ as the doue was the Holie Ghost as the water of baptisme was the blood of Christ It is the bodie of Christ only figuratiuelie by resemblance and no otherwise symbolicallie metonymicallie tropicallie significantlie no otherwise then a keie deliuered is a house the body It is present onlie by speculation meere imagination as our bodies are now present in heaueÌ„ Christ is no more coÌ„municated there in the supper then in the Gospell no more receaued in the Sacrament then in the word nothing more giueÌ„ in the supper then at preaching no more offersd by the Sacrament then by the word yea the Sacrament is inferiour to the word and the memorie of Christ bodie is more fullie refreshed by the word then by the Sacrament All this and more hath beene told you out of the mouthes of your greatest Deuines and pillars of Protestancie The words and places are citeâ— in the ConfereÌ„ce l. 1. c. 10. a. 1. Where there is a clowd of domesticall Protestant witnesses against your Oracle and you whose very names would shadow this leafe of paper Among them you shall find your Caluin Beza Peter Martyr and Swinglius who learned it of a Spirit the Deuil it was Luther saies with your English Iuel Perkins Whittaker Cartwright c. each as learned as your Featlie Hereunto you replye nothing but insteed of a Replye haue calumniated my Lord and contradicted your self withall Saying Doctor Smith would faine father a false opinion vpon vs and goes away currant with it that wee hold as he hath proued signatis tabulis pag. 159. and your owne confession aboue cited may be added thereunto that there is in the wordes This is my bodie a meere figure But now forsooth you most plainelie affirme they be the rest of your wordes that the Sacramentall elements are not meere emptie signes wil you strike your owne fellowes in your choller of the bodie and blood of Christ but a true and liuelie figure of them As if a picture can not be a true picture and a liuelie picture and yet a meere picture or a figure be a true figure and a liuelie figure and yet a meere figure The legall figures which were according to the Apostle but egena elementa were meere figures yet some of them as liuelie yea more liuelie then your bread and wine The blood of the Testament and the Manna in the desert did signifie our Sauiours flesh and blood in as perfect a manner if you consider all the analogie to the full and the Agnus Paschalis dicitur esse Christus eadeÌ„ prorsus ratione qua panis ille dicitur esse corpus Christi pro nobis tradituÌ„ Beza your admired patterne of Christianitie so you call him pag. 98. in 1. Corin. 5. Pascall lambe eaten at supper was a more liuelie figure flesh of flesh blood of blood killing of killing that laÌ„be without spot of our innocent Sauiour then bread and wyne there distributed if they were meere elementes with a reference to the thing represented the PassioÌ„ which was theÌ„ future respectiuelie to theÌ„ both vizt to the legall to the Sacramentall supper wherefore since you are forced by the authoritie of holie Scripture to graunt that the legall figure was not withstanding the the liuelines a meere figure it remaines that an other signe or figure though liuelie may be but a meere figure The liuelines of a picture is to represent ad viuum to the life and a picture the picture of the King may do so though it be nothing els but a meere picture which your owne fellowes acknowledg whilst they graunte as before hath beene told you that in the supper there is meere bread and wine a signe and seale onlie nothing els but bread and wyne which tenet you likewise hold in your mind as appeares in your whole pamphlet throughout but it is in is self so poore a thing so short of precedent figures (b) Caluin cited aboue pag. 156. yet the same Caluin saiâ—h cuÌ„ signa hic in mundo sint oculis cernaÌ„tur palpentur manibut Christus quatenus homo est non alibi quam in câ—â—lo quaerendus est Calu. in Confess de re Sacram art 21. so vnworthie of the chiefest place amongst Sacraments in the new Testament so contrarie to the proper sense of our Sauiours words and so vncapable of those high encomium's which the Fathers giue or attributes which they do predicatâ—on the blessed Sacrament that you are ashamed openlie to professe it still iugling with vs and in steed of answers which you pretend giuing vs words
be called a Sacrament Waferer They do not signifie by institution Answer That institution which brings in the bodie vnder them doth also make them to containe it so comes relatio continentis Could a man put more wit into your head In ad aliquid non est morus Contingit enim altero mutato verum esse alterum nihil mutans quare secundum accidens motus horum est Arist 5 Phyâ—â— tex 10 Motus non est per se in ad aliquid sed solum per accidens S. Th. ibidem the relation would follow without other trouble When your meate is in your bellie who makes the relation when how by what meanes looke on Aristotle 5. Physicorum cap. 3. Waferer the pronounce hoc in the words of Consecration doth not signifie these accidentes therefore these accidents cannot get a relation by vertue of the words of Consecration Answer He that fills a cup or chalice doth not make it yet the relatio continentis ad rem contentam followes vpon that his action his action brings wine into the cup and consecration brings our Sauiours bodie into the forme of bread which donne the relations be not wanting Waferer The bodie is not produced by consecration nor the species therefore the relation of one of these to the other followes not vpon the consecration Answer Whether the bodie be produced or be not produced by consecration is not the matter heere disputed but whether it be present Neither would your