to be the Symbole or Sacrament of his body as also why hee rather chose wine then any other licour to bee the embleme and memoriall of his blood we can assigne certainely no other reason then his meere will Tertullian his guesse is but probable that Christ in the institution of the Sacrament in the formes of bread and wine had an eye to the Prophecy of Ieremy or Iacob But be it probable or necessary it matters not seeing it is confessed on all hands that bread is a figure of Christs body though not now a Legall Type yet an Evangelicall Being both it makes the stronger for this glosse of Tertullian this bread is my body that is a figure of my body But here S. E. helpes you at a dead lift alleadging a testimony out of Tertullians booke de resurrectione carnis for the carnall presence of Christ in the Sacrament The words of Tertullian are these The flesh is washed that the soule may be cleansed the flesh feeds upon the body and blood of Christ that the soule may be fatted by God Of this place of Tertullian he is as proud as Pâ—…lius in the proverbe was of his sword not observing that the point of it lyeth against himselfe for if hee expound these words according to the rule of the Fathers the signes have usually the names of the thing signified by them then hee confirmes our figurative interpretation understanding by the body of Christ the Symbole or signe thereof upon which our flesh seeds when we receive the Sacrament but if he understand the words of Tertullian properly as if our very flesh or stomach turned Christs Body into corporal nourishment and so really fed upon it to fatten or cheare our soules he makes Tertullian blaspheme and hee gives the lie to his Lord your selfe who page 65. in expresse tearmes affirme that in the Fucharist there is no violence offered to Christ his flesh in it selfe nor is it eaten to the end our bodies may thereby be nourished To affirme that the substance of our mortall body is nourished or increased by the flesh of Christ taken in the Sacrament is to make the Eucharist cibum ventris non mentis the foode of the belly not of the soule then which grosse conceit nothing can bee more absurd in the judgement of your owne Cardinall Bellarmine Tertullian disclaimes this carnall fancy in the very words alledged by your Chaplaine ut anima saginetur the flesh saith the Father feeds on the Body and Blood of Christ that the soule may bee fatted the soule not the body If hee demand how can the soule bee satisfied or fatted by the bread in the Sacrament if it bee not turned into Christs Body I answer out of the former words of Tertullian even as the soule is cleansed in Baptisme by washing the body with water though that water be not turned into Christs blood You have heard that Tertullian doth not so much as lispe in your language heare now how lowd hee speakes in ours The sense of the word saith he is to be taken from the matter for because they thought his speech hard and intolerable unlesse ye cate the flesh of the Sonne of man c. as if hee had appointed his flesh truly and in very deed to bee eaten of them he premised it is the Spirit which quickneth and a little after appointing his Word to be the quickner because his Word is spirit and life he called the same his flesh for the Word was made flesh therefore to be desired with an appetite to give and maintaine life in us to be eaten by hearing to be chewed by understanding to be digested by beleeving These words are so plaine that you cannot mistake the meaning of them and if you should goe about to draw them to any carnall sense or eating Christ with the mouth he will checke you in the words following where he saith that Christ used an allegorie in this place now an allegorie is a figure in which an other thing is to be understood divers from that which the words import taken in the usuall and proper sense Doubtlesse he who held the bread at the Lords Table to be a representation of Christs body and the wine a memoriall of his blood beleeved not that the bread was turned into his body or the wine into his blood for no picture is the life it selfe no memoriall is of a thing present but absent But Tertullian called bread that whereby Christ represented his owne body taking the word represent in the same sense which Saint Bernar doth As Christ after a sort is sacrificed every day when we shew forth his death so he seemeth to be borne whilest we faithfully represent his birth As the figure signe or that whereby any thing is represented or set before the eye is not the thing it selfe so neither a monument or a memoriall of our friend is our friend the wine therefore which Tertullian saith Christ consecrated for a memoriall of his blood cannot bee his very blood The same Father in his booke of the flesh of Christ smiled at the heretickes who imagined Christ to have flesh hard without bones solid without muscles bloody without blood c. They saith he that fancy such a Christ as this that deceiveth and deludeth all mens eyes and senses and touchings should not bring him from heaven but fetch him rather from some jugglers box I trow hee meant not your Popish Pix yet sure such a flesh it encloseth hard if it bee so without bones solid without muscles and bloody without blood for you say Christs blood is there and shâ—…d too and yet tear me your Masse an unbloody sacrifice I take you to be so ingenuous that you would not belie your senses I am sure you will confesse that you see nothing in the pyx but the whitenesse of bread in the Chalice but the rednesse of wine no flesh or blood colour in either You tast nothing but bread in the one and the sapour of wine in the other you touch no soft flesh with your hand nor quarrie blood with your lips or tongue But I inferre out of Tertullian You must not question the truth of your senses lest thereby you weaken the sinewes of our faith lest peradventure the heretickes take advantage thereupon to say that it was not true that Christ saw Satan fall like lightning from heaven that it is not true that he heard a voice from heaven but the sense was deceived Were not the senses competent judges of their proper objects even in the case we are now putting viz. the discerning Christs true body Christ would never have appealed to them as hee doth Behold my hands and my feet that is I my selfe handle me and see for a Spirit hath not flesh and bones as you see me have I have given a touch hitherto but upon singâ—…e testimonies as it were
second No signe Sacrament figure or memoriall of Christs body and blood is his very body and blood for signum signatum the signe and the thing signified the type and the truth are relatively opposed and therefore no more can the one be the other then the Father bee the Sonne or the Master the Servant or the Prince the Subject or the Husband the Wife in so much that Saint Chrysostome concludeth that Melchizedeck could not be a Type of Christ if all things incident to the truth that is Christ himselfe were found in him And Saint Austin apparantly distinguisheth betweene Sacramentum and rem Sacramenti and affirmeth that every signe signifieth something els then it selfe And that it is a miserable servitude of the soule to takâ—… the signes for the thing themselves For the signe of truths are one thing 〈◊〉 themselves and signifie anâ—…ther They are visibâ—… Seales but things invisible are honoured in them But that which we take at the Lords Table is a Mystery a Sacrament a Signe a Figure a Memoriall of Christs Body and Blood Ergo that which wee receive in the Lords Supper is not the very Body and Blood of Christ after your sense Touching the third If the words which our Saviour spake concerning the eating of his flesh and drinking his blood recorded by the foure Evangelists and Saint Paul are to be taken Sacramentally Spiritually and Figuratively and not in the proper sense which the letter carrieth nothing can be from them concluded for the eating the very flesh of Christ with the mouth for so to eate the flesh of Christ is to eate it corporally not Sacramentally carnally not spiritually properly not figuratively wheras to believe in Christs Incarnation to bee partaker of the benefits of his Passion to abide in him and to be preserved in body and soule to eternal life which are the interpretations Saint Austin giveth is not to eate Christ flesh properly but onely in an allegoricall sense But the words which our Saviour spake concerning the eating of his flesh in the judgement of Saiâ—… Austin are to bee taken Sacramentally Spiritually and figuratively For the words which our Saviour spake of this argument are either the words of the institution related by the three Evangelists and Saint Paul or they are set downe by Saint Iohn Chap. 6. The former Saint Austin affirmeth to bâ—… 〈◊〉 spâ—…llyâ—…d â—…d Sacramentally 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 booke against 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 12 and in his Commentary upon the 98. Psalme and in his 23. Epist. to Boniface and in his 33. Sermon upon the words of ouâ—… Lord the latter he expoundeth in like sort figurativeâ—…y in his 3. book de doct Christi c. 16. in his 2. Sermon of the words of the Apostle and in his 33. Sermon de verbis Dom. And in his 25. and 26. Tractats upon Saint Iohn All these passages are wel knowne to the Learned and although you cast a mist before some of them yet it will easily bee dispelled and the beames of truth in this holy Fathers Writings discover themselves so clearely that they will dazle all your eyes What words can be more conspicuous then those of this Father I coulâ—… interpret that precept of not eating blood figuratively understanding by blood that which it figureth for our Lord doubted not to say This is my Body when hee gave the signe of his body Here the antecedents possem dicere hoc praeceptum in figurâ positum esse and the words non dubitavit clearely demonstrate Saint Austins meaning to bee that though it might seeme harsh to call the bread which is a signe of Christs body his body as the blood of a beast slaine the soule yet by a figure Christ made no scruple so to tearme it Doubtlesse the blood of any beast slaine is neither properly the soule of that beast nor a signe of a soule present in it no more by Saint Austins comparing these Texts together is bread Christs body nor a signe of his body present in it but onely a Sacrament and memoriall thereof The next passage is as cleare You are not to eate that body which you see nor to drinke that blood which they will shed who crucifie me I have commended unto you a certaine Sacrament or mystery which being spiritually understood will quicken you And although it ought to be celebrated visibly yet it ougâ—…t to be understood invisibâ—… Put the parts of the sentence together and the meaning of the whole will be evidently this that which you are to eate and drinke is not my very body which you now see and the Jewes shall pierce and crucifie but a visible Sacrament thereof Which yet received with faith in my bloody death through the power of the Spirit shall quicken you If there could bee any obscurity in this passage it is cleared in the next When Easter is neare saith he we say tomorrow or the day following Christ suffered whereas hee suffered but once and that many yeares agoe so wee say on the Lords day this day the Lorâ—… rose whereas many yeareâ—… are past since hee rose why is no man so foolish as 〈◊〉 charge us with a lie in sâ—… speaking but because weâ—… call these daies according 〈◊〉 the similitude of those daies in which these things were done and say thâ—…s is such a day which is not that day but in the revolution of time is like unto it and that is said to be done that day by reason of the celebration or mysterie of the Sacrament which was not done that day but long before Was not Christ once offered in himselfe and yet in the Sacrament he is not onely offered at Easter but every day neither doth he lie who being asked shall answer that he is offered For if Sacraments had not a resemblance of those things whereof they are Sacraments they should not bee Sacraments at all Now in regard of this resemblance for the most part they take the name of the things themselves As therefore the Sacrament of Christs body after a sort is Christs body the Sacrament of his blood is his blood so the Sacrament of faith hee meanes there Baptsime is faith But I assume Good-Friday last past was not the very day of Christs Passion nor the last Lords day the day of his Resurrection nor the celebration of the Sacrament the very offering of Christ on the Crosse nor Baptisme the very habit or doctrine of faith but so tearmed onely by a figure to wit a Metonymie therefore neither is that of which Christ said This is my Body his body in propriety of speech but onely so tearmed by a figure because it is the Sacrament and resemblance of his body For all these speeches Saint Austin in this Epistle makes to bee like I know not what can be more plaine except the words of the same Father Christ gave the Supper consecrated with his own hands