argument conclude if wee supposed your antecedent to be whollie true When you fill a chalice you neither produce the cup nor the wine yet the relation of continencie doth follow and so doth it when you fill a place though you produce not your self that are in it Waferer Relations following vpon actions are onlie betweene the agent or efficient and the effect or thing it makes Answer You see this to be false in the example before specified could not you and I be neerer one to the other vnles the one of vs be made againe or is the Sunne made a new as oft as it is vnder a new signe the moone perhaps you will saie is because there be new moones Thus farre concerning the four arguments of your dislike VVafer p. 61. which you conclude with this iyngling clinch that becomes your cap well So much meÌ„d that word much and put so little you must not commend your self for Doctor Featlies Illation against your Relation One thing more I must note before wee leaue this Section that whereas in it you haue shewed your self much offended with S. E. for saying the species were also signa corporis Christi praesentis your conscieÌ„ce would not let you make an end before you had granted it in these words VVafer pag 62. I le graunt you that the outward signes are signa corporis praesentis signes of the bodie present after consecration yet to shew your self still replenished with the spirit of contradiction you tell vs you denie that it is there after the manner wee define how then M. Waferer is it obiectiue onlie Ibidem as the thing beleeued is said to be in the beleeuer or as the men you looke vpon are in your eie or as the thing you loue is thereby said to be in you or you rather in it heare a mysterie T is not corporallie but mysticallie and Sacramentallie VVafer Ibidem and yet so as besides the intellectuall presence by faith and loue there is also a reall and exhibitiue presence of the bodie I suppose in respect of donation on Gods part and reception on mans part But what it this great Apollo Is the bodie antecedentlie to the effectes which follow the reception reallie exhibited and reallie receaued more then intellectuallie do men with their bodilie mouthes receaue heere that which is in heauen onlie no neerer Quid tanto dignum feret hic promissor hiatu Your Master Caluin hath lead you it seemes into the clowds to mount there for a banck is to low for you Non solum beneficiorum Christi significationem habemus in Coena sed substantiué participes in vnam cum eo vitam coalescimus and Cited in Morton pag 151. Ergo in Coena miraculum agnoscimus quod naturae fines sensus nostri modum exsuperat Quod Christi caro nobis fit communis nobis in alimentum datur Wee haue in the Supper not a signification of the benefits onlie but being made substantiallie participant wee do become one life with him Wherefore wee acknowledge in the Supper a miracle that transcends the bounds of nature and compasse of our reason to wit that the flesh of Christ is made to vs commoâ— and giuen vs for our nourishment So hee Now Waferer mount you though wee heard you once alreadie 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Euerie Punie can tell you that though bread seeme onlie bread to the eie VVafer pag. 34. and in substance be nothing els yet in it's spirituall vse and signification it 's the bodie of our Sauiour this your Punies you saie know what is there in it more hark and learne not that Christs bodie is present vnder the accidentall formes of the elementes though it be therewith sprituallie And what hath Morton more then bread with certaine references which be not reall a signe a seale an instrument what answers heere to these three names à parte rei more then bread eaten this were Papistrie take heede of it but what or how then This I confesse to be a Mysterie but if you demaund what it is He answer you as Octauius did Caecilius when he did expect to heare him describe what God was Nobis ad intellectum pectus augustum est ideo sic Deum digne aestimamus dum inaestimabilem dicimus c. so if you expect to heare exactlie what this mysterie is I answer it is a mysterie and if I could perfectlie disclose it's secretes and shew you what it were then t were no mysterie So then besides the benefit of grace which is the effect of due receauing and besides the intellectuall presence which is by faith those that will must beleeue a mysterie aboue mans apprehension vnexplicable incomprehensible Will you now see the mouse The bread is a signe of our Sauiours bodie and the communicants take it in their hands S Hier. Epist ad Ctes and eate it with their moutheS Ecclesiae victoria est vos aperiè dicere quod fentitis The Fift obiection was that Hoc stands for bread because the Fathers sometimes call the Sacrament by that name and the pronoune relates to nothing els The Answer was that Hoc whose signification of it self is confused relates vnto the thing which is vnder the species when the forme is whollie vttered and that this thing is Heauenlie bread and by the Fathers so called Solemne ost istis nebulonibus so the modest man calls the Catholike Deuines quicquid in Patribus vitiosum est