for before his Incarnation hee had no body into which bread could bee then turned Cyprian speaketh of bread made of many cornes or graines and of wine pressed out of many grapes Ambrose speaketh of bread broken but super-substantiall bread or turned into Christs body is not broken bread Saint Hierome likewise speakes of broken bread and consequently not of the heavenly bread which is Christs flesh Epiphanius speakes of that which is of a round figure and without sense and such is bakers bread but not that bread which Christ said Iohn the 6. He would give us to wit his flesh for the life of the world Gaudentius speakes of bread consecrated before he gave it or said This is my Body but it was not according unto your doctrine turned into Christs body before the words this is my body are uttered neither â—…oth the Priest consecrate Christs body but the bread for consecrare is ex communi sacrum facere of a thing common before to make a thing Sacred or a Sacrament Saint Chrysostome and Saint Austin both speake of terrestriall bread or as you call it bakers bread not of transubstantiated or coelestiall bread for both of them observe in the bread and in the wine a representation of Christs mysticall body which is one consisting of many members as a loafe of bread is â—…c yet made of the flower of many â—…res or cornes and the cup of wine is one â—…ough made of the juyce of many grapes â—…int Isidore speaketh of bread which â—…engtheneth the body and therefore of â—…ead in substance and not in appeaâ—…nce onely Lastly Arnoldus Carmoâ—…nsis whom you mistake for Saint â—…yprian saith not that bread is called â—…hrists flesh because it is turned into it â—…t because the thing signifying and â—…ing signified are called by the same â—…ames Now to the shreds of sententes of Fathers which your Chaplaine takes from your bulke I will returne as short answers in the order as he hath laid them Irenaeus saith that the bread in the Eucharist is not common bread so say we also for it is consecrated to a holy and heavenly use Tertullian saith that hee made the bread his owne â—…ody that is as he expoundeth it himselfe in the same place the sigure of his â—…ne body Saint Hierom Epist. ad He dib q. 2. saith the bread came downe fâ—…om heaven but hee meaneth Christ himselfe not the Sacramentall bread for that came not downe from heavâ—… but was made of wheate growing upâ—… the earth Saint Austin as you quoâ—… but indeed Ambrose 15. de Sacram. c. speaketh of super-substantiall bread 〈◊〉 thereby he meaneth Christs flesh or thâ—… heavenly Manna not that bread 〈◊〉 eate in the Sacrament with the mouth as he admonisheth in the next wordâ—… it is not the bread which goeth in the body but the bread of eternall 〈◊〉 which supporteth the substance of 〈◊〉 soule with whom Saint Austin him selfe accordeth Ser. 29. de verb. Doâ—… Thy Shepheard and thy giver of life is thâ—… meate and eternall bread learne and teach live and feed what is sufficienâ—… for thee if thy God bee not Epiphanius saith that he who beleeved not thâ—… bread to bee as our Saviour said his body falleth from salvation 't is true hee that beleeveth not the bread to be our Saviours body as our Saviour said it to bee his body endangereth his salvation for hee questioneth the truth of our Lord but Epiphanius saith not that Christs words are to bee take litterally nay in that very place heâ—… proveth the contrary for the breaâ—… 〈◊〉 round and without sense but our Lord 〈◊〉 know is wholy sensitive or rather all sense Saint Cyrill saith that which seemes bread is not bread but Christs body but hee in the words going before and in his Catech. plainely sheweth his owne meaning Come not therefore as unto simple bread and wine or â—…are bread and wine The bread after the calling upon of the Holy Ghost is no more common bread as the ointment after benediction is no more common ointment but chrisme Yet oyle after benediction still retaineth the substance of oyle and so doth the bread after consecrasion the substance of bread The Author Decaen Dom. who is so much in your Bookes that wee finde him almost in every Section is not the blessed Martyr Saint Cyprian as Bellarmine proveth by many arguments but a farre later Writer by name Arnoldus Carmotensis as the Epistle Dedicatory to Pope Adrian who sate Anno 1154. extant in All-Soules Library in Oxford testifieth but bee hee Cyprian or Arnoldus who wrote the Treatises de cardinalibus Christi operibus hee is no friend to your carnall presence or Transubstantiation for in the Chapter cited by you hee hath these words wee whet not our teeth to eate but by sincere faith wee breake the holy bread And in the words immediatly following those words which you alleadge hee saith that Christ powreth his divine Essence into the Sacrament even as in Christ under the humane nature the divinity lay hid therefore according to this Author there remaineth the substance of bread together with Christs Body Sacramentally united as in Christ the humane and the divine nature remaine united hypostatically And moreover that when hee saith the bread is changed not in shape but in nature and by the Omnipotencie of the Word made flesh that hee speaketh of a Sacramentall change and not substantiall and that by nature hee meaneth the naturall and common use not the essence of bread appeareth by his owne words a little before in this Tract of the Supper of the Lord. That although the immortall food delivered in the Eucharist differ from common meate yet it retaineth the kinde of corporall substance And in the Treatise following Our Lord saith he at the Table in his last Supper gave bread and wine with his owne hands and on the Crosse hee gave up his body to bee wounded by the hands of the Souldiers pray take speciall notice that hee gave bread at the Table and his body on the Crosse not his body at the Table no more then bread at the Crosse that hee might expound to the Nations how divers names or kindes are reduced to the same essence and the things signifying and signified are called by the same names If Cyril would be comming in as your Chaplaine speaketh with his Conversion and Nyssen with his Transmutation and Theophylact with his Transelementation they shall be met with and repayed all three in their owne coyne Cyril who in his Epistle to Colosyrius if it bee his whereof Vasques doubteth in his 180. Disputation upon the 3. part of Thomas his summes saith the bread and wine are changed into the veritie of Christs flesh in his second booke upon Iohn Chap. 42. saith that the waters of Baptisme are by the operation of the Holy Ghost changed into a divine nature Nyssen who saith that bread
Salmoron Barradius and Jansenius THe two kindes in the Lords Supper are like the eyes in our body which are mooved by the same nerve opticke or double strings in an instrument which are tuned alike 〈◊〉 comparative reason therefore drawne from the one to the other cannot but be of great force The sixt argumenâ—… therefore in the Conference as you reckon was from thence drawne after this manner The words used in the Consecration of the bread are so to bee expounded as the like in the consecration of the cup. But the words used in the Consecration of the cup are to bee expounded by a figure Ergo the words used in the Consecration of the bread are to â—…ee expounded by a figure In this Sylogisme because you lay youâ—… batteries at both propositions the Major and the Minor I will fortifie them both and first the Major It is a topiâ—…k axiome similium est idâ—…m judicium like are to be judged by the like and these are so like that Bellarmine himselfe draweth an argument from the one to the other I will add saith hee a most forcible argument If the pronoune hoc used in the Consecration of the bread demonstrateth bread then also the same pronoune this used in the Consecration of the cup must needs demonstaâ—… wine the validity of which consequence dependeth upon the correspondencie betweene the words used in the institution of each kinde neither indeed can any reason bee assigned why the words used in the one may not as well admit of a figure as the words used in the other both are dogmaticall both have a precept annexed unto them both are words of a Testament both Sacramentall and according to your doctrine alike operatory never therefore exclaime against us for expounding the words used in the institution of the bread by one figure when you expound the words used in the institution of the cup by two figures at least Blame not us for interpreting This is my Body thaâ—… is a signe or Sacrament of my body when you your selves interpret This cup is the New Testament that is this drinke is 〈◊〉 signe or Sacrament of the New Testament If you alleadge that Calix is expounded in the same place by funditur and argue from thence that because the blood of Christ and not wine is shed for us therefore this cup must needs signifie his blood I answer that the figure in panis in like manner is expounded in the same place by frangitur and argue that because bread is broken in the Sacrament and not Christs body therefore this must needs signifie thiâ—… bread If you replie that frangitur is â—…t for frangetur I will say in like manâ—…er that funditur is put for fundetur â—…he Major being therefore put out of all doubt let us examine the Minor which was this The words used in the Consecration of the cup are to he expounded by one figure or more For the words as they are recorded by Saint Luke are these This Cup is the New Testament in my blood Where we have a double figure First a Metonomie â—…ntinentis pro contento the cup is taken for the thing contained in the cup. Secondly signatuÌ„ pro signo the Testament for the Signe Seale or Sacrament of the New Testament So saith Theophylact alleadged by you In the Old Testament Gods Covenant was confirmed by the blood of bruit beasts but now since the Word was made flesh He sealed the New Testament with his owne blood So your Gorran the blood of Iesus Christ is the confirmation of the New Testament for a Testament is confirmed by the death of the Testator Nay so your most accomplished Jesuits Solmeron and Barradius Solmeron pointeth to a double figure saying in these words we have a double figure first the cup being put for that which is contained in the 〈◊〉 Secondly the Testament for a Symbâ—… thereof Barradius though he expoâ—… the word Testament as you doe for Legacie bequeathed by Christs wâ—… yet he addeth expressely that it is taken by a figure called Metonyâ—… What say you here to this 〈◊〉 word Testamentum is here taken pâ—… perly enough For not onely a mans 〈◊〉 ward will but also his outward wriâ—… will in parchment is commonly called Tâ—… stamentum because it is an authentâ—… signe of his will I pray expresse yâ—… selfe a little farther what meane yâ—… by properly enough doe you meaâ—… by an usuall figure or without aâ—… figure if you meane by an usuall figure assent unto you and it sufficeth for thâ—… strengthening of my argument if 〈◊〉 meane without a figure name me 〈◊〉 Author of note Divine or Civilâ—… who before you affirmed that either Legacie bequeathed by will or the pâ—… per and parchment in which the willâ—… writteÌ„ is in propriety of speech withâ—… any figure either 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in Greeke Testamentum in Latine or Will in 〈◊〉 glish Not to take the advantage might against you that the blood of Christ as you beleeve it to bee in the â—…acrament cannot bee an authenticall â—…gne of Christs will because if wee should grant it to be there really in your sense yet it is not there visibly â—…nd therefore cannot be an authenticall signe of it like the paper or parchment â—…ou speake of or as we teach the wine in the cup to be I shall bee much inâ—…ebted unto you if you can resolve mee â—…ow the blood of Christ can be without any figure his last Will and Testament sith 1. He made his Will at this his last Supper but made not then his blood 2. His Will was his just determination or appointment of what he would have done after his death his blood is no such thing 3. The Scripture speakes of blood of the Testament hic est sanguis novi Testamenti never of a Testament of blood 4. Blood is a suâ—…stantiall part of the Testator and therefore not his Will or Testamâ—…nt 5. Every Will is either written or nuncupative the blood of the Testator is neither After you have blunted the edge of these weapons see how you can rebate the point of Iansenius his dartâ—… which he lets flie levell at you These words saith he cannot bee taken properly whether the cup be taken for the vessell used for drinking or for the blood of Christ by a Synechdoche for no man will say that the vessell in propriety of speech is Christs Testament sith the Scripture testifieth that Christs Will is eternall so iâ—… not that cup which no man knoweth whether it be extant at this day or no neither can the blood of Christ bee properly said to be his Testament for his Testament iâ—… one not many and Paul in the Epistle 〈◊〉 the Hebrewes teacheth out of Jeremie that the Gospell is the New Testament Christs blood is not therefore properly the New Testament Moreover in Matthew and Marke the blood is said to be the bloâ—… of the New
Homilie upon Leviticus repeating those words of our Saviour unlesse ye eate the flesh of the Sonne of man and drinke his blood ye have no life in you saith of them if ye follow the letter that letter killeth To this allegation you answer That Origen speakes according to the capernaiticall letter that is according to the literall sense wherein the Capernaits did understand those words who as Saint Austin and Cyprian say thought our Saviour would have cut off some pieces from his body and given them to eate or that they were to eate it boyled or rosted But 1. You should have observed that Origen saith not if you follow the conceits of the Capernaits but if you follow the letter of Christ that is the sense which the letter of his words carrie Now there is never a word letter or sillable in Christs speech which signifieth or importeth boyling or rosting cutting or mangling These are but accidents to the eating of flesh flesh may bee eaten and that in the most proper acception of the phrase though it be neither boyled or rosted nor mangled Whosoever takes flesh raw or rosted whole or cut into his mouth cheweth it with his teeth and after conveigheth it into his stomacke truely and properly eateth that flesh Thus you doe in the Sacrament if Pope Nicolas prescribe not a wrong forme of recantation to Berengarius yet extant in your Canon Law I Berengarius doe beleeve the body of our Lord Iesus Christ to bee sensually or sensibly and in truth handled by the hands of the Priest broken and champt or torne in peeces by the teeth of the faithfull 2. You should have cast backe your eye to the precedent words of Origen which make it evidently appeare that he listened not to your Iewes harpe nor tooke the tune from the Capâ—…naits straine but that his meaning was that we ought to take the words of our Saviour in a spirituall and figurative sense and not in the carnall and proper For having related the words of those Jewes in Saint Iohn how shall this man give us his flesh to eate hee turneth to his Christian auditors saying But you if you are Children of the Church if you are instructed in the mysteries of the Gospell if the Word which was made flesh dwell among you acknowledge these things to be true which we say because they are the words of the Lord. Acknowledge that there are figures in the Scriptures and examine and understand those things that are spoken as spirituall men not as carnall for if you take these things as carnall they will hurt you and not nourish you for there is a letter that killeth in the Gospell as well as in the Law there is a letter in the Gospell which killeth him that understandeth it not spiritually and then follow the words above alleaged For if thou follow the letter in these words unlesse ye eate my flesh and drinke my blood the letter killeth Thus having freed this passage I might proceed to the examination of your next Section yet 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as before I have done in Tertullian and Saint Austin so I will now cleare other places in this Fathers Workes and proove him to be a thorough man for us every where I will follow the order of his bookes in the edition at Basil that you may speedily with a wet finger turne to every cotation First cast I pray you a looke to his ninth Homilie Thou who art come to Christ the true Priest who by his blood hath reconciled thee to his Father sticke not in the blood of the flesh but learne rather the blood of the Word and heare him saying to thee This is my blood which is shed for you for the remission of sinnes He who is instructed in the mystery of the Sacraments knoweth both the flesh and blood of the Word of God You who presse the letter and urge the carnall eating of the flesh of Christ with the mouth sticke in the blood of the flesh but we who feede on Christ by faith receive the blood of the Word and eate the flesh and blood of the Word of God in our heart according to Origens wholesome advise Secondly in his 16 Homily upon Numbers there is a passage paralell to this Who can eate flesh and drinke blood he answereth the Christian people the faithfull heare these words and embrace them unlesse ye eate my flesh and drinke my blood ye have no life in you because my flesh is meate indeed He that spake this was wounded for our sinnes and we are said to drinke his blood not onely in the rite of the Sacrament when we drinke of the consecrated cup but also when we receive his sayings in which life consisteth as himselfe saith the words which I have spoken unto you are spirit and life and a little after hee concludeth thou therefore art the true people of Israel which knowest how to eate the flesh and drinke the blood of the Word of God In this passage with one blow he cuts off both your carnall manducation and your halfe communion the people as you heare drinke of the blood of Christ both in the Sacrament and out of it but how with the mouth nay but by faith therefore he saith not that all Christian people drinke it but populus fidelis the people that hath faith in his words and by receiving his sayings drinke his blood both at the communion and at other times in hearing and reading the Word Thirdly he is constant in this his figurative and spirituall interpretation of the words of our Saviour in the 6. of Iohn for in his 23 Homilie upon the booke of Numbers he harpeth upon the same string Christ our Passeoveris offered for us let the Iewes in a carnall sense eate the flesh of a Lambe but let us eate the flesh of the Word of God for he saith unlesse ye eate my flesh ye have no life in you this that 〈◊〉 now speake is the flesh of the Word of God If you can eate words with your mouth and chew them with your teeth you may in Origens judgemen eate the flesh of Christ with your mouth but if you cannot do that then according to our English proverbiall speech eate your owne words and retract your grosse and carnall assertion Fourthly I presse you with a most materiall and considerable passage in Origen concerning the matter of bread which he calleth the typicall and symbolicall body of Christ and saith it goeth into the bellie and is cast out in the draught but for Christ himselfe and his flesh he saith that it is the true meate which whosoever eates shall live for ever which no wicked man can eate I am sure wicked men can and doe eate of the bread after consecration it is not then in Origens judgement Christs flesh I pray also resolve me what is that S. Origen calls the matter of bread which he