is not to be so wise as you that your neighbour and you were substantiallie distinguished that his substāce was not yours nor your substance his by something which is in you substantiall you are distinguished from a stock and by something which is in you substantiall you are distinguished from an asse and by something which is in you substantiall you are distinguished from your neighbour you will not denie this what these are Called euerie Punie can tell you Apologist T 's an infallible axiome that one numericall substance can haue but one manner of b. Mirth I hope can distinguish betwixt an accidentall presentialitie and a substantiall subsistence subsisting Censure If you meane naturallie this axiome is nothing to purpose heere nihil ad rhombum wee talke of that which God hath supernaturallie effected If you meane supernaturallie it is a meere begging of the Question to call that an axiome which no man yet euer auouched and your aduersaries do denie Where did you euer reade vnles it were in some of your pufellowes lying pamphlets that the same indiuiduall substance could not haue supernaturallie diuers accidentall manners of being or that an indiuiduall nature could not haue an other manner of subsisting then naturallie it hath The humanitie of our Sauiour hath another manner of subsisting then ours it subsisteth in the Word is this naturall or supernaturall and accidentallie wee shall be changed when this corruptible shall haue put on incorruption and this mortall haue put on immortalitie is not this likewise aboue nature or is the state of a glorious bodie naturall to the bodie or impossible that Master Waferers Axiome forsooth may stand and in the sence wherein it were to serue his turne One numericall substance can haue but one manner of subsisting Apologist Though place and quantitie be not in the essence of a bodie yet it is a contradiction in it's existence to be without either and consequentlie to create Christ such a bodie in the Eucharist which is not indiuiduall is a meere contradictorie fiction Censure I doubt I shall be thought a foole for disputing with such an one as you are Master Mirth who told you that the bodie which is in the Eucharist is not indiuiduall who spake of such a bodie who told you that it had not there quātitie or that it was no where or do you dreame if you did not and that the matter were not impertinent to this argument I might hap to aske you touching those your imaginations how you proue it a contradiction for a bodie to be without quantitie or a bodie hauing quantitie to be without a place I learned once from Aristotle that quantitie is not substance nor substance quantitie which being supposed and the thing is certaine in it self you will haue much adoe to inferre a contradiction out of these two propositiōs Substantia est Quantitas non est or these other Quantitas est Substantia non est Contradiction being affirmatio and negatio eiusdem de eodem and secundum idem you cannot Master Waferer much lesse can you proue it is a contradiction for a bodie to be without a place Locus is a. 4. Arist 4. Phys t. 41. continentis terminus immobilis primus as the Philosopher defines it who tels you likewise that b vniuersum non est in loco the vttermost heauē or bodie whateuer it be is not properlie in a place No other bodie doth containe it if it did this were not vttermost Yet wee saie not that our Sauiours bodie is no where or that it is not in the Church or that it hath not quantitie or that it is not indiuiduall these are aegri somnia they be your dreames Master Mirth who vnderstand not this mightie argument which you tooke out of your Master Featlie in whom I will go see for I cannot learne of you what the meaning of it is Alia sunt in loco secundum potentiam alia verò secundum actum Vnde cùm continuum quidem sit quod est similium partium secundum potentiam in loco partes sunt cum vero separata sint quidem tangunt autem se sicut collectio secundum actum sunt Et alia quidem per se sunt vt omne corpus aut secundum loci mutationem aut secundum augmentum mobile alicubi perse existit coelum autem sicut dictum est non est alicubi totum neque in quopiam loco si quidem nullum ipsum continet corpus secundum autem quod mouetur sic locus est partibus altera enim alteri adhaerens partium est Alia verò secundum accidens sicut anima coelum partes enim in loco quodammodo omnes sunt in eo enim quod circulariter sunt continet alia aliam vnde mouetur circulariter solum quod sursum est Omne autem non alicubi est quod enim alicubi est ipsum aliquid est adhuc aliud quiddam oportet esse extra hoc in quo quidem continetur extra autem omne totum nihil est Aristot 4. Phys t. 45 Terra quidam in aqua haec in aëre hic verò in aethere hic verò in coelo coelum autem non amplius in alio est Ibidem t. seq Simul autem manifestum est quod neque locus neque vacuum neque tempu◠est extra coelum Quapropter neque quae illic sunt nata sunt in loco esse neque tempus ipsa facit senescere neque vlla transmutatio vllius eorum est quae super extima disposita sunt latione sed inalterabilia impassibilia optimam habentia vitam per se sufficientissimam perseuerant toto aeuo Lib. 1. de Coelo t. 99. 100. Huiusmodi substantiae separatae dicuntur a Philosopho esse ibi id est extra coelum non sicut in loco sed sicut non contenta nec inclusa sub continentia corporalium rerum sed totam corporalem naturam excedentia S. Tho. Ibidem Vide eundem in 1. d. 37. q 3. a. 1. ad 4. Non reputo inconueniens quod Angelus sine loco possit esse c. De quo plura Caietanus Nazarius alijque He proposeth it against Master Wood and will needs proue the bodie if it hath diuers Sacramentall presēces such as wee beleeue it hath is therby diuided in se in itself so that it is no more one and the same but diuers bodies this he striues to conclude out of the distinction of the Sacramentall presences Featlie pag. 134. seqq wherof one is at Rome for example and another is at Paris But he striues in vaine for the Dualitie is of presencies not of bodies there are two presences in one and the same bodie and these two presencies which are accidentes separable from the forsaid bodie relie vpon it as their subiect and presuppose it in being euerie moment wherein themselues be so farre they are from destroying it Neither of them is the