is transmuted into Christ body saith in the same Oration that Christs humane nature is transmuted into a divine excellencie And Gregory Nazienzes saith that by Baptisme we are transmuted into Christ. Theophylact who upon the 6. of Iohn saith the bread is transelementated into Christs body 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 saith that we are transelementated into Christ. You see therefore that neither Cyrils 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 nor Nyssenâ—… 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 nor Theopylact's 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 come home to your 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 they import no more then a spirituall 〈◊〉 Sacramentall change Were they 〈◊〉 bee taken in the most proper sense for a substantiall change yet would they not helpe you a whit for in the conversion of water into wine or the transmutation of one element into another the formes and accidents are changed but the common matter remaineth the same whereas in your Transubstantiation the whole matter and substance perisheth and the accidentâ—… onelâ—… remaine Thirdly I proove that the Pronoune hoc this standeth for hic panis by confession of our learned Adversaries Gerson wee must say that the Pronoune hoc demonstrateth the substance of bread Gardiner Christ saith plainely This is my Body pointing to bread Bellarmine The Lord tooke bread blessed it and gave it to his Disciples and of it said This is my Bodie Fourthly I proove it by force of reason when this Pronoune hoc is uttered it must signifie something then existent but that could not be Christs body under the accidents of bread for vour selves teach that the bread is not turned into Christs body till the last instant in which the whole proposition is uttered it remaineth therefore that the Pronoune hoc stands for haec accidentia which yee all disclaime or hic panis this bread as then unaltered Hereunto you answer that hoc doth signifie and suppose not for that instant in which it is uttered but for the end of the proposition when the praedicatum is in being as when I say this is a crosse and make it withall the word this doth suppose for the crosse not which is when the word this is uttered but which is within the whole time that I speak so when I say taceo I doe not signifie that I speake not while I am uttering this word but that I am silent when I have done uttering So saith your Chaplaine in these operative speeches of our Saviour Lazarus come forth young man arise the words Lazarus and young man did not signifie persons existent then precisely when they were uttered but when the speeches were compleat If Sophistry were the science of salvation these knack and querkes of wit might be in high esteeme wheras they no more befit Divinity then it would become grave Cato to cut many a crosse-caper I might justly remand you your Chaplaine to the disputations in parvis where such cummin as this is tithed or rather such gnats streigned by puneys in Logick yet because you shall not say that I let passe any apex or title in your booke I will examine all these your instances To which I replie first in generall that you beg what you ought to prove and use a base fallacie in all this diâ—…â—…d petitio principij you take it for granted that these words of our Saviour This is my Body are practicall in your sense that is worke a substantiall and miraculous change which we denie and you will never be able to make good proofe of For first bare words as they are words have no operative power much lesse a vertue to worke miracles which cannot be effected without the imployment of the divine Omnipotencie Secondly words that are practicall that is used by God or men as instruments to produce any effect of this nature are imperative or uttered in the imperative mood as Be thou cleane receive thy sight Lazarus come forth young man arise sile obmutesce and the like not in the indicative as This is my Body This is my Blood Thirdly the words of themselves can no more proove the bread to bee turned into Christs Body then the accidents For certaine it is and conâ—…sed on all sides that when hee uttered these words This is my Body he pointed to that which he held in his hands which was a substance clothed with the accidents colour quantity tast and the like But your selves confesse that by vertue of these words This is my Body the accidents are not turned into Christs Body therefore neither can it be prooved that by vertue of these words Thâ—… is my Body the substance of bread is turned into Christs Body In particular to your first instance in a Crosse which at the same instant you make and say this is a Crosse. I answer first that if you could proove Christ had a purpose to make his Body in your sense as you have to make a Crosse when you say this is a Crosse and make it withall this instance of yours were considerable but till you proove the former 't is nothing to the purpose Secondly either you have made the Crosse with your fingers before or at the instant when you say this or els your speech this is a Crosse if it be true is figurative the present tense est being taken pro proximè futuro that is for the time immediatly ensuing upon the uttering of your words To your second instance in the word taceo I hold my peace I answer that if you will make a proposition of it you must resolve it into ego sum tacens I am silent and then the subject I is in being when this word I is uttered and likewise the praedicatum silent is in being as soone as the word is uttered Howbeit in ordinary and vulgar speech taceo is taken for jam nunc tacebo I hold my peace thaâ—… is I will utter not a word more To your third instance in Lazarus and the young man I answer that either Christ by a Metonymie partis pro toto called Lazarus his soule or his body by the name of the whole Lazarus or if Christs speech be proper that both Lazarus and the young man at that very instant when Christ called them were persons existent their soules being returned to their bodies For though the one came not forth out of his grave nor the other arose till after our Saviours speech was compleat and ended yet I say and you shall never be able to disproove it that at the same moment when Christ called Lazarus Lazarus was in being and so likewise the young man and the damsell In a proposition every part or word is vox significativa as soone as it is uttered as you may learne out of Aristotles booke de interpretatione and S. Austin his Dialogue with Adeodatus therefore as soore as this Pronoune hoc is uttered it must then signifie something then being A proposition is a complexum like to a heape or a number
Testament it is not therefore the New Testament no more then the blood of Bullocks is the Old Testament Lastly the word cup cannot be taken for blood contained in the cup as it is evident by that which is added in my blood For the speech will not bee congruous if thou say this blood is the New Testament in my blood the cup therefore must be properly taken for the vessell which undoubtedly in the proper signification is not the New Testament wherefore of necessity wee must confesse that these words this cup is the New Testament in my blood cannot bee taken in the proper sense but are spoken by a trope or figure PAR. 15. That the words of our Saviour Matth 26. 29. I will drinke no more of this fruit of the vine are meant of the Evangelicall cup or Sacrament is prooved against D Smith and S. E. by the testimonie of Origen Clemens Alexandrinus Cyprian Austin Chrysostome Druthmarus the Author of the booke de Ecclesiasticis dogmatibus Jansenius Maldonat the Councell of Wormes and Pope Innocentius and D. Smith and his Chaplaines evasions refuted THe last argument prosecuted in the Conference was taken out of thâ—… 26. of Saint Matthew ver 29. wherâ—… Christ himselfe not onely after the blessing of the cup but also after hee had ministred the Communion saith will drinke no more of this fruit of the vine Doubtlesse Christ who instituteâ—… the Sacrament and immediatly before consecrated the cup ver 28. best knew what it was wine or blood and he resolves us that it was the fruit of the vine and that we al know is wine not blood whence I framed this Syllogisme No blood is in propriety of speech the fruit of the vine That which Christ and his Apostles dranke in the consecrated Chalice was the fruit of the vine Ergo it was not blood For this blow you have a double ward the first is that Christ called his blood the fruit of the vine because it was such in appearance the 〈◊〉 of wine remaining after the 〈◊〉 thereof was turâ—…ed into Christs blood Put the question but to your owne conscience and I dare say it will tell you that this your answer is a meere shift and evasion For why should not Christ who is the truth rather call that hee dranke according to that which it was in substance and truth then that which it was as you teach onely in appearance who ever heard accidents without substance quantity or quality moysture or rednesse called the fruit of the vine did Christ drinke meere accidents in the cup or doe you at this day in the consecrated Chalice if so your Priests could never be at any time overseene or become light-headed in drinking never so much of the consecrated cup. For it is a thing never heard of that meere accidents should send up a fume much lesse overcome the braine and cause drunkennesse in any man and I hope you will not flie to a miracle and say that your Priests braines are intoxecâ—…ted by miracle in case he take a dram to much of the wine he hath consecrated Your owne Schoolemen put the case that a Priest may sometimes forget himselfe by drinking too deepe even in the holy cup. But I presse not this so much as that you in this your answer forget that we are about the Sacrament where you will by no meanes allow of any such figure as excludeth the verity of the thing otherwaies if you take a liberty to expound these words by a figure and say that Christ by a trope here called that which was his blood wine you shall never debarre us of the liberty of expounding the former verse by the like figure and saying that Christ called by a trope that which was in truth wine his blood 'T is hard to say and more then you can prove that Christ ever dranke his own blood upon earth Christ neither dranke his blood properly nor metaphorically but wine he was to drink in heaven metaphorically as himselfe said Luke the 22. 29 30. I appoint unto you a kingdome that you may eat drinke at my table in my kingdome therefore Christ spake not of his blood but of wine when he said I will drinke no more of this fruit of the vine till I drink it new in heaven thus your own Maldonate Yet you have another ward you say p. 162 163 164. that there is a Legall cup and an Eucharisticall both mentioned in Saint Luke and that these words were spoken of the legall or common cup as Saint Ierome Saint Bede Saint Theophylact expound This ward will not beare off the blow which comes with such a weight that it drives your weapon to your head for 1. 'T is evident to any man that wilfully shuts not his eyes that this in the 29. ver hath reference to this in the 28. ver drinke ye all of this for this is my blood but I will not drinke henceforth of this fruit of the vine these words immediatly follow the other and of necessity have relation to them neither can they have relation to any other cup then the Eucharisticall here and in Saint Marke because they make mention but of one cup and that cup whereof Christ said drinke ye all of this for this is my blood of the New Testament This reason alone convinced the conscience of your Learned B. Iansenius who thus writeth upon this verse Some Catholickes saith he affirme that these words were not spoken of the Lord after he had drunke of the consecrated cup but after the former whereof mention is made in Saint Luke But the order of the Evangelists will not suffer it For sith Matthew and Marke make mention of no other cup then the consecrated when it is said by them of this fruit of the vine no other cup can be conceived 〈◊〉 be pointed to or demonstrated by them theâ—… that cup whereof they make mention Of the same minde is Titelmanus whose opinion Barradius the Jesuite relateth and defendeth in his 3. Booke of the Eucharist c. 5. 2. The Authors alleadged by you to the contrarie doe not weaken the sinewes of my argument for neither Ierome nor Bede nor Theophylact denie these words to be spoken of the consecrated cup though they allegorize upon them 3. By following Bellarmine you and your Chaplaine are fallen into a fowle flow either you must say you tooke up your quotations upon trust or els confesse you are a falsificator For none of these Fathers alleadged by you either in words or by consequence say that you put upon them to wit that the words mentioned in Saint Matthew are to bee understood of the Legall or common cup Saint Ierome and Bede and Anselme have no distinction of two cups but leaving after their manner the literall sense expound allegorically the vine to be the people of the Jewes and the fruit of the vine to be either their beliefe or their legall observances and
M. F. You meane I hope non rei veritate sed significante mysterio not in the truth of the thing but in a signifying mystery as your Canon law distinguisheth D. B. Significante mysterio that's significante mendacio M. F. What is every mysterie a lie with you doth not your speech rather deserve the name of significans mendacium a signall untruth then Saint Austins cited by Gratian answer directly say you Christs body is truly and really broken in the proper acception of the word if not so then you must acknowledge a figure in the word frangitur if you say that Christs body is truly and really broken in the proper acception of the word you gainesay the Scripture and go against your owne beliefe D. B. Christs body is truly broken for he saith so which is broken M. F. Christs body was whole when he administred the Sacraments therefore it was not broken D. B. It was whole in se but broken sub speciebus M. F. That which is whole and entire sub speciebus is not broken sub speciebus Christs body according to the Canons of the Councell of Trent is whole sub speciebus and in qualibet parte specierum and is entirely eaten of every Communicant Ergo it is not broken sub speciebus D. B. Your Maior is true respectu ejusdem not otherwise M. F. Whrt meane you by respectu ejusdem ejusdem substantiae or ejusdem accidentis D. B. I say Christs body which is whole in se sub speciebus is not broken in se sub speciebus but alio respectu M. F. The species or accidents are not Christs body neither can they be broken truly and properly especially being without a subject as you hold they are in the Sacrament therefore if Christs body be truly broken sub speciebus as you affirme it must needs be broken in sâ—… and so your distinction stands you in no stead D. B. Be it broken in se but sub speciebus M. F. Now you confound the members of your owne distinction I need not to contradict you you contradict your selfe fast enough Answer this argument I pray directly That which is whole in se sub speciebus is not broken in se sub speciebus at the same time But the Body of Christ is whole in se sub speciebus for whosoever receives the body of Christ sub speciebus receives it wholy and entirely and cannot doe otherwise because Christ as your Church teacheth us is totus in toto and totus in qualibet parte hostis Therefore Christs body is not broken in se sub speciebus D. B. I denie your Major M. F. If the Major be false the concontradictorie thereof must needs be true which is this that which is whole in se sub speciebus is broken in se sub speciebus at one and the same time Let this Proposition of M. D. Bagshawes be written That which is whole in se sub speciebus at one and the selle same time is broken in se sub speciebus a flat contradiction After this proposition was taken in writing by M Arscot and M. Ashly M. Featley proceeded to a new argument M. F. The words used in the consecration of the cup are figurative therefore no ground in them for your reall presence of Christs blood in the cup. D. B. They are not figurative but proper M. F. These are the words This cup is the New Testament in my blood but these cannot be expounded but by a double figure Ergo the words of the institution concerning the cup are figurative D. B. They are not the words of the institution M. F. S. Luke Chap. 22. v. 20. and Saint Paul relate them for the words of the Institution will you disparage them as you did Gratian and S. Austin before D. B. S. Matthew and S. Marke have other words hic est sanguis c. This is the blood of the New Testament M. F. Others in sound not in sense All Christians are bound under the paine of damnation to beleeve that all the Evangelists who were inspired by the Holy Ghost have faithfully set downe Christs speeches and actions S. Luke and Saint Paul affirme that Christ used these words dare you impeach their authority D. B. Admit these be the words of the institution you gaine not your figure M. F. Yes a double one one in Calix another in Testamentum We drink not properly the cup neither is that which we drinke in the cup properly Christs Testament D. B. I denie both M. F. What is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or Calix properly that which we drinke write this proposition downe also Calix or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is properly that which we drinke a man drinks downe a stone pot or silver chalice How say you M. D. Stevens is there not a Metonymie in Calix to wit continens pro contento I take it you granted it on Saturday last as did also D Smith in my disputation with him D. Stevens ingenuously here confessed as much and said he would maintaine it I leave D. Stevens to confute you M. D. Bagshaw touching the cup. I proove there is a figure in Testamentum Either there is a figure in Testamentum or that which is contained in the Chalice is propriè Testamentum Christs last will but that which is contained in the Chalice is not propriè Testamentum or Christs will or Testament Ergo there is a figure in the word Testamentum D. B. It is properly a Testament M. F. I proove the contrarie Christ made his Testament at his last Supper as you grant but hee made not then his blood his blood therefore is not his Testament D. B. He made his blood at his last Supper M. F. Write this downe also Christ made his blood at his last Supper Was not his blood made and in his veines before D. B. It was but till then he made it not potable M. F. To make a thing potable is not to make it blood If his blood were his Testament which hee made at his last Supper it followeth that hee made it then truly as he made his Testament truly But to goe on forward directly against your answer Christ made not his blood potable at his last Supper That he made potable if hee madâ—… any thing potable at his last Supper which he put in and powred out of the Chalice But that was not his blood Ergo he made not his blood potable at his last Supper D. B. It was his very blood M. F. His very blood therefore was then truly shed D. B. What of that M. F. Therefore your sacrifice of the Masse which your Church acknowledgeth to be incruentum unbloody is truly bloody D. B. How doth this follow M. F. Most clearely and evidently as you may see in this Syllogisme That sacrifice in which blood is truly shed is truly blood But in the sacrifice of the Masse as you have already granted me the blood of Christ is truly shed